BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.16.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:SF Bay Conservation & Development
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID: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:20240801T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240801T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071710
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:20260630T071710
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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:20260630T071711
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
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240516T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240516T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240528T224540Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240628T211943Z
UID:10000179-1715846400-1715878800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 16\, 2024 Environmental Justice Working Group (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-16-2024-environmental-justice-working-groupcancelled/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240515T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240515T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240130T055623Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T210225Z
UID:10000153-1715778000-1715792400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 15\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-15-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240507T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240507T120000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240130T044937Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240424T212319Z
UID:10000133-1715074200-1715083200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 7\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-7-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240506T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240506T183000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240130T034203Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240424T211721Z
UID:10000117-1715014800-1715020200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 6\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-6-2024-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240502T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240502T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240118T073133Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240910T225726Z
UID:10000096-1714654800-1714669200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 2\, 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.\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n\nCNRA Building\, 715 P St.Sacramento\, CA 95814\n\n\n14265 Highway 128Boonville\, CA 95415\n\n\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.Mill Valley\, CA 94941\n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/89261651141?pwd=Yolo_X3i5Bj1zilCAN8pY22-povhGQ.U61iG35S8nb899rG \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID892 6165 1141 \nPasscode136595 \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 April 18\, 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]\nBriefing on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Public Pathway Pilot ProjectThe Commission will receive a briefing from Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) regarding the status of the four-year Public Pathway Pilot Project on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge originally authorized by BCDC Permit No. 1997.001.04. The briefing will include a report on the findings of the pilot project\, as well as proposed changes to the pilot being contemplated for a forthcoming permit amendment request.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment letters // Presentation // Presentation // Additional Public Comments\nPublic Hearing and Vote on 505 East Bayshore Road Permit Application – POSTPONEDThe 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.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]\nSan Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) BriefingRepresentatives of OneShoreline\, the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District working throughout San Mateo County\, will brief the Commission on its vision and plan for the future to build resilience to rising sea level.(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]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 and Federal Consistency Actions \n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District\, Regulatory Division450 Golden Gate Avenue\, 4th FloorSan Francisco\, CA 94102-3404 \n\n\nDe Minimis Determination for the MOTCO Large Object Relocation Project No. C2024.001.00 \n\n\n\nSubmitted\nJanuary 4\, 2024 (originally)\, with subsequent information submitted January 25\, 2024\, April 3\, 2024\, and April 9\, 2024\, and April 22\, 2024.\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Coastal Zone in subtidal waters near the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO)\, south of Ryer Island and Roe Island\, in Suisun Bay. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nMOTCO has submitted a proposed project to relocate 25 submerged objects from a subtidal area at MOTCO that is planned for dredging\, to a different subtidal area that would be out of the path of boat traffic and strong currents. MOTCO located the objects using sonar and believes them to be pieces of ships sunk during the 1944 Port Chicago ammunition explosion disaster; therefore\, the objects are historical artifacts and are protected by the Sunken Military Craft Act. MOTCO has concluded that the activity would not result in significant direct or indirect coastal effects\, and qualifies as a de minimis activity under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA requires that the state agencies review the de minimis activity proposed by the Federal agency\, and either concur with\, or object to the de minimis determination. If the State agency concurs with the Federal agency\, the activity will be excluded from further State agency review. If the State agency objects to the de minimis finding\, the Federal agency must provide the State agency with a negative determination or a consistency determination. \nOn March 15\, 2024\, BCDC staff issued a letter of disagreement with MOTCO’s de minimis determination. After further discussion\, MOTCO submitted additional information on the project and agreed to modify the project to include the submittal of project work plans and minimization measures for BCDC staff review and approval prior to undertaking the project. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nWith this modification to the project\, BCDC staff agrees with MOTCO’s determination that the project will have insignificant direct or indirect (cumulative and secondary) coastal effects\, and thus is a de minimis activity. (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 \nBay Area community members\, lawmakers push for funding to restore tidal marsh to help with flooding \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Meeting recording \n\n \n\nMeeting transcript\n\nBoardroom SX80: Commission. \nBoardroom SX80: You were slow on that one. Commissioners\, if you are. \nBoardroom SX80: please unmute yourself to answer yes\, whether you’re here or participating virtually\, and then mute yourself. After responding\, Sierra\, will you please call the role? \nBoardroom SX80: May we first have our video played Felipe to insist? \nBoardroom SX80: Welcome to this meeting of the San Francisco Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Wasserman here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Diego\, here\, Commissioner on we are \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ambuel here\, Commissioner Eckerley. \nJenn Eckerle\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eckland\, President\, Commissioner Joy. Here\, Commissioner Gun here. \nBoardroom SX80: oof. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Karen. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Hawes. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson\, here Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pine here \nBoardroom SX80: into the mic\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Here\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Pardon me\, Commissioner Ramos. \nBoardroom SX80: Here\, Commissioner Randolph\, here\, Commissioner\, show Walter here\, Commissioner Stefani. \nBoardroom SX80: Present. \nBoardroom SX80: Total. 17. Present. Malton Peters. Oh\, pardon me\, did I miss anyone? Commissioner Malton Peters? Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Total of 18 present chair Wasserman\, you have quorum. \nBoardroom SX80: We have a quorum and therefore can conduct business. \nBoardroom SX80: I wanna thank all of you for being here particularly. I wanna thank the people who have responded to my request that on some of our meetings roughly every every other month we get as many people as possible\, many commissioners as possible. Here in person there is a different sense\, a different ability to communicate. Zoom has given us some very wonderful things. It’s just not quite the same. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 3\, which is the public comment period. \nBoardroom SX80: This is the time when the public can comment on matters not on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: or where there has not been a hearing \nBoardroom SX80: to bring matters to our attention. So if you are here for either of the items on the agenda\, you should speak on those items. Submit your speakers cards. \nBoardroom SX80: physically or virtually \nBoardroom SX80: and for public comment period I will give each person 3 min. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any people for public comment\, not on agenda items. \nBoardroom SX80: We currently have 3 hands raised. Chair Wasserman. Go ahead and call them\, please\, Shawn Camden\, your first stop\, and I’m I hope\, Shawn\, I did let me before you start the timer. \nBoardroom SX80: Typically\, when we have people speak virtually. \nBoardroom SX80: we show the timer\, and that’s so that they know how much time there is. We have had some requests from people who wish to have their faces shown. \nBoardroom SX80: And I absolutely want to respect that. If you want that \nBoardroom SX80: say that we’ll do that\, and since the timer will not be shown to you\, we will have Sierra give you a 1 min and a 30 s warning. \nBoardroom SX80: Sean\, just to confirm. \nBoardroom SX80: Would you like to speak on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: No public comment. Currently\, chair Wasserman\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: So that brings us to item 4\, \nBoardroom SX80: which is approval of the minutes of our April eighteenth meeting. We have received copies of the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: I would appreciate a motion to\, and a second to approve the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson moves Commissioner Gunther slightly slower on the trigger seconds. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any comments or \nBoardroom SX80: changes to the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none. Is there any opposition to approving the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: or does anyone wish to abstain? \nBoardroom SX80: I see none. The minutes are approved. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings me to my report. I’m going to try to be brief. I don’t always succeed at that. \nBoardroom SX80: First\, since Commissioner Eisen is out of the country and not available to participate. I have asked Commissioner Randolph to act as our vice chair for the meeting this afternoon\, and he has graciously agreed to do so. He has a fair amount of experience doing so. \nBoardroom SX80: Just as I thanked everybody for being here today\, or as many as possible. I want to remind you that we can’t do that at our next meeting it will be virtual because of construction going on in this meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: so that if you are going you you need to give the address that you’re going to be at \nBoardroom SX80: to Regina! \nBoardroom SX80: No\, to you. Sorry to Sierra. \nBoardroom SX80: I was trying to divide responsibilities\, and I did it wrong. \nBoardroom SX80: by \nBoardroom SX80: today or tomorrow \nBoardroom SX80: end of business today. Chair Wasserman end of business today. \nBoardroom SX80: So please send that to her. \nBoardroom SX80: So that we can properly post it. \nBoardroom SX80: hey? \nBoardroom SX80: On a \nBoardroom SX80: sad note\, and yet a celebratory one\, as you all know\, I believe\, Will Travis\, the longtime executive director of Bcdc. \nBoardroom SX80: Passed away last week. \nBoardroom SX80: I did not serve on this commission with Will as executive director. We missed each other by about 4 months. \nBoardroom SX80: But I knew him well before that\, and we talked a fair amount afterwards. \nBoardroom SX80: There is a tribute to him posted. \nBoardroom SX80: and I urge you to read it. He was most certainly one of the leaders and effective leaders of both protecting the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: but also thinking \nBoardroom SX80: proactively and creatively on the things that we need to do\, and not simply\, reactively. \nBoardroom SX80: He\, I think\, taught all of us a great deal. \nBoardroom SX80: He was \nBoardroom SX80: Strong in his beliefs. \nBoardroom SX80: and not shy about sharing them. \nBoardroom SX80: But he listened to people \nBoardroom SX80: as part of \nBoardroom SX80: the series of events that led me to becoming chair of this commission. Where there was some \nBoardroom SX80: significant differences between regulated \nBoardroom SX80: people\, both governments and and developers and others about what new \nBoardroom SX80: rules should apply as we adapt to rising sea levels. \nBoardroom SX80: He was very effective in shuttled diplomacy. \nBoardroom SX80: It was actually one of the \nBoardroom SX80: great examples I have seen of public negotiations which are often not easy\, because most of them\, albeit not all\, need to be conducted in in public. And he really did a superb job of that. \nBoardroom SX80: He understood people\, and he did listen\, but he was absolutely not afraid \nBoardroom SX80: to lead \nBoardroom SX80: others may wish to comment on him briefly. I don’t. We have a lot of speakers\, so I don’t wanna go on at great length\, but I. I wanna give people the opportunity because the number of people work with him much more than I did. And I will recognize the Dean in the sense of longer serving member. This commission\, John Joya. \nBoardroom SX80: I had a chance to serve with Trav. When I joined the Commission in 99\, when he was executive director through his retirement in 2011. So I just want to acknowledge one main point. \nBoardroom SX80: I think Trav\, more than anyone was really responsible for moving. This commission\, this agency toward addressing\, planning for sea level rise. Not just the work of the Bay Plan amendment which establish policies on sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: but really just ramping up the work. And it was really part of our planning function. I think our planners here are the lead sort of group of individuals as many but lead group of individuals in the Bay area who really work with local government\, state agencies and others and private sector to work on planning for resiliency. So I just wanted to acknowledge that point that really was Trav’s leadership\, to move the Commission to \nBoardroom SX80: into that. So instead of just dealing with a bay that was potentially going to get smaller back in the 19 sixties to dealing with the bay that was going to get larger. \nBoardroom SX80: So I just want to acknowledge that \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson. I’m now gonna go around agree with everything the Chair and Commissioner Joy just said and all. I’ll add to that is that Trav was also\, and I worked with it for many years before I was on the Commission when I was before the Commission while I was an advocate on Bay issues. trav on top of everything that the chair and the Commissioner\, Commissioner Joyce said Trav was entrepreneurial\, smart and funny\, and a ton of fun to work with \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Yaxley. Thank you very much for allowing me an opportunity to talk about Will Travis\, I started working with the US. Environmental\, US. Army corps of Engineers in 1 69\, \nBoardroom SX80: and we had a lot. The Army Corps of engineers had a lot to do with the formation of the Bcdc. Believe it or not\, but I really got to know him. When I moved over to the US. Environmental Protection Agency. I was in charge of the oceans and estuaries program for EPA. Region 9\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that’s where I really got to know and work with Will Travis on a lot of issues\, because obviously we were in the 301 H and 4. One permitting process and everything else. So we worked with Bcdc. And all the other State agencies \nBoardroom SX80: that were involved with water\, and one of the things that I would most admired about him is his willingness and his eagerness to listen to others and to try to solve problems. And he did it in a way that you never felt that you were being put down\, and you never felt like you weren’t part of the group\, and I really respected him for how he treated others\, even people that didn’t necessarily share his views. \nBoardroom SX80: So I really spent a lot of time working with him because of both the agencies. In fact\, my boss\, Jean Huggins. He was a director of public affairs for the US. Army Corps Engineers\, and that’s how I first got to to know about Bcdc. When it was formed in 69\, \nBoardroom SX80: and so\, and then really got to know him. And I was in charge of \nBoardroom SX80: oceans and water program for EPA. It’s \nBoardroom SX80: he was just a really neat guy\, and it’s really sad to see people pass away. But he left a legacy that he will always be remembered because of that. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, John. I. I had the privilege of working with Trav for almost 9 years as as chairman of the BC. DC. At the time\, and he was. \nBoardroom SX80: He was always incredibly professional\, incredibly supportive of the Commission \nBoardroom SX80: and of me. And he he had it felt like just the right balance in his focus on conservation and and development\, which is what what we’re about here in the end of the day. \nBoardroom SX80: And it was already pointed out that he was really the pioneer for us in Bcdc. And in the region among the agencies\, in focusing on sea level rise and adaptation at a time when it wasn’t really on the agenda. We know there were issues out there\, but there was no institutional focus\, and there was a gap\, and he. He led us into a leadership role in that. And. \nBoardroom SX80: as Chair Wasson has said\, it wasn’t an easy territory. There are conflicting interests\, just to say the least. But in the end\, when we did take that first step forward\, I think it was to amend the Bay plan. It was a unanimous support by what are otherwise contending camps. And so I think that was quite an achievement \nBoardroom SX80: to get us to that point. And I think it’s one reason why we’ve been especially diligent ever since then about making sure we had everybody on board with us across the region as we go forward. \nBoardroom SX80: He was a terrific leader for the commission\, and \nBoardroom SX80: he he was also really engaging and charming. He was a terrific person to all\, miss. \nBoardroom SX80: All right\, thank you all. \nBoardroom SX80: We will adjourn the meeting in his memory \nBoardroom SX80: online. I’m sorry none of the concerns on. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think so. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any hands \nBoardroom SX80: all right. Our next meeting\, as I noted will be in 2 weeks. On May sixteenth it will be virtual. \nBoardroom SX80: and we expect that we \nBoardroom SX80: may take up the following matters. \nBoardroom SX80: a permanent application for Pg’s continuing operation and maintenance projects throughout the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: a permitted application for a development at 505 East Bay Shore in Redwood City. \nBoardroom SX80: an enforcement case in the city of Richmond\, and \nBoardroom SX80: a memorandum of understanding among various state and regional agencies\, to better organize how we will fund and manage adaptation to rising sea levels in the Bay Area. \nBoardroom SX80: That last one is going to be really important. I do urge you to attend the meeting\, albeit virtually \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to ex parte communications. If you have received a communication that is not on record on a matter that we are going to adjudicate \nBoardroom SX80: you may report it now. If you have not reported it in writing\, you do need to report it in writing in any event\, and the portal is available to do that. \nBoardroom SX80: Does anybody wish to make any ex-party communication reports? \nBoardroom SX80: And when you say a matters are adjudicated\, obviously\, there’s an issue coming before us on a potential permit. So I’ve had conversations with \nBoardroom SX80: like organizations\, residents\, bare council Mtc. and residents for and against the even though we have no application before us\, and we’re not making any decisions\, but just to be transparent. \nBoardroom SX80: and I left out\, turning back to Commissioner Joy\, the environmental. No sorry \nBoardroom SX80: you can report on the elected task force. There was a meeting of the elected officials task force on. They adapt yesterday\, and Commissioner Joy\, who chairs that we’ll give a brief report. So just briefly\, yesterday\, you know\, we do have this. \nBoardroom SX80: a very good group of elected officials\, 2 per county around the Bay Area to really address from a local level. How we address sea level rise\, and the meeting yesterday had 2 great presentations about best practices that are currently out there. One from San Mateo County and and Supervisor director. Pyne\, was part of that presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: and one from Bryn County\, and supervisor and director\, Stephanie Moulton Peters was part of that so great to see the work that’s occurring\, and what we said we would do is collect best practices from counties around the Bay Area and communities around the Bay Area\, about how cities and counties and the community are working together to address sea level rise. So we’ll hear from other counties and other efforts. And we did get an update on the regional shoreline adaptation plan from BC. DC. Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: That was it? \nBoardroom SX80: It’s \nBoardroom SX80: any questions on that. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t have a question\, but I do have a comment. I watched the presentation yesterday\, and I have to tell you really impressed with what San Mateo has done? You’re a large county \nBoardroom SX80: and a lot of cities\, and just having worked with a lot of folks down there\, too\, when I worked for EPA. It is really a good effort. And again\, I wanted to also compliment Supervisor Peters\, too\, for initiating the action\, and we’re in \nBoardroom SX80: and and getting that going. And I’m very interested in following that. And that’s why I watched it. And I was just going. Wow! Go\, girl. Go\, girl. So\, anyway\, both. Thank you very much for your fantastic presentations. Yesterday and discussion. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Pat. \nBoardroom SX80: Just as of alert for future meetings. There will be a meeting of the Environmental Justice Working Group\, virtually on the morning of May sixteenth\, prior to our Commission meeting and a meeting of the sediment working group the following day on the seventeenth. \nBoardroom SX80: in the morning also\, virtually \nBoardroom SX80: Our executive director had a sudden\, not serious\, but needed attention. Medical \nBoardroom SX80: issuing his family. That is why he is not here. Steve Goldbeck\, our deputy director\, is here \nBoardroom SX80: to make a report to us. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, chair. I will keep the report very\, very short\, because the executive director didn’t have one for today. But he did want me to make an announcement that I am going to be retiring. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s been a pleasure and an honor to work for the Commission and the bay since the eighties\, but it’s time to pass the torch. \nBoardroom SX80: and I won’t be leaving until the end of the fiscal year in a couple of months\, and maybe returning in some capacity\, perhaps\, as a retired annuitant\, so you may have to kick around for a while\, but in any event I wanted to thank you all\, and no need for any further speechifying right now. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s my report. \nBoardroom SX80: We will have\, and time at future meetings to \nBoardroom SX80: Recognize Steve’s yeoman work for this agency\, and on behalf of the people of California and the people of this region and the people of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. That brings us to item \nBoardroom SX80: 7 \nBoardroom SX80: the consideration of administrative matters. We have been furnished\, a listing of them. \nBoardroom SX80: and regulatory director\, Harriet Ross\, is ready and willing to talk about any. If you have questions. Are there any public comments on administrative hearing matters? \nBoardroom SX80: Sean Camden\, is your public comment for this item for or for a current item. \nSean Camden: No\, it’s a general comment. \nBoardroom SX80: I\, it should have been done and open\, but but I’ll allow it. Go ahead. \nSean Camden: Oh\, okay\, I thank you. \nSean Camden: I I just wanna say that \nSean Camden: removing a multi use bath from the Richmond Santa Fe bridge would be a huge step backwards for the future of Bay Area transportation. \nSean Camden: And I also want to address some of the lies that I’ve heard people telling about the about the path. I don’t think I need to. \nBoardroom SX80: Shawn. This is direct towards item 8 will ask you to hold your comment until it’s for item 8. Carol. \nBoardroom SX80: No further public comment at this time. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: That does. And I assume I don’t see any commissioners on items on the \nBoardroom SX80: administrative listing \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to item 8. \nBoardroom SX80: A briefing and discussion regarding the status of the four-year public pathway pilot project on Richmond\, San Rafael Bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: originally authorized by the Commission several years ago as a permitting matter. The briefing presented by Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll authority will include a report on the findings of the pilot project as well as proposed changes to the pilot being contemplated for a vote by Adam\, the Toll authority later this year. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry. Later this month \nBoardroom SX80: the Commission can expect a permit amendment request to be forthcoming after that is deliberations. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I want everybody to be clear in the public. I know there’s a lot of public interest in this. \nBoardroom SX80: we are not taking action today. We will not take action until after \nBoardroom SX80: the agency that has actually authority over it \nBoardroom SX80: takes an action and then seeks our approval of a permit or modification to a permit\, as the case may be\, but because we know this is an item of importance \nBoardroom SX80: we are. This is on the agenda for people to talk\, but I want the public in particular to understand we are not acting today \nBoardroom SX80: because it’s not timely for us to do so. We are a permitting agency. \nBoardroom SX80: We are not the sponsors of this project \nBoardroom SX80: shoreline development program manager. Kathryn Pan will introduce the briefing. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have an estimate of the number of hands raised who wish to speak on this? If you do wish to speak\, you’ve submitted a card already. We’re counting you \nBoardroom SX80: Guess on virtual hands the current count is 24\, and climbing all right. I’m going to ask you to do 2 things\, please for the public speakers. One. Reduce your time to 2 min. \nBoardroom SX80: and second. \nBoardroom SX80: please try not to be repetitive. If if you simply want to come up and demonstrate that you’ve made the effort to come here\, or the effort to be on virtually and supporting what others people said. You can say that briefly\, and and and I don’t want to restrict what anybody says. Say what you wish to. But in respect for people’s time\, including the members of the public. I would ask you not to be repetitive. \nBoardroom SX80: With that \nBoardroom SX80: Take it away\, Katherine. \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. Well\, thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. I’m Katherine Pan\, the Shoreline development program manager at Bcdc. And I’ll be introducing this item\, which is a briefing on the Richmond San Rafael Bridge access improvement pilot project. \nBoardroom SX80: A staff report on this briefing was shared with you on April 20 sixth\, including a copy of Bcdc. Permit number 9\, 97\, 0 0\, one Amendment 4 and a written report from Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll authority or data detailing the information that will be presented today. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll summarize some of the highlights of the staff report to provide the regulatory context for the project before passing things over to Cal Transambada\, who will provide a status report on the project \nBoardroom SX80: and just to situate you. Here’s a regional map of the project location. The Richmond San Rafael Bridge spanned San Francisco Bay between Marin and Contra Costa counties. It is owned by Caltrans\, and managed in partnership with data. A sister agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission\, or Mtc. \nBoardroom SX80: The bridge is a segment of Interstate 5\, 80\, and is a designated segment of the Bay Trail. \nBoardroom SX80: The Bridge Access Improvement Pilot Project was a four-year pilot to evaluate the use of the shoulder on the westbound upper deck of the bridge\, as a full-time separated class\, one multi-use pathway and the shoulder of the eastbound lower deck as a peak hour\, third vehicle Travel Lane\, and that was approved by the Commission in September 2016\, as part of a material amendment number 4 to permit number 9\, 7 0 0 1. \nBoardroom SX80: That permit was originally issued in 90 97\, to authorize the seismic retrofitting of the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: At the time of the original permit. There was no bicycle or pedestrian access on the bridge\, although it was already designated as a proposed bay trail segment by the Bay trail project \nBoardroom SX80: when considering the project\, the Commission heard from many community members advocating for bicycle and pedestrian connection across the bridge\, and the findings of the original permit\, stated that providing bicycle and pedestrian access was desirable\, and would maximize the public access benefits of the retrofit retrofit project. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, the Commission also found that there was a need for further study as to whether this kind of access could be provided safely that could not be accommodated by the urgent timing of the project. Therefore the original permit did not include any special conditions to require bicycle and pedestrian access across the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Instead\, the Commission decided to work with Caltrans to complete the necessary studies and the permit findings document that Caltrans voluntarily committed to using its best efforts to study the feasibility of providing non-motorized public access on the bridge\, and if such access was found to be feasible that it would ensure that it was provided \nBoardroom SX80: nearly 20 years later. In 16\, the pilot project followed from the series of studies and commissioned briefings and discussions stemming from that commitment which are further detailed in the Staff Report. \nBoardroom SX80: Material Amendment number 4 authorized 2 elements of the pilot project\, as well as some other permanent access improvements on the approaches to the bridge that were not part of the pilot on the eastbound lower deck of the bridge. The pilot involved the use of a 4 mile long segment of the shoulder as a vehicle travel lane during peak commute hours\, and this part of the pilot opened in 2\,018. \nBoardroom SX80: On the westbound upper deck of the bridge. The pilot involved a 4 mile long\, 10 foot wide\, 2 way. Class\, one accessible public pathway\, as well as a 42 inch tall\, 18 inch wide\, movable barrier to separate the path from vehicle traffic\, also safety railing and signage and usage instrumentation. \nBoardroom SX80: And this part of the pilot opened in 2019. \nBoardroom SX80: The purpose of piloting these uses of the shoulders was to seek a means of reducing congestion and travel time in the eastbound direction and providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Caltrans intended to evaluate the performance and usage\, to determine whether they should be made permanent. \nBoardroom SX80: The special conditions of the amended permit required. Caltrans provide a written and verbal report to the Commission on the status of the public pathway\, including\, but not limited to\, an analysis of public usage and benefits and assessment of any operational and safety issues\, and the need for any future changes to the facilities\, including removal or making them permanent. \nBoardroom SX80: This briefing and the written report attached to the staff report are intended to fulfill this requirement. \nBoardroom SX80: So at this point I’d like to introduce Larry Bonner of Cal trans. And Lisa Klein of Bada\, and invite them to provide their status. Report. \nBoardroom SX80: Right? Thank you\, Catherine. Good afternoon. My name is Larry Bonner. I’m the Cal Trans. District for Office Chief for the Office of environmental analysis. And I’m here today with Lisa Klein\, the Bay Area Toll authority section director for field operations and asset management \nBoardroom SX80: to chair Wasserman and the commissioners. First of all\, I just want to say\, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the pilot today and for considering next steps\, data and Cal. Trans. Are proud of this work and appreciate the commission support of the pilot which permitted the innovative uses of the shoulders on the Richmond Stanford bridge \nBoardroom SX80: data. And Cal trans. Acknowledged BCD. C’s long history of advocating for access in this corridor. We want to assure you that we take this very seriously. \nBoardroom SX80: We are pleased to provide this report and presentation today\, and acknowledge that this is a little later than we had anticipated. But Covid was not part of our original plan\, and it was important to let the post covid usage patterns abate in order to provide accurate findings and make recommendations. \nBoardroom SX80: Lisa and I will be presenting updates and results of the pilot project on the Richmond Santa File Bridge. Along with some recommendations for the future \nBoardroom SX80: for today’s presentation\, we will cover the following 3 topics\, an overview and recap of the project itself. \nBoardroom SX80: the findings and results from the project’s pilot study efforts\, and then we will conclude with\, recommend the next steps in a proposal for the pilot\, based on the current results and findings \nBoardroom SX80: and 14 data\, took responsibility for funding and implementing the Richmond San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Pilot Project undertaken in partnership with Caltrans. The transportation authority of Marin and the Contra Costa transportation authority with the combined goals to address traffic congestion and provide bicycle and pedestrian access to and across the bridge. This was undertaken to be consistent with the core strategies in the planned bar area 2050\, including the Bay trail\, build out \nBoardroom SX80: the project partners committed to a 4 year pilot that in April of 2018 converted the lower deck\, emergency shoulder to a part time. Third travel Lane followed in November of 2019\, with the conversion of the upper deck emergency shoulder to a full time. 10 foot\, multi-use\, bicycle\, and pedestrian path. \nBoardroom SX80: Note for the sake of clarity\, please\, that the shoulder on the upper deck has not been used as a travel lane since the 1970 S. And in no part of this pilot or in the recommendations we will discuss today. Are we proposing to use this shoulder on the upper deck as a travel lane. \nBoardroom SX80: The pilot project was designed for 2 main purposes. The purposes of this project were to provide pedestrian and bicycle access along the Interstate 5 80\, which achieved the Bay trail connections between the East Bay and Marin County through the multi-use path on the upper deck of the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge\, and to reduce congestion\, congestion. Excuse me\, and travel time on Eastbound I. 5 80\, over the Richmond Santa trail Bridge through the part-time third travel lane on the lower deck of the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition\, the pilot project provided for several permanent improvements\, including permanent trail connections for bicyclists and pedestrians in Richmond and San Rafael\, and permanent traffic improvements through the widening on the bridge approaches. \nBoardroom SX80: as mentioned in the previous slide. In addition to the pilot project\, improvements built\, monitored\, and still under study\, the project implemented\, implemented non-pilot\, permanent improvements and connections to existing trails and landmarks on each ends of the bridge to remote connectivity in support of the goals of the Plan Bay Area 50 plan. \nBoardroom SX80: On the contrary\, Costis County side. The project installed a class\, one bidirectional path for bicycles and pedestrians\, separated from automobile traffic by a permanent concrete barrier along the north side of Westbound I 5 80 from the tewkesbury Standard Avenue\, intersection\, near Point Richmond\, to Stenmark Drive\, near Point Milate. \nBoardroom SX80: This replaced the existing one-way class\, 2 bicycle lanes that were on both eastbound and westbound i. 5\, 80. \nBoardroom SX80: On the Marin County side the project widened a 10 foot sidewalk to provide for a bi-directional path for bicyclists and pedestrians along East Francisco boulevard in the city of San Rafael. In addition. \nBoardroom SX80: there is an ongoing construction project to finish. The remaining sidewalk widens that will further close the gap between the multi-use path on the Bridgeman Bridge\, and the connections to Sir Francis Drake\, Boulevard Anderson Drive and connections to the Bay trail. \nBoardroom SX80: Throughout the pilot period. Mtc. And data\, also implemented initiatives to encourage bike commutes across the bridge they partnered with local organizations and coalitions for guided group rides\, which which included options to try ebikes and bike education and safety demonstrations. They also started an ebay commute program that provided discounts on ebay purchases for qualified applicants. \nBoardroom SX80: As Catherine summarized in the beginning for you all\, and as detailed in the Staff Report\, Bcdc. Has a long history regarding access in the corridor and the permit reflects that. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you all now I’ll turn it over to Lisa Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, thank you\, Larry. I’m going to pivot now to the pilot. Study results. The evaluation of the pilot was conducted by Uc. Berkeley partners for advanced transportation technology\, and I’m going to call them Uc. Berkeley Path for short. And it was a data driven evaluation that addresses the areas identified in the Permit amendment. \nBoardroom SX80: The evaluation includes 2 reports\, the phase\, one report was issued in the summer of 2022. It’s included in full in your board packet\, and\, as you might suspect\, and as Larry acknowledged\, much of the data in that report reflects the Covid period. \nBoardroom SX80: The phase 2 report adds data through this spring\, you know very current data\, and it’ll be published in a couple of weeks. We do have some preliminary results from that phase. 2 report. And we’ve included those in the summary memo in your board packet. And that’s what I’ll be focused on in my presentation today. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m going to very quickly run through the findings on the lower deck pilot first\, because I suspect there’s going to be more interest in discussion on the upper deck path. \nBoardroom SX80: So the results for the lower deck\, finding the lower deck pilot\, are really quite clear. The project has been very\, very well received by the public as well\, really\, as soon as it opened the that part time Lane essentially eliminated the eastbound congestion on the bridge\, and it now saves East Bay commuters between 14 and 17 min on their return trip home in the evening. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ve also seen some reductions on the traffic on local streets\, and we’ve seen reduction in the traffic incidents or crashes\, and we also find that drivers are generally following the rules around part time\, part time use\, and you know\, not driving in it when it’s\, in fact\, a shoulder \nBoardroom SX80: when it comes to the upper deck. Honestly\, the results here are far more mixed. And this is true both of the data I’ll share with you and of the public reaction to the pilot. \nBoardroom SX80: We have\, I believe\, demonstrated that public access is important\, and the path is is quite well used\, especially on weekends. At the same time we’ve seen some puzzling data emerging related to traffic incidents or crashes in these phase 2 findings. And we believe that this suggests trying something a little different to see what more we can learn \nBoardroom SX80: data\, and all of the partners\, and Cal\, trans. And all of you\, I believe\, have heard very\, very strong opinions that support keeping the path\, and very strong opinions that support removing the path\, and also strong opinions regarding use of the upper deck shoulder as a third traffic lane\, and I just want to reiterate\, as Larry noted the beginning\, that that is beyond the scope of this pilot decision. \nBoardroom SX80: The shoulder\, because it has not been a travel lane for decades requires an entirely different analysis. It requires a full environmental review. Data and Cal Trans are embarking on some analysis at the direction of the Bata Board. But it’s not something we’re asking Bcdc. To consider. Now\, there’s quite a bit more work to be done. \nBoardroom SX80: There is a lot of data in the evaluation\, and I’m going to focus on a few key areas in my presentation. I’ll start with path usage and safety. \nBoardroom SX80: So the daily usage on the path is about 2 and a half times higher on weekends than weekdays. This means essentially that the number of people using it over a weekend is about the same as the number of people using it over the work week. \nBoardroom SX80: On average\, there are 360 bicycle trips per day on a Saturday or a Sunday and 140 trips on a weekday. \nBoardroom SX80: and there is quite a bit of seasonal variation. For example\, on Saturdays\, in the summer the average is closer to 500 trips total. That day \nBoardroom SX80: someone did ask me the other day about traffic volumes on the bridge\, and those average about 35\,000 vehicles a day on the upper deck. \nBoardroom SX80: on the \nBoardroom SX80: on the use of the path. The majority of trips\, about 85% are recreational\, based on surveys that were conducted in the evaluation. So over the course of a week that would be about 1\,200 recreational trips and about 200 commute trips \nBoardroom SX80: when it comes to safety. Those who use the path have rated it say they feel quite safe and comfortable\, using it\, giving it an 8 out of 10 rating. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. There’s been a lot of attention\, and some\, I think\, perhaps\, confusion about traffic congestion. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s true that over the past decade or so the congestion in this corridor has has grown considerably. When we look more closely at the recent data\, however\, the regular congestion patterns are not really that different today than they were before the past. \nBoardroom SX80: before the path. And the pilot \nBoardroom SX80: that’s illustrated by this graph. Here on the right\, we call this a heat map it shows when and where traffic speeds are slowest during the morning commute. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s really good for looking at what I’ll call regular congestion patterns\, but it doesn’t really do a good job of capturing the experience when there are incidents or crashes\, and I’ll come back to that in a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: The upper half of this colorful chart here shows 2019 conditions\, and the lower half shows 2023\, and you can see that the patterns of red and red showed speeds. They’re really quite similar. \nBoardroom SX80: And that’s even though the traffic today is about 90% of the volumes that use the bridge in in 2\,019 before Covid. \nBoardroom SX80: The red indicates very slow speeds\, less than 35 miles per hour\, and the pink is up to 55 miles per hour. \nBoardroom SX80: The width of the graph correlates with geography. So if you start on the right point d that letter D\, there in Richmond correlates with Regatta Boulevard Point C. Is Stenmark. Drive right about at the Toll Plaza\, and then Point B is Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Marin. \nBoardroom SX80: and then the height of each graph represents the hours during the morning. So if you look at the 2023 graph on the bottom\, you can see that the typically that congestion shown in red starts a little after 6 Am. And it’s very\, very close to the Toll Plaza \nBoardroom SX80: between 7 and 8 Am. It backup grows to or grew. This is 2023 to Regatta Boulevard\, and then it decreases over the course of the morning and kind of dissipates there a little bit after about 10 Am. \nBoardroom SX80: And compared to 2019\, the backup in 2023 was about a quarter of a mile longer\, and it also dissipated about 15 min earlier. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s very\, very similar. Again\, this is regular commute traffic\, not really reflecting incidents\, and I think it’s worth acknowledging that \nBoardroom SX80: an incident probably generates much slower speeds on the bridge. The speeds on the bridge are shown in the big pink box. I forgot to mention that \nBoardroom SX80: so probably generate much more slower speeds on the bridge\, and perhaps more backup enrichment. I think that’s probably more likely what people remember. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m gonna turn now to incidents\, and this is a place where the data leaves us frankly\, with more questions than answers. You know. Honestly\, it’s harder than we’d like\, probably to correlate incidents and congestion\, and we do have a lot of information on on incidence and incident rates. So the phase 2 findings suggest that incident rates overall are down about 15 to 20% over the course of the day\, but they’re up about 20 to 30 Morning Peak. \nBoardroom SX80: and that’s of interest to us\, because the peak is when incidents are likely to cause the most backup and the most headaches for commuters. \nBoardroom SX80: So on the left of this chart in the blue and red there. The slide shows that the increase in incident rate\, you know\, in incidence incident rates gone up in the morning. It’s largely in collisions that are rear ends or side swipes. \nBoardroom SX80: and those are the most common types of incidents. So that’s perhaps not surprising. \nBoardroom SX80: On the right\, in the green and orange. The data shows that the increase in incidents are mostly the kind of incidents where there’s no reported injury as opposed to incidents where there’s a serious injury or fatality. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I spend a little bit more time on this topic. \nBoardroom SX80: as you guessed\, the time that it takes for emergency responders to get to an incident really makes a difference. Not only have incident rates increased during the morning peak\, but the UC. Berkeley Path study also found\, it may be taking longer to respond to them. \nBoardroom SX80: And response times can really range a lot from\, say\, less than 5 min to 30 or 40 min. Or\, you know\, really\, you know\, really extreme incident even longer than that \nBoardroom SX80: today\, the average is 16 min to respond. And that’s compared to about 13 min before the pilot\, and I’ll acknowledge that sounds very small\, and you’re probably wondering why do we care if it’s a small change\, and I’d say we care\, because each minute of delayed response to an incident multiplies traffic by a factor of 4. \nBoardroom SX80: And this creates more uncertainty about travel times\, and that’s really can be a big deal when you got to get to work on time. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to\, you know\, kind of briefly recap the findings here and then talk about our proposed next steps. \nBoardroom SX80: The results for the lower deck part Time Lane are very clear and very positive in terms of addressing the purpose of the project relieving congestion\, and as I just discussed\, results for the upper deck path are much less clear. I do think we’ve really demonstrated the importance of access on this bay trail segment\, especially on weekends. \nBoardroom SX80: While there’s no increase in the regular congestion. There is some kind of thought-provoking data when it comes to weekday incidents\, and we would really like to try something different. So we can learn more. \nBoardroom SX80: And that brings me to our proposal\, which is graphically summarized on this slide. This is the Bat and Cal trans proposal\, and it’s still subject to board approval. As the chair mentioned in his introductory remarks. \nBoardroom SX80: we are proposing to make the lower deck part Time Lane permanent a permanent condition as it is\, and we are proposing to extend the pilot with some modifications on the upper deck to answer the questions raised by the data and to better understand the role of an emergency shoulder. Specifically\, we’re proposing to retain the multi-use path on days where there is less commute traffic. \nBoardroom SX80: restore the shoulder on other days of the week\, and run a bike shuttle when that space is functioning as a shoulder\, the shuttle service operations and the days that we would provide the path. We’re still working those out. To be honest. \nBoardroom SX80: I think you know\, weekends and Fridays and holidays are good candidates for the path. We may even be able to open the path midday\, Thursday as and we’ll be reviewing the traffic and operations on that. You know. If we could do that we’d really have an extension. That was about half time\, a path and half time a shoulder \nBoardroom SX80: we are proposing to extend through the end of 2025\, and it might actually possibly we might possibly ask for a longer extension that would really depend on the start date. How quickly we can get in front of you. For a permanent amendment\, or\, if we need a little additional time for for proper evaluation. \nBoardroom SX80: So let me just clarify what we’re trying to achieve with this proposal. The first is\, it really allows us to learn more about this. \nBoardroom SX80: this constrained real estate on the bridge\, and how it operates while we keep the bay trail segment open and the times it’s most used. It allows us to get more data on safety and operations with the emergency shoulder open on weekdays\, and it allows us a better understanding of access. I’m curious\, really\, whether we would attract some different bay trail users with a shuttle service. \nBoardroom SX80: and it allows us to take a closer look at equity. The demographics and equity considerations of users was not something in the current\, and the original scope for the Uc. Berkeley path\, and we think this is worth spending some time on. I think it’s important when you think about the variability in congestion due to incidents in the morning. \nBoardroom SX80: and it also allows us to continue working on projects such as the Richmond San Rafael\, forward\, that will make the approach to the bridge and Richmond work better\, and speed up transit and carpools in the corridor. \nBoardroom SX80: and before I wrap up I’m just gonna spend a minute on the Richmond. Sandra fell forward projects. These are fully funded projects that will move us toward a multimodal corridor\, and we believe they will alleviate but not not eliminate\, congestion in in Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: Probably the most impactful of these projects. The biggest is the open road tolling and H. Ov lane extension that would open by the end of 2025. And this project will do 2 things. It will remove the toll booths at the plaza\, and it will streamline traffic through the plaza to reduce the slowdown that happens when the merging\, you know\, right now the plaza \nBoardroom SX80: sort of wows out to 7 lanes\, and then it goes back to a few lanes to get on the bridge\, so it’ll streamline that traffic \nBoardroom SX80: it’ll also provide an HOV. Lane\, extension for carpools and buses through the through Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re also working with A/C. Transit and Golden Gate transit to install\, transit signal priority on cutting Boulevard\, and we expect to make some improvements to the Richmond Parkway interchange by 2026 that will help with some of the local congestion and the traffic diversion. \nBoardroom SX80: And then in parallel. Although not shown on this slide\, Cal Transambada are looking at the ability to use the upper deck shoulder on the bridge as a carpool lane\, potentially in conjunction with a part time path\, and\, as I mentioned earlier that really requires a full environmental review process. And it’s not the subject of our the item before you today. \nBoardroom SX80: This is my last slide. So in terms of next steps\, we’re certainly very interested to hear your thoughts and questions today. \nBoardroom SX80: Our first step\, though\, before we can come back to you for a formal action is first to ask data to authorize staff. That’s me to pursue the proposal\, and we’ll be making an initial presentation to Bada committee in next week\, and then we’ll be seeking approval from the full authority at the end of the month. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, we need to really define the the parameters of the modification. Like the days of the week\, the bike shuttle operations\, and work more closely with Bcd. Staff on the best approach to the permit\, particularly with respect to the lower deck. And then\, third\, we would submit a formal request for amendment for your consideration at a later meeting. So thank you very much for your attention\, and we look forward to your discussions after \nBoardroom SX80: I’m Katherine closes this out. \nBoardroom SX80: So thank you for that presentation\, and I also wanted to note that the current permit specifically prohibits the alteration or removal of the facilities without a permit amendment. And so in this sort of weird space where the authorization for the pilot project has run out before the next amendment comes in. Caltrans has submitted a request for a non-material \nBoardroom SX80: time extension to extend that authorization for the existing pilot as is to get them some time to like\, finish up their proposal\, finish up their valuation\, and come back in with a material amendment request later this year. \nBoardroom SX80: So at this point it seems worthwhile to share the legal and policy bases for how a future proposal for the pilot will be analyzed. So first\, as always\, it’s important to remember that section 6\, 6\, 6\, 0 2. The Mcatir Petrus Act finds that existing public access to the shoreline and waters of the San Francisco Bay is inadequate\, and that maximum feasible public access consistent with the proposed project should be provided \nBoardroom SX80: the Bay Plan further expands on this in particular in its public access policies\, and also includes a section of transportation policies and findings that are relevant to this case and to paraphrase transportation policies one and 4 require the Commission to encourage the development of alternative modes of transportation and to include pedestrian and bicycle paths in transportation projects on bridges over the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and these are based on findings that primary reliance on single occupant vehicles for transportation in the Bay area results in further pressures to use the bay as a route for future roadways and bridges\, and that pressure to fill the bay can be reduced by providing safe and convenient public pathways for non-motorized forms of travel. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, before closing\, I’d like to offer some questions for the Commission to consider in your discussion. A staff appreciates any insights or direction you’re able to provide. In response to these questions\, as we prepare to return with the permit ease later this year with their amendment request. This first question is related to the conditions of the permit\, and simply asks whether the Commission believes that there is sufficient information at this time to remove the improvements\, make them permanent\, or propose an alteration \nBoardroom SX80: for the second question. Knowing that the Permity plans to request an amendment to the permit for a modified pilot project. What information would the Commission like to be included in the application and or the staff analysis to support a determination of whether the proposed modifications are appropriate \nBoardroom SX80: for the third question. At the conclusion of the pilot\, including any extended or modified version of the pilot\, what information should be provided to support a determination of whether non motorized public access is feasible on the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: and lastly\, at the conclusion of the pilot\, what information should be provided to support a determination of whether any proposed permanent project would be providing the maximum feasible public access on the bridge consistent with that project\, and with that thank you very much for your attention to this presentation staff\, and the permities are happy to answer any clarifying questions you may have. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair was\, I would just like to make a short statement. I just wanted to remind everyone that this is an informational briefing\, and that this may come before us for a permanent amendment\, as you’ve heard. Therefore\, I just wanna state that now is not the time to state support or opposition to something that may come before us for a permanent amendment\, and that general comments and concerns that don’t state how you would vote on a permanent amendment are okay. \nBoardroom SX80: and that the focus should be on responding to these 4 questions that Staff has posed. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you for that. I’m \nBoardroom SX80: going to start with questions for clarification from the Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we’ll go to public comment. I’m going to start with Commissioner Joy. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thanks for the presentations. And as someone who lives in Richmond and represents the area. That’s the approach to the bridge\, and I’ve been both a driver in my car on the bridge and a biker across the bridge. So I’ve experienced the enjoyment of biking the frustration of delays. So I understand. I think the dynamics of this. \nBoardroom SX80: I do. I do have a number of questions that will help us later to determine. You know what \nBoardroom SX80: and answer the Commission questions\, but one of them deals with air quality studies that you may do\, and I wanted to get Greg Nudd before he leaves\, I think\, and then I’ll have Lisa come up. Greg. Greg has to is a senior official at the air district. And and as Greg comes up because I I think part of it is. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, what are we gonna ask for in the study. And I know you’re gonna be doing air quality analysis. We’ll ask as an air district member\, that’s an issue that’s been raised. I do wanna make. I I do think it’s important to clarify cause. There’s a lot of good information and not so accurate information that’s out there in the public about all of this potential proposal\, and I know it’s clear that there’s no proposal to make this lane a \nBoardroom SX80: vehicle lane for cars\, potentially an HOV transit lane\, but not just a vehicle lane and a lot of the comments we hear. I think people think it’s gonna be turned into a Vehicle Lane. Then there’s this stuff going around that the bike lane has caused more air pollution which hasn’t happened. I just wanted but I wanted to understand\, Greg. \nBoardroom SX80: so can you just comment about air pollution impacts so far. And then if part that’s part one and part 2\, if we were to ask as they do studies. What kinds of studies would make sense? It sounds like the alternatives you’re looking at. I mean\, using it as a shoulder\, using it as an HOV. Transit lane have different implications for congestion and air quality. \nBoardroom SX80: But just so I know you had to leave\, so I wanted to ask you that before going back to Mtc. Sure\, I’ll keep it brief right now. We don’t have any evidence that the bike lane is causing greater air pollution. In Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: The data that we see is consistent with what we see near every freeway in the Bay area\, where there is significant increases in air pollution in the mornings. But that’s typical of pretty much every freeway in the Bay Area \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of things to consider when you are doing an air quality\, evaluation of a traffic improvement project. \nBoardroom SX80: You want to look at the types of vehicles that are traveling. You want to look at. By that I mean light duty vehicles versus diesel trucks. \nBoardroom SX80: You want to look at vehicle speeds before and after\, and you want to look at total vehicle throughput before and after \nBoardroom SX80: What we are finding recently is because light duty\, vehicle\, tailpipe emissions are so low. \nBoardroom SX80: Congestion isn’t really an issue for light Dv vehicles from an air quality standpoint. Obviously\, it’s an issue from a quality of life standpoint\, and it can be an air quality issue if it causes traffic to back up on surface streets\, especially if there’s Diesel vehicles in that traffic. Mix \nBoardroom SX80: the thing to be careful about\, though\, is induced demand\, and if you \nBoardroom SX80: make some modifications that end up having greater throughput through the area you can actually see increases in particulate matter\, even though the congestion is lower. So it’s a little bit of a different framework than what we’re used to dealing with in terms of congestion\, and that really has to do with having a better first of all having cleaner cars\, which is great. \nBoardroom SX80: but also having a better understanding about the impacts of brake\, wear and tire\, wear and road dust from an air quality. So how does to the extent? How does more congestion\, versus less congestion affect \nBoardroom SX80: the the larger source which from cars now\, which is their break entire wear and road dust as opposed to the tailpipe emissions. How does Con\, having congestion versus not having congestion\, affect that \nBoardroom SX80: part? Well\, tireware tracks directly with vehicle. Miles traveled \nBoardroom SX80: as does road dust. And so the more vehicle Miles traveled you have\, the more tireware you have. \nBoardroom SX80: Recent study came out\, showing that most of the microplastics in the bay are actually tireware. \nBoardroom SX80: So the more Vmt you have\, the more tireware you have\, the more air pollution\, more water pollution \nBoardroom SX80: with electric vehicles. We’re we’re seeing increased tire wear because folks use their tires as brakes right through regenerative braking. But you see less brake wear so kind of the net impact of electric vehicles on that is is questionable. \nBoardroom SX80: In terms of Diesel. \nBoardroom SX80: if you’ve got Diesel trucks idling. That’s going to be a big problem for the community\, especially if if they’re on surface\, low surface level streets. \nBoardroom SX80: So generally\, then\, when this thanks crake\, that’s all I had\, but it sounds like when\, as you do\, a study\, their district will be involved making comments and reviewing the parameters of a study to ensure that we’re getting\, you know\, the the right overview and the right sort of comment on that. So and their district’s prepared to do that. Yeah\, we’re happy to help Mtc. \nBoardroom SX80: Provide some technical support on that. We’re we’re already working with them on the overall improvement projects and helping make sure that they \nBoardroom SX80: that they’ve got the right technical approach\, for with that their contractors are taking for their quality analysis. Great thanks. So I just had a few questions on the presentation\, maybe to \nBoardroom SX80: Lisa so\, or can Cal trans. Just to be clear? So you’re you’re not proposing a through Lane you’re proposing HIV and or a\, and transit long term\, but your your permit\, your permit application may seek. Just have a shoulder for a period of time\, and then \nBoardroom SX80: this HOV. Transit lane. How are you going to be able to distinguish \nBoardroom SX80: during this modified period. \nBoardroom SX80: the the cause of change\, the MoD\, the changes under the modified permit. If we’re also making the changes which are gonna benefit. This\, the Richmond center fall forward\, because right now you have 3 lanes of traffic going to 7 at the Toll Plaza going down to 2\, and your proposals to have \nBoardroom SX80: 3 lanes of traffic\, 3. Through the Toll Plaza down to 2\, which is\, gonna have\, I think\, a big\, positive effect on reducing congestion. So to the extent that you’re looking at that benefit from that project\, how are you gonna distinguish that from the modified for what you’re doing in the modified proposal. \nBoardroom SX80: the modified permit assuming it’s successful right? Assuming we’re not making be really clear here to the public. We’re asking questions to get information. We could potentially be disqualified from voting\, as as our counsel said\, if we\, if we start specifying\, you know\, support and opposition. And plus\, we don’t have all the information to make a decision. Right? Right? That’s right. That’s a very good question. And we are trying to thread a needle here\, so what we would hope to be able to do \nBoardroom SX80: do is very quickly come back to you with\, submit. The request for the Permit amendment to try this modification. As you noted\, the modification would restore the shoulder on the weekdays. No traffic on that lane. \nBoardroom SX80: and we would like to be able to run that through before we’d like to be able to\, you know. Open that pretty quickly. Run that next year before the forward project opens\, that forward project is projected to open the end of 2025 and so that would give us\, you know\, I mean hopefully about a good year’s worth of data before that. Those improvements get made to the toll. It’s your belief that forward projects gonna have \nBoardroom SX80: a great benefit of reducing congestion there. And have you thought about what? How much? \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, you know\, I think the forward project is not gonna eliminate connection at the plaza right? I mean\, we wouldn’t be building an H over Lane if it would\, because you wouldn’t. You know you wouldn’t have an advantage right? So I think. \nBoardroom SX80: I know that I have those numbers in my notes\, and how much it is. It’s it’s up. I think it’s it’s a few minutes worth of of relief for the general lanes. It’s a bit it’s a far more beneficial to the carpools and the transit vehicles that will be able to use the HOV. Lane. And it’s\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: was a few minutes worthy. How are you thinking of doing enforcement? I’ve had an electric car for 10 years. I drive in H. Ov lanes that are packed all the time\, because I think I look around more than half the drivers are not \nBoardroom SX80: either 3\, you know\, have the number of passengers or have an electric car. So I mean\, obviously. \nBoardroom SX80: there’s the potential for for a traffic lane. How does. How do you? How are you gonna address that? Yeah. And that’s a really good question. Yeah\, enforcing carpool lanes is tough. There’s no doubt about it. You all see that all the time on the road\, and so do I. We do a little bit better on the bridge approaches a little bit easier on the bridge approaches than it is\, say on Interstate 80 in your neck of the woods there. \nBoardroom SX80: and that’s because\, you know\, the drivers are going through a single point at the at the Toll plaza\, where there’s an HOV. Lane. And they’re currently a little slower right there than they are on on Interstate 80\, and you can put a highway patrol vehicle \nBoardroom SX80: pretty much right there\, and they can look and see who’s in the lane\, and that’s much easier than having them drive by on\, you know\, when cars are drive by moving with traffic on the regular freeway. \nBoardroom SX80: could you collect this same data with less days of modified changes. You just propose something that was a Thursday through Sunday\, which is potentially 50 50. Do you need? How many days. Do you need to really collect the data to make a final decision? \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t. I don’t think I have a real specific answer to that question. What we are doing in trying to assess the number of days is really trying to balance the traffic patterns that we see where there\, you know\, is the the congestion\, and the number of vehicles that are traveling on the bridge\, and we see very clear patterns. Thus far traffic volumes are very consistent. \nBoardroom SX80: Tuesday\, Wednesday\, Thursday\, Monday is very close to those\, and then Friday\, the traffic is lower. So that is really what that’s one of the things we’re really considering. When we look at what days we want to \nBoardroom SX80: operate them out. You you’ve proposed a bike shuttle for the days that the bike lane isn’t available\, which presumably is in the lane of traffic which is also congested. Is there any reason your proposal \nBoardroom SX80: couldn’t include a bike shuttle \nBoardroom SX80: on the shoulder? A smaller vehicle on the shoulder that puts the again. Assuming this\, goes forward right? That puts bikes on a \nBoardroom SX80: on on a on on the shoulder that gets them across bike or pedestrian\, I should say\, yeah\, I mean\, I think that’s a that’s a really interesting idea. And I think it’s something we’d have to look at\, that’s we. We would want to really work through that with Cal. Trans. As the owner of the bridge and understand what you know what that kind of operation would mean. So I think it’s a \nBoardroom SX80: it’s a really interesting suggestion\, and something we’ll look at given that and this is more to Bcdc\, I mean one of the things we obviously have to consider maximum feasible public access. All those standards \nBoardroom SX80: have shuttles been used on some temporary or long term basis \nBoardroom SX80: to to deal with public access issues. And this is really \nBoardroom SX80: to to the staff\, have they? Or and maybe it’s also a legal question of whether or not it meets Max public access having a shuttle. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m looking at Ashley to see just in terms of like. \nBoardroom SX80: I guess. Like detouring\, I guess. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Does the maximum feasible public access interplay with using a shuttle on some days in place of actually providing the access. Actually Tomerland Bay design analyst we’ve seen shuttles \nBoardroom SX80: on the Richmond Bridge previously. \nBoardroom SX80: and then at Middle Harbour Road\, related to Middle Harbour Shoreline Park. \nBoardroom SX80: Use of shuttles. Doesn’t seem to be popular either with user groups or the people or the agencies running them. The Richmond felt bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: A shuttle was ran prior to the 1997 Richmond Bridge permit\, and it was canceled due to load ridership and unsatisfaction on the parts of the bicyclists \nBoardroom SX80: just due to unreliability. Just wondered. Okay\, thanks. And just a couple final. \nBoardroom SX80: So also is\, is there a reason you you want to go forward with the shoulder as opposed to waiting\, collecting more and apply for a permit when you’re when you’ve done the analysis to look at an HOV. Transit lane. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, that’s a good question. Well\, I think that you know\, because the shoulder I’m just shoulders\, or should I mean shoulder? And I’ll get to the incident question in a second. Right? Well\, I mean\, I think it really does relate to the it really does relate to the incidents\, you know. I think there’s also really it’s been a. It’s been a while now since we had a shoulder on that bridge right? It’s been for \nBoardroom SX80: 4 years\, and there’s Covid in between it right. And I think you know\, one of the things that we we wonder a little bit is. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, do people really remember the experience of the of the bridge before before the pilot. And is there maybe some? You know\, it’s been a while. So this question about what do? What do incidents. Really\, what happens when there’s an incident at this point we we only have the more recent experience right where we have the \nBoardroom SX80: where we have the the path. And we do think that there is some value in getting fresh data. You know\, it’s also true that traffic is 90% of what it was before before Covid. And so it may function a little differently now in this period than it did\, you know\, back in (202) 018-2019. So that is one reason we’d like to go ahead and do it. Now\, how long is it going to take you to \nBoardroom SX80: determine\, analyze\, and determine whether \nBoardroom SX80: whether it’s feasible to have a \nBoardroom SX80: Hov transit lane there. Right? So we because\, yeah\, that’s\, I assume that’s where you ultimately are trying to end up in your permit application. But this intermediate use of a shoulder\, you know\, it’s just different. So just how long is it gonna take you? Right? Well\, I don’t know where we’re trying to end up. I mean\, I think we’re looking at. We’re looking at options\, and we wanna understand what the analysis will show \nBoardroom SX80: I \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of how long the analysis takes. It’s a 2 step process. We are doing an initial analysis. We call a design alternative assessment. And we are trying to move very expeditiously through that and complete that by the end of the year. That’ll tell. Give us a general sense of feasibility. \nBoardroom SX80: But it’s but it’s not. Gonna in order to really pursue this and to come back for a permit\, we would have to click complete and full environmental Review. It’d be comparable in scope to the Environmental review we did for the current pilot\, and that was a 2 year process. So it is a good 2 plus years before we could come back and ask for a permit. For an Hv. Lane \nBoardroom SX80: 2 plus years. So I mean\, cause the Commission is looking at like I don’t know. Maybe 3 general alternative options. One is whether to continue \nBoardroom SX80: the current status quo. \nBoardroom SX80: second is whether \nBoardroom SX80: to \nBoardroom SX80: amend the permit to our shoulder. \nBoardroom SX80: Third is whether ultimately to amend a permit to have HOV in a transit\, and \nBoardroom SX80: what you want us to do it sounds like is study. \nBoardroom SX80: What the benefits or not of the shoulder are. \nBoardroom SX80: and if we found that \nBoardroom SX80: there wasn’t a great benefit \nBoardroom SX80: that we go. \nBoardroom SX80: we would potentially go back to status quo\, or then entertain later an application on an HOV. Because that’s a yeah. There’s different cost benefits. \nBoardroom SX80: I should say\, for each of those right? I mean a shoulder versus HOV. Transit. It’s a big difference with different cost benefits and different impacts on congestion and air quality and all of that. But you’re only gonna collect data on the shoulder. You’re not gonna have collected data on the HOV. And the transit \nBoardroom SX80: right? But that’s true\, we will be doing analysis in parallel on the HIV lane on the shoulder. So the trick is to bring all this together. And there’s one reason. But you’re not going to have data from an HIV transit. We won’t have data for it. But I think \nBoardroom SX80: we. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, I think \nBoardroom SX80: one of the challenges in traffic analysis is this notion of incidents and and this non-recurring congestion. And that’s a place where I think real life experience is especially valuable. Incidents are tremendously variable. Right? It’s anything from you. Get a flat tire and you pull over to a major crash\, and they vary on the weather and the time of day and the lighting\, and there’s just so much variation. \nBoardroom SX80: And so I think that’s an area where direct experience is particularly valuable\, I think\, as as an industry\, if you will\, we’re do a little better at traffic analysis when we’re talking about \nBoardroom SX80: right? You know. You calculate there were some increase in incidents. I get it in the morning. 6 to 9. But how many incidents are we talking about? What’s the actual\, absolute number of incidents we measure technically. But we and what\, in fact\, what’s the data you have? That shows what the impact of that incident was on any increased congestion or not. Right? Oh\, yeah. So we measure the incidence as rates \nBoardroom SX80: typically. And the rates are the numbers that are included in your packet. It’s rates per 1 million vehicle. Miles traveled. So it’s a very\, very small number\, which you know\, is really a good thing\, right? Because a lot of crashes. \nBoardroom SX80: So those numbers are in your packet\, I would have to go back and look at the actual number of incidents over a period of time. I don’t have that\, you know\, on top of my head. It seems that’s useful. And and how much\, then that’s a questionnaire. And to come back to us\, how much. \nBoardroom SX80: how many days was that? And how much did it actually affect congestion\, or how much did it affect delay? Right? \nBoardroom SX80: We don’t have that\, really. Thanks. Those are some questions about \nBoardroom SX80: speaking of. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks. couple of of additional questions. The first is very much along that same line. I have struggled when I was looking at those graphics to look at number of incidents per 1 million miles traveled. I have no idea what that translates to in terms of real world number of incidents. \nBoardroom SX80: How they’re distributed\, do they? All we do. They happen at different times a day. If you’re considering\, varying the the the use of that shoulder that distribution might matter. So we don’t need those answers now\, but as we think about about moving forward as you folks are preparing to come back to us really help if those numbers came back to us in numbers that we could understand. \nBoardroom SX80: A couple of other questions\, I mean it it just in general\, we’re not I. I share Commissioner Joy’s questions and concern about this\, you know\, not not seeing this as sort of a one way step toward a transit line. We haven’t made that decision yet\, and you’re not proposing. We make that decision yet. But the debate here really is about \nBoardroom SX80: emergency. The the trade-off is really not about traffic. It’s about emergency use of that lane compared to at least it’s it’s emergency related traffic congestion related to the current bicycle use. Right? That’s the trade-off we’re talking about. \nBoardroom SX80: So I just wanna make sure we’re all clear about that. And and one of the things. Just with that in mind. I was trying to understand. \nBoardroom SX80: You said that the volume of traffic today is about 90% of the Pre covid levels. But the congestion level is pretty similar\, or maybe a little bit worse than Pre covid. Can you help us understand why that is\, I would expect the congestion to be \nBoardroom SX80: lower a little bit lower\, I mean\, I think that’s that’s one of the questions. So I would say it’s comparable. I wouldn’t say it’s a little bit worse\, I would say. It’s really very comparable. It’s a little different in shape\, but it’s really pretty comparable. And I think you know that is a good question. And I’m not sure we have a great answer for it. There is \nBoardroom SX80: you know. Still\, you know\, a lot of the congestion really has to do with that toll plaza and the fact it winds out and it comes back down. You’ve got a merge in the back. So that’s one of the considerations the path study did find. I didn’t highlight it because I don’t think it’s \nBoardroom SX80: necessarily central to to the discussion today. But the Path study did find that there’s a slight decrease in capacity on the bridge with the barrier in place\, and that\, I think\, has to do. It may have to do with how the cars are moving across the bridge. They may be a little slower right next to the barrier. That may be more in\, you know\, choosing more to be in the left lane\, because they don’t want to be next to the barrier. \nBoardroom SX80: But but what we found is that really\, you know\, it hasn’t really dramatically\, it hasn’t dramatically affected the performance on the \nBoardroom SX80: traffic across the bridge. It’s it’s sort of \nBoardroom SX80: hiding in the background there. But it\, you know. Could it be something with traffic? We don’t know. Now\, if this is a new normal\, we also don’t know that right? If traffic were to grow back\, could it be a consideration? Could it make the backup worse? You know? Maybe it could. But that’s also very hard to test in real real life\, when traffic is low\, couple of other questions that it’d be helpful \nBoardroom SX80: if you could provide us more information when you come back\, and I suspect we’re going to be hearing about some of this from the public. The \nBoardroom SX80: documents indicate that the Richmond Center fell. Bridge is the second most popular bridge for bicycle transit compared to the Bay Bridge. Be good to have those numbers as well. That that bridge\, that that connection doesn’t go all the way across currently\, but that those would be good numbers to see. I’d also be really interested. And I I’d be interested in members of the public. Talking about this as well is\, is to what extent\, if any\, is the low use on the bridge \nBoardroom SX80: are related to connections on either end. I wasn’t quite sure\, Larry\, you were talking about the the connection on the wet on the west end of the bridge\, and I wasn’t sure whether that was really affecting bicycle use in a significant way that might have an impact on use. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s just a question for everybody about to the extent\, to what extent\, if any\, is the use being frankly lower than I would have expected\, especially during the weekdays related to access \nBoardroom SX80: off of the bridge. And the last question is\, if we’re considering going back to a shuttle\, it’d be helpful to hear from the members of the public and it’ll help to see the numbers. Staff just said that that was cancelled because of a lack of \nBoardroom SX80: public support. \nBoardroom SX80: Was that \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, that could have been unreliability of the shuttle. It could be the fact that members of the public are much more enthusiastic about traveling across the bridge by bicycle rather than in the back of a van. \nBoardroom SX80: but those would be good numbers to have before us as well. \nBoardroom SX80: And I think that’s it. Thank you through the chair. If you would like you to respond to any of those like\, I can tackle them now\, or I could. I could hold\, and we could do\, unless you think there’s something very specific. I think most of them are intended as guidance for what comes back to us. Certainly. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you\, Commissioner Gunther. \nBoardroom SX80: just to follow up briefly\, I think that \nBoardroom SX80: the discussion seems to be \nBoardroom SX80: centering around the need \nBoardroom SX80: for benchmarks to better analyse the quantitative information that you’re giving us. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, for example. \nBoardroom SX80: there’s 500 people \nBoardroom SX80: each weekend on the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Is that a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: or is it not a lot did we project \nBoardroom SX80: in 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: 16\, what it would be \nBoardroom SX80: and that that kind of of of benchmarking would help us interpret right? So 14 to 17 min saved eastbound. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m getting the impression. That’s a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: compared to what I think that that would be really helping and just a couple of things like that. Number of incidents\, you know\, is\, are there incidents in the pedestrian bike lane \nBoardroom SX80: there for that week? \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, okay\, it’s very\, very small\, if there were any at all. \nBoardroom SX80: would reducing the speed on the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: reduce the number of incidents. \nBoardroom SX80: Saggy \nBoardroom SX80: Joe\, would you like me to respond now? Something. I’m happy to take your guidance. I know you have other business to. Take care I would take these as as guidance for the information. That’s all\, that’s all that’s all they’re meant for. Thank you. So I think that that I know that sometimes \nBoardroom SX80: it feels like you’re pulling something out of thin air\, but in terms of interacting then with the greater public. As I\, I was responsible for using scientific information to decide. If the bay is healthy. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, is it? How do you do that? There’s no heathometer you put into it right? You have to come up with this a sense of what’s good\, and and it would be great whatever you decide to do\, and whatever we all agree to do\, going forward to have some \nBoardroom SX80: goals\, some kind of benchmarks out there. We think this is going to reduce the number of incidents by whatever. And then let’s see what happens. And at least we can get a sense from that of of of what these statistics mean. And and again\, I’m gonna reiterate \nBoardroom SX80: there’s no right answer to this right. But your expert judgment. \nBoardroom SX80: informed by everybody else’s helps. Kind of guide the discussion in the future. Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I just have some clarifying questions\, because I have not been as involved in this project as a lot of others have been. But so what you’re saying is that the lower deck\, which goes eastbound \nBoardroom SX80: the bike lane will remain \nBoardroom SX80: on the lower deck. There’s a part time\, Traffic Lane. It’s not. The lower deck is a vehicle line lane\, 2 to 7 Pm. Or part. So it’s not a bike lane. It is not a bike lane. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: that that is correct. Okay\, so the bike Lane pedestrian. It’s only on the upper deck. That’s correct. Yes\, okay\, that’s a very important clarification. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: you’re looking at doing the upper deck. \nBoardroom SX80: which is westbound. You would like to try to convert that to an h of transit lane. \nBoardroom SX80: during the week. \nBoardroom SX80: and then on the weekends. Use that lane as the Bike Lane pedestrian Lane correct. There’s a series of things over time\, right? And and we’re a little more spread out. So the immediate \nBoardroom SX80: the immediate. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s not an ask yet\, because we still have to get authority\, but the immediate proposal is to extend the pilot to on the upper deck\, restore a shoulder on the weekdays and have the path. Retain the path on the weekends. We are in parallel with that\, and we would seek to get \nBoardroom SX80: a permit to do that very soon\, and you know\, perhaps have that in place ideally before the end of this year. In parallel with that\, we are doing analysis studies first feasibility\, sort of analysis\, and then perhaps an environmental review that would look at using that shoulder as a bus\, or HOV. Bus an HOV. Lane. \nBoardroom SX80: But that is a separate analysis. We would. We would not be able to come before the Commission with that for several years\, because it needs a full environmental review. So I guess I share some of the concern about how you’re gonna be able to compare different pilots. And since this proposal is substantially different than the pilot that has been occurring over the last few years. \nBoardroom SX80: So I share that very much. So help me to understand the public opposition. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s with the \nBoardroom SX80: upper deck. \nBoardroom SX80: Correct. That’s correct. Okay\, and it’s the opposition to retaining it as a bike and pedestrian \nBoardroom SX80: path. I’m gonna give her a lifesaver. But we’re gonna hear from the public. Okay\, I’d rather hear from the public than than have the calculation. Okay\, I’m speaking\, I guess\, for myself and others that may not have been involved in this\, and from the beginning it’d be helpful \nBoardroom SX80: to have. This is where we were. This is what we did\, and this is what we’re proposing\, and I sort of come in like this in midstream. \nBoardroom SX80: And you know I just hear a lot of controversy. But I don’t know what the controversy is \nBoardroom SX80: is about in particular. \nBoardroom SX80: And so you stated\, this congestion is triggered by the toll plaza. \nBoardroom SX80: Has Cal trans. Ever looked at what they could do\, and you probably have what you could do to the toll closet to \nBoardroom SX80: minimize\, if not eliminate. \nBoardroom SX80: that congestion \nBoardroom SX80: again. Sort of\, and maybe that maybe that has to be at a separate hour later. Okay\, so if you can explain that later\, that’s fine. Just some of these basics. \nBoardroom SX80: why is it that the bridge is more popular with bike and pedestrian? That’s a good question. \nBoardroom SX80: Because the Golden Gate Bridge is pretty popular so. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’d be interesting to have some of the other statistics\, too\, so we can compare them. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I have some other ideas of what I would like to see. But I think we’ve got a long way to go. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I guess this is sort of an observation. Having been part of this conversation we had. Was it 2\,016 that I remember very well at the time? And it goes to\, I think\, 2 questions. It’s the the optimal or most appropriate use of the space that is currently used as the Viking pedestrian lane as opposed to alternative uses. And I remember when this first came up. \nBoardroom SX80: there was understandably a lot of advocacy by the bicycle community\, and then Abag said\, It’s gonna complete the bay trail\, which is great. But I \nBoardroom SX80: I registered a fundamental concern at that time. This is years ago\, now that this was coming to us in the complete absence of any kind of data whatsoever. \nBoardroom SX80: and some folks said\, well\, you know\, bikes are so successful on on the Golden Gate Bridge\, come on the Golden Gate Bridge and to the Presidio in San Francisco\, and at the other end is in Sausalito. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s a major tourist destination scenic\, and I don’t think any of us would call the Bay bridge scenic\, rather the the Sandbridge scenic\, and there’s very little at either end immediately that would draw people as destinations. So you got a little pretty far away to get anywhere that’s really going to folks. A marine and Contra Costa may disagree with that. You. \nBoardroom SX80: I live in Marin County. Thank you very much\, and I ride my bike. Oh\, hundreds of miles. So anyway\, I’m a biker\, too\, so I totally get it. But I guess this goes to the question. One is\, I might use different terminology than you did\, that the upper deck bath is quite well used. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m not sure I would say that 140 bikes a day is quite well used\, it compared to the other traffic\, so I would probably use different language. But I I think the kind of. I think we have the key data that we need\, which is the number of bikes and pedestrians on the bridge during commute hours and and non-commute hours. \nBoardroom SX80: What I think would be useful \nBoardroom SX80: again when you said that the Santa Fe Bridge has the the number 2 most popular bridge for bikes after the Bay Bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, it’d be great to see what is the Pat? How many bikes to use the Bay Bridge? \nBoardroom SX80: How many bikes use other California bridges in the region\, and how many use the Golden Gate Bridge. So if we see the data Golden Gate Bridge \nBoardroom SX80: Bay Bridge\, Santa Vale Bridge\, San Mateo Bridge\, any other bridges. I think that’s the data\, I think\, telling us it’s number 2 doesn’t tell us very much at all. So anyway\, I’m I’m glad we’re having this conversation. I’m glad we have the data. \nBoardroom SX80: We could use a little bit more\, and I think anything else that you can share with us that would help us understand the \nBoardroom SX80: the benefits of \nBoardroom SX80: the shoulder that would get us\, maybe eventually\, if we go there someday to the age of Elaine. I know that’s not this permit. \nBoardroom SX80: Request! But I think anything to understand \nBoardroom SX80: the benefits of further of the of the getting the shoulder back would be very helpful. I’d love to see the data on all the bridges \nBoardroom SX80: and just to complicate it a little bit more. \nBoardroom SX80: I’d like to see data on other well used bicycle paths\, commuter and recreational\, not just limited to bridges. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. As the Commissioner\, along with our previous Commissioner on in Marin County\, so I have some follow-up questions about the safety issues that you raised. \nBoardroom SX80: Because I I wanna understand\, we talked about the accident rates. But actually\, the impacts of accidents go to everybody else on the bridge at the time that it happens and backed up. And so I wonder if you could come back with us? You mentioned that \nBoardroom SX80: minutes of delay on the bridge\, due to incidents\, have 4 times the impact. And so I’d like to understand that better 4 times the impact of what and to whom? \nBoardroom SX80: Because we are hearing from teachers and healthcare workers who need to be to work on time\, that they’re coming across the bridge one and 2 h early. Now. \nBoardroom SX80: to offset the potential of an incident\, they need to be at their jobs on time. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’d like some better understanding of these impacts of 5 incidents may happen\, and they may affect 50\,000 people. \nBoardroom SX80: Similarly\, I wonder if you could come back to us with on your heat maps. You showed a longer period of delay in the commute in the morning\, a more lengthy period of commute time that had increased over 20 the pre covid times. \nBoardroom SX80: And if there’s any way to explain what is happening\, there are there more. You said that the total volume of traffic has not changed\, but the time duration of congestion is longer now. And so if it’s possible to understand that \nBoardroom SX80: and a related question is\, are you able to use Enrique’s data or other data to track commuters going over the bridge both by bike and by car in the morning. I know that we have origins and destination information about \nBoardroom SX80: auto commuters\, and and we know where they go. Part to Sonoma County\, part to Moran. Be good to get an update on that. \nBoardroom SX80: but also the bicycle commuters. Because I’m I’m quite certain we have a cadre of bicycle commuters who use it during the week. \nBoardroom SX80: But if if it would be possible to determine. Are these repeat users \nBoardroom SX80: going over? And of the 140 something or other each week? How many are repeaters that would just be helpful to understand. \nBoardroom SX80: then I’d also\, I agree the usership on Golden Gate Bridge would be interesting to know. \nBoardroom SX80: I can say chair Wasserman. Incidentally\, that we have some 3\,000 riders over a weekend on the North Sausalito to Mill Valley Path. \nBoardroom SX80: So we have 3\,000 riders a weekend\, which is quite different. So it’d be useful to get some comparative data on all that. \nBoardroom SX80: I think that’s my questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I I would just say\, I realize we do have a serious trade off discussion of a constrained bridge. It would be nice if it was a new bridge\, and we could outfit it with bike lanes in both directions. But we we have what we have. We have to figure it out. So thank you. Those are my questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Down to my right. I see no light\, so I’m going to go to Commissioner Kashimoto. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Okay. Yeah\, thank you very much. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I have. I do have 5 or 6 questions. So \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: one is kind of goes back to history. But I’m just curious. Why\, that original. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I mean\, why do we have a part time? Vehicle laying added on the \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: heading\, heading West versus East\, I mean. And \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and why was that decision made? I guess I just curious about that. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: second is \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I I read that I can’t deliver bike and pedestrian facility was contemplated at 1 point\, and I’d be curious to \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: here how much research was done. And is that a possibility? \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I also had questions about the incidents per day. So that’s that and and then regarding transit. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: So so I actually\, I have to confess I don’t even know if there are any buses crossing the bridge today. So that’s kind of a basic question. There are okay. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: And \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and is there discuss\, is there? This contemplation of HIV buses \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: or even other demand side strategies? I mean\, it might be increasing\, increasing the tolls and using\, you know\, the greater revenues\, for\, you know\, improving\, improving transit and and related to that the the the supervisor just just mentioned\, the Origin destination studies. And and I imagine that \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: that’s that. If they were\, I’m sure there were studies done at that point\, I’d I’d be carrying kind of curious to know\, you know. Quick\, some summary of that about where the you know 70\,000 vehicles are going per day. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: And does it actually\, without\, you know\, without that it’s kind of hard\, hard to make suggestions on on what would be the most effective. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: yeah\, alternative transportation. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Let me see? Let me see\, I I guess alternatives for cyclists who want to cross the bay. I guess I you know I don’t know what has changed since that last look. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and and then there was some discussion about the land side by connections and it wasn’t clear to me they’re still under construction. So if they are\, when are they due to be done? And \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: if so\, it does seem unfair that we’re kind of looking at this with without lands\, by connections not being completed. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Let me see if there I think was\, and I and I suppose the last one I’ll throw out is\, you know it. It just kind of\, I mean\, if we are looking for some combination of emergency shoulder room for disabled vehicles. Is there some way to combine it with. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: you know\, kind of narrowed lanes\, and some places for either pedestrians or bicyclists who might have to dismount to pass. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: That was that might. That might be a crazy idea\, but wanted to throw that out there. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Okay. And I think that’s that’s those are most of my questions. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Through the chair. If if I may make one clarification\, the improvements on the Marin side and the Contra Costa County side. Those are largely complete the access improvements. There is some additional work we’re doing on Marin that is\, under construction now\, but we have really completed on the Richmond side \nBoardroom SX80: those path improvements to access are complete\, and there have been substantial improvements completed already on the marine site as well. So I just want to clarify that because it’s come up a couple of times. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any other. \nBoardroom SX80: so we will now go to public speakers. We’re going to start with speakers in the room. \nBoardroom SX80: You have \nBoardroom SX80: 2 min\, and please try very hard not to be repetitive. \nBoardroom SX80: Bruce Baird\, and coming up behind Bruce is Rosemary Corbin. \nBoardroom SX80: There was some\, and there’s a Commission \nBoardroom SX80: Action Committee \nBoardroom SX80: and a member of the San Francisco Bay Trail Project Board of Directors. The Richmond Sandra Fell Bridge trail is a key section. \nBoardroom SX80: the multi-use San Francisco Bay Trail. \nBoardroom SX80: It should stay open 365 days per year. \nBoardroom SX80: Cyclists\, pedestrians\, joggers have enjoyed about 380\,000 trips across this bridge. This opened in November 2019. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s no justification for shutting it down 4 days a week in order to provide a vehicle. Breakdown Lane. \nBoardroom SX80: page 7 of the Caltrans Battle report in your agenda package states\, and I quote a relatively small number of incidents have occurred on the upper deck of the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: There have been a relatively small number of incidents. Why shut down the trail for a breakdown lane? \nBoardroom SX80: My wife and I were driving across the bridge a couple of weeks ago\, and there was a car broken down with a flat tire in the left lane. \nBoardroom SX80: So what I’d like to suggest\, and some of the Board members have alluded this in their discussion today is that rather than moving ahead now\, and I’m talking to both. Cal. Transat also with shutting down the trail. 4 days a week provide a baked breakdown lane. We should wait for completion of the Richmond Santor bridge forward program. The data is carrying out now \nBoardroom SX80: the major problems\, the breakdown of delays in the bridge are the approaches. The rsa. 4 forward program will make major improvements to the Richmond Parkway Interchange approach to the bridge. It will eliminate as discussed earlier and eliminate the coal Plaza area. Going to open road tolling. It’ll extend the Hov Lane from Ricotta Boulevard to the bridge approach. It’ll make a huge difference in the traffic flow situation. \nBoardroom SX80: and at that time you’ll then have a new baseline\, and that would be the time to look at the options that are being considered closing the trail to provide a breakdown Lane\, or provide an HOV. Lane\, or whatever ideas might come up. It’s premature now\, thank you for your public comments. Your time is now complete. Thank you. Thank you\, sir. \nBoardroom SX80: Rosemary Corbin\, followed by Tom Lent \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Wasserman and Commissioners. I’m Rosemary Corbin and I used to be a Bcdc. Commissioner and voted when we approved the recommendation to have a bay trail on the Richmond center. So here I am again\, and I am now the chair pro tem. Of the San Francisco Bay Trail Committee. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’m here to tell you. I think you all received copies of our resolution. We passed a resolution last Friday in opposition to closing the Bay trail. Across the Richmond Centre fell Bridge. 4 days a week. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: for many reasons the Bay trail is loved. Thousands of people around the bay\, and the Commission has been supportive of it\, and the goal of the bay trail is to ring the bay\, and you can’t ring the bay if you don’t go across bridges. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I think we need to think about where the cause is. The congestion was there before the bay trail\, and it will be there after the bay trail. The congestion is caused by the fact that Marin County and cities don’t allow for the building of affordable housing for the people who work there. So they have to live in the East Bay\, and they cross the bridge every morning and then back at night. \nBoardroom SX80: So please keep that in mind\, and don’t make the bay trail a scapegoat. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Tom Lent\, followed by Robert. Prince \nBoardroom SX80: did it on both of the last 2 speakers. I would also suggest that you don’t really have the data you think you have yet a lot has changed. I’m Tom Lead. I come before you today as a user of the of the pathway. I live in. Berkeley\, and I use the bridge for both business purposes to attend meetings in Marin and San Francisco\, and for recreation access to a variety of locations in Marin. \nBoardroom SX80: and I come also to give a voice to another group of San Francisco commuters from Berkeley\, who I ride with regularly\, who cannot attend a Work day meeting. I’m also the Ebay Project Coordinator for a walk by Berkeley\, and this is 1 one change that is not captured in the data. Ebikes are a game changer for the practicality\, the time\, practicality of crossing that bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: I know this because I’ve tested it myself against Google against Google Crossing Times. And I don’t mean just the bridge. I mean\, going from \nBoardroom SX80: from places where people live in Richmond to places where people work in San Rafael\, and an ebay makes this practical\, and Ebikes are just taking off now\, so we don’t have a lot of data for how people with Ebikes would use this bridge. We also don’t have data for how people will use the bridge with the improvements in the access. You previously had to ride on an expressway to get on and off of this bridge\, rather intimidating \nBoardroom SX80: to a lot of people understandably. And now we have a different situation with access to the bridge\, a few more improvements still to come\, but much already there we should be looking at how it’s used now with the current conditions\, not looking back at the previous 4 years\, when it was constrained\, and when people had different technologies for crossing. It’s a really important link \nBoardroom SX80: in our transportation infrastructure that were just beginning to be understood and utilized. Don’t chop it off now. It will be a major step backwards for the Bay trail\, for active\, active transportation commuters and recreation\, and for the residents of Richmond\, who will breathe the the air in the particular matter that increased vehicle Miles traveled will put into their lungs. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re feeling your public comment. Time is now completed. Okay\, I’ve got it. I got answers on that bus that I’ll hold. Thank you. So hope someone else will pick that one up. Thank you\, Robert Prince\, followed by Sarah Benjamin. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello\, commissioners. Thank you for receiving my comment and happy bike month. I’m Robert Prince\, obviously director of Bikies Bay nonprofit\, representing contra costs in Elmia County since 1972 back\, when we were called East Bay Bike Coalition and wearing my Uvc. Hoodie today\, shortly after the Bcdc. Was formed in the late 60 S. And I mentioned that because Bikes Bay was formed as an organization\, one of the primary goals of our organization was bike access across bridges connecting between the East Bay and other regions. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re at 6 and a half bridges right now\, with bike access. We’re working on that seventh half across the West Band Bay bridge\, but we’ve never gone backwards. So I want to really stress how historic and serious this proposal is to actually go backwards for the first time ever on these connections. Yesterday our organization submitted a coalition letter to this body in support of keeping the trail open to people by king walking and rolling at all hours\, 24\, 7. \nBoardroom SX80: At the time there were 57 local\, state and national organizations that signed onto that letter focused on issues of active transportation\, sustainability environment. One of those was\, Save the Bay\, an organization that was out also foundational in the forming of Bcdc. Back in the 60 S. I’m pleased to say that since then\, even just yesterday\, more organizations have signed on a new total of at least 65 groups. There’s a huge groundswell of interest in this topic. \nBoardroom SX80: One of the purposes of converting the pathway to breakdown shoulder mentioned by Staff is the need for more experience. I’d like to remind folks here that we do have 37 years of experience with the bridge\, with a breakdown shoulder from 1 82\, when the pipeline was removed all the way up until 19. \nBoardroom SX80: So far we only have 4 years of data with the bridge with a pathway on it. So if anything\, I would encourage us to leave the pathway for there for longer\, to have even more data about how the operations are handled with the current conditions. We can compare it against that 37 years prior. \nBoardroom SX80: So also primary responsibility\, Bcdc is to maximize feasible public access to the shoreline. So closing the bridge trail 4 days a week will affect that access negatively to significant degree. I encourage you to center this in your future decision making on the issue. Thank you. Thank you\, Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Sarah Benjamin\, followed by Peter Gwynn. \nBoardroom SX80: Peter\, come on up. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks. Like you mentioned. My name is Peter Gwynn. I’m a Berkeley resident who works in San Francisco pretty close by. Actually\, I have 2 young kids\, ages 2 and 5\, and I oppose the proposed path\, closure and support\, keeping it open. 24\, 7. \nBoardroom SX80: I first rode over the bridge back in December 2019\, to commute to my office in San Francisco via Marin. It was a beautiful way to start the day\, and I look forward to doing it more frequently. Then the pandemic hit. Like many folks during Covid\, I struggled to maintain my mental and physical health. In early 2021 I put on additional weight on top of an already unhealthy baseline. The new change was necessary. Starting a decade earlier\, I had a passion for cycling\, and renewed my interest as a way to improve my health. \nBoardroom SX80: With exercise and lifestyle changes\, I was able to drop 30 pounds\, felt better\, forever\, better than ever. Excuse me. Once Covid started to subside\, and I was expected to return to the office. Like many parents of young kids\, I faced a challenge\, trying to continue to incorporate exercise into my day\, but I was committed to find a way. My solution was to repurpose my commute into a workout\, and the key to enabling this was weekday access. The rsr. Bridge! \nBoardroom SX80: Since summer 2022\, nearly every week I’ve ridden risen early and rid my bike from Berkeley to downtown San Francisco to Marin County. It’s something I look forward to every week\, and has markedly improved my physical and mental health\, watching the sun break over Mount Tam commuting and in the fresh air beats being on elliptical machine. Any day. When I heard the pilot period was ending\, it was natural to expect that there would be a well informed discussion of what to do with the path. I think I’ve seen that here today with the committee. So thank you for that. \nBoardroom SX80: But the news that we’re going to return it to a breakdown shoulder as opposed to addressing some of the root causes of the congestion caught me totally by surprise\, and honestly\, it was a little dramatic for me\, but I was kind of depressed to hear that I might lose access to something that made my week so enjoyable. \nBoardroom SX80: I get that no one likes traffic\, however\, making a change like this\, in order to appease motorists\, who are\, you know\, seemingly angered by the mere sight of the path without solving the the root causes of traffic. Congestion seems like a step in the wrong direction. So I’d urge the Board to consider some other options\, maybe\, in timing and sequencing instead of shutting down the the bypass. Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Jackson Lester\, followed by \nBoardroom SX80: Terrell Calloway. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi! My name is Jackson Lester\, and I’m a resident of Oakland. \nBoardroom SX80: So about 10 years ago I had a transportation epiphany that you couldn’t exist in the society that I grew up in in Lexington\, Kentucky\, without a car\, and that led me to a career in transportation from a master’s in transportation engineering to working as a planner for a transit agency \nBoardroom SX80: to moving here to work in the transit tech space. And one of the things that I love the most about living in the Bay area is the diversity of transportation options. It’s the first place I’ve lived in America where I feel like I can live a full life without having to drive everywhere. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’ve ridden the bridge more than 40 times since it opened in 2019. It made moving to the East Bay feel like a viable option when I moved there in 2020\, because I still had access to Marin into the city by bike and this nascent connective tissue that we’ve recently grown. It would be a tragedy to sever it\, and. \nBoardroom SX80: as I see it\, this is a trade-off between short-term resiliency of travel time\, where\, you know when a vehicle breaks down or gets a flat\, making the travel time more consistent versus the long-term resiliency of our entire region in terms of allowing us to have multiple transportation options\, because across the US. And particularly California\, we have \nBoardroom SX80: hyper focus on the car as the serious way of getting around and everything else is secondary. And that’s apparent in talking about this path being only an option during weekends\, and when it’s inconvenient kind of. But if we want to have a more resilient transportation system into the future\, then we need to facilitate more real alternatives to driving everywhere. \nBoardroom SX80: And so I ask you to please consider long-term resiliency and not just day of resiliency when an incident happens. Thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Terrell Calloway\, followed by Charlotte \nBoardroom SX80: Duruso. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, Commissioners. I’m Terry Callaway. I’m the executive director for Marine County Bicycle coalition\, and I’m also the vice mayor for the lovely town of San Anselmo\, in Marine County. I’m here today to urge you to keep the Richmond San Rafael Bridge open to people who walk in bike 24\, 7 \nBoardroom SX80: in 2\,019. When the pathway opened\, I spoke at the ribbon cutting\, cutting ceremony. On that day hundreds of people\, including many in this room\, were there\, and we spoke about moving\, moving our region forward into the future. We spoke about our commitment to moving away from fossil fuels and and improved access to mobility. On both sides of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: We talked about people from the East Bay having car free access to trails and beaches and marin\, and we also welcomed increased connectivity and relations between our communities which hasn’t always been the case. Many of us who are committed to a less car dependent lifestyle\, including my organization’s planning and policy director\, who\, many of you know. \nBoardroom SX80: took jobs across the bridge in hopes that they would be able to ride to work in the days since Mtc. Announced it would recommend closing the trail certain days a week. We’ve heard from hundreds of people who use the trail to access work in play. Aiden is just one of them. He volunteers at the San at San Quentin on Wednesday evenings\, and he uses the bridge to get there. He’s committed to a car-free lifestyle until we can \nBoardroom SX80: the climate emergency. And this would take that away from him and the people that he helps at \nBoardroom SX80: the prison. Curtailing. This path is a step in the wrong direction for our transportation system. It would roll back more bay trail. Miles in one fell swoop than have been committed in the last 6 years combined. I ask you to do the brave and right thing. Thank you. Thank you\, Charlotte Durusso\, followed by \nBoardroom SX80: Colleen Monaghan. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, thank you for listening. And I want to mention that so this path is very an essential and unique connection in the Bay area. How else do you cross from the East Bay to San Rafael? So I think this path should be open to all kinds of transportation mode\, especially the ones that we know are the most sustainable for our society. \nBoardroom SX80: We need to allow alternatives to cars. \nBoardroom SX80: Why only let people cross this bridge and do this essential connection by using an individual private car. \nBoardroom SX80: I think just to bounce on the study that we heard today. \nBoardroom SX80: This study is analysing little data\, and I think it’s not very conclusive. And\, on the other hand\, I think we still have enough data to conclude\, because many other studies have been conducted on this topic. This is a very classic topic of \nBoardroom SX80: the car use\, especially in urban areas. If we look at other metrics more relevant\, for example\, how many people can we get through the bridge per hour? \nBoardroom SX80: Which mode of transportation\, do you think is the most efficient to get as many people across the bridge as possible per hour. \nBoardroom SX80: a car or a bicycle. If you compare these 2\, we already have numbers. We know \nBoardroom SX80: that the space used by cars creates congestion which diminishes a lot the number of cars you can get through the bridge per hour. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is to mention that there’s more the bigger problem associated to this issue. We know and has been mentioned by other members of the public. \nBoardroom SX80: Just the car. The relies on cars in the city has limited a lot of our options and makes this whole city and friendly for people that want to use alternate modes of transportation. So this is about a human right public comment. Your time is now done. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Colleen Monaghan\, followed by dress wedding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon. Everybody knows \nBoardroom SX80: my name is Colleen Monihan. I live in Berkeley\, and I commute by bike over the Richmond San Rafael Bridge to and from my work in San Francisco. \nBoardroom SX80: My access to these bike paths is part of the reason why I live in the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: The bike pedestrian path is a critical part of the bay trail\, as has already been discussed and eliminating\, it will destroy equitable access to huge swaths of the coastline. \nBoardroom SX80: It is your Commission’s responsibility to protect that access\, and I urge you to take that responsibility seriously. \nBoardroom SX80: It feels important to note all of the people that I see on the bridge every evening. \nBoardroom SX80: I see little kids on mountain bikes. I see elders on Ebikes tourists. I see commuters and families. \nBoardroom SX80: The bike in the pedestrian path is used by everyone and should remain open and accessible to everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Mtc’s proposal would eliminate equitable access to the Bay trail\, and it would be a regressive move to prioritize transportation choices that are actively driving climate change. \nBoardroom SX80: The congestion on the bridge is not the result of the bike path\, and it will remain if you approve the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: The congestion on the bridge is because the people who work in Marin County and in the city and county of San Francisco cannot afford to live there. \nBoardroom SX80: This is the result of decades of exclusionary housing and land use policies and eliminating weekday access to the bike path will not fix that. \nBoardroom SX80: All people should have access to the coastline\, and all people should have access to safe\, consistent\, and sustainable modes of transportation. \nBoardroom SX80: and I urge you to act in alignment with the very mission of your commission. \nBoardroom SX80: The proposal is not responsible\, it is not productive\, and it is not equitable\, and I urge you to deny the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Dress wedding\, followed by Brian Culbertson. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioners my name is Brian Culbertson. \nBoardroom SX80: I work on art installations in Richmond. One of them\, Lava Trolla\, is installed in point San Pablo\, just off the Bay Bridge trail near the Richmond Bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: I biked law. Victroolla passed the Chevron refinery. So I want to talk to you about the air quality issues in Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: Refinery is the largest sole emitter of greenhouse gas emissions on the West Coast\, and the largest polluter in Richmond by far air quality studies show that chevron is the number one culprit causing air quality issues in Richmond\, followed by Philip 66\, and then the landfill. \nBoardroom SX80: It is crucial that we lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in Richmond. To do that\, we should follow the direction of air quality experts whose study recommends electrifying and industrial truck fleets like chevron\, because industrial trucks are the top source of vehicle emissions in Richmond \nBoardroom SX80: and expanding public transportation to reduce the number of vehicles over the bridge that releases tire and road particulates the current. Bus comes less than once an hour only operates until 10 PM. Has space for 2 bikes\, and many do not fit ebikes. It is not a viable option as a replacement\, for this path \nBoardroom SX80: removing the pathway would at best make air quality worse in the bay. Instead\, let’s deploy proven solutions to improve air\, quality and improve congestion in Richmond and direct chevron to electrify their trucks instead of getting rid of this pathway. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Kyle Brundle\, followed by Danny Lannis. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we will go to Virtual. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello! My name’s Kyle Brunel. Thank you for letting me speak today. I just want you a little bit of my personal experience with the Bike lane. I’m a long-time East Bay resident \nBoardroom SX80: long-time homeowner in El Cerrito. I make frequent use of the Bay Bridge. I’ve been across there about 400 times across the rich from Santa Fe bridge by bike. That’s 400 automobile trips I didn’t take because I was able to ride my bike across there. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m here obviously to urge you to \nBoardroom SX80: keep the bridge open. 24\, 7 for bicycle and pedestrian and jogger use. \nBoardroom SX80: Tom. \nBoardroom SX80: as a longtime resident. I’ve waited over 30 years for \nBoardroom SX80: access from the East Bay tumor in without having to climb into my car and the opening of this bay trail finally. \nBoardroom SX80: provided that I’m disappointed to hear that that that’s potentially in jeopardy now. So \nBoardroom SX80: and this would again force myself and anyone else who wants to go between the East Bay and Marin to climb back in our cars and to add another car to the road. \nBoardroom SX80: Hum! \nBoardroom SX80: One thing I want to know\, I’ve since this has \nBoardroom SX80: become a discussion again. I’ve I’ve started making a personal observation to look at cars as I’m heading eastbound on the bridge and look at cars heading westbound and looking in a windshield. I notice that 95% of them are single occupant vehicles. And I think \nBoardroom SX80: if we are going to do anything about congestion\, we possibly need to do something about urging people to \nBoardroom SX80: not drive their own car to somehow \nBoardroom SX80: get better usage of these available space on a bridge than just single occupant vehicles. \nBoardroom SX80: I also think that if there are that many incidents on the bridge\, perhaps the traffic speed is too fast\, and it should be lowered to accommodate the lowest common denominator of driver skills that are using the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: I see a lot of time. Thank you. Thank you\, Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Danny Lannis. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Daniel\, Resident of Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to mention that this past Monday\, April thirtieth\, the city of Richmond\, passed a resolution in support of 24\, 7. Access to the Richmond from Raphael Bridge Trail. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks to Council\, Member Dorie Robinson and Mayor Eduardo Martinez\, who co-sponsored the resolution \nBoardroom SX80: Sean and all Commissioners I’ve led dozens of rides\, including the Richmond Summerfield Trail. I would love to invite you to go on a ride with me and show you how fantastic of an experience it is \nBoardroom SX80: I have some others have mentioned\, gone through the bridge to \nBoardroom SX80: for mental health\, especially during Covid\, and partially thanks to that\, I’m here. \nBoardroom SX80: I won’t need to also show you this picture of my daughter being one of the first trailer bike bikes to cross through the original bridge trail. When she was about 5\, 6 years old. \nBoardroom SX80: and the whole poster here depicts her\, and it tells you that she is invited and actually leading. 2 years later she was invited to lead a ride with a community organization called Re City Rise\, that is\, empowering her and brought community together through bikes. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition to that I would like to point out that the data is very important. But the world shaped the Bay Area Bay Area and then \nBoardroom SX80: the Bay Area shaped the world. \nBoardroom SX80: What do? What is the message that we want to send? Where do we want to go? Do we want to increase vehicle miles traveled? \nBoardroom SX80: Are we increasing public access to the bay and the shoreline? \nBoardroom SX80: That was the question. Thank you so much. Thank you. I do have 2 more speakers\, and then I’m cutting it off for the people\, and you’ve had your opportunity. \nBoardroom SX80: Herb Castillo\, followed by. \nBoardroom SX80: I think it’s Jason Vargas. \nBoardroom SX80: Everybody. I’d like to cede 10 s of this\, for everybody who has passed who has been a part of helping people around the bay mobilize around the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: receding 10 s. \nBoardroom SX80: But there’s Highland. \nBoardroom SX80: I wanna say\, thank you. And I think that we have a lot more tools like Kamu and Strava. And I wanted to come up here because I I did have this ride\, and I grew up in Redwood City and right in the bay lands which almost don’t exist anymore. But most of my experience biking is on those bay trails\, and what I remember is marshes. I remember the birds. I remember being able to bike around and seeing that there’s wilderness around you. And when I think about this room \nBoardroom SX80: there’s a reason that it’s so beautiful \nBoardroom SX80: it changes our minds\, it changes the way that we view our perceptions and that we’re in a \nBoardroom SX80: a \nBoardroom SX80: we’re in a difficult moment for young people across the world. \nBoardroom SX80: What we fail to understand is that the Bay Area could really lead for what is essentially touring. So\, to give you an example of a ride that I do is from Hayward up to Tamales Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: something that I think growing up\, I didn’t imagine was possible\, but having lived in San Francisco around the city. And now\, Oakland\, I get to imagine what the world would look like in a different way. If we really want to address climate change and these rising levels you’re talking about\, we may as well\, just put gondolas all over. Why are we even talking about a side of a bridge? Build a whole lane? We have so much infrastructure. And we’re talking about municipal things. But \nBoardroom SX80: the other thing I wanted to say is\, let’s just get rid of the Bike lane and make it just a private lane for side shows. So instead\, on Saturday nights and Sunday nights\, it could just be used for people to do side shows and fun events. And then that way\, there’d be no bicyclist either. So I just wanted to say\, thanks and \nBoardroom SX80: there’s a potential here to view\, and and I can show you to my heart rate data\, there’s a difference. Thank you. Your time is now complete for public comment. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: James Vargas. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi! My name is neither James nor Vargas. It’s Jason Vargo. Sorry about that good start good afternoon\, Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I came here today to support keeping the bridge path open. 24\, 7 to walking and biking. I live in Albany\, California. I work in San Francisco. I frequently go to Moran. I use the bridge as a motorist and as a cyclist on weekdays and on weekends. \nBoardroom SX80: The multipurpose lane is a necessary accessibility feature on this important regional infrastructure. \nBoardroom SX80: approving the proposal\, takes away the option from some people to use that bridge in the interest of reducing congestion times. \nBoardroom SX80: The proposal to close the path on weekdays restricts access accessibility. And there’s a large body of research that infrastructure with less inclusive design fosters and maintains societal inequities\, including disparate access to jobs\, housing\, and healthy lifestyles. \nBoardroom SX80: preserving multi-use path like this is in the interest of eliminating those inequities\, and that is in line with many of the general plans\, transportation plans\, and economic development plans of the region. Certainly it’s a chief concern of this commission. \nBoardroom SX80: and this is a crucial reason for preserving ubiquitous access to the multipurpose lane as a highly visible and connected piece of the regional transportation network. \nBoardroom SX80: maintaining round the clock accessibility prioritizes public safety\, encourages active lifestyles and supports local economies. It also upholds environmental stewardship. It makes our region more vibrant\, connected\, and liveable for everyone. Again\, I oppose the proposed Weekday Bridge path\, Closure\, and thank you for your time. \nBoardroom SX80: I apologize. \nBoardroom SX80: That did it. There you go. So there\, please start with the virtual speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: and again you have 2 min. If you want your face shown\, we will do that and give you verbal warnings. \nBoardroom SX80: John Spangler\, you’re up first with Roland cats on deck next \nBoardroom SX80: go. \nJon Spangler: Thank you very much. President Wasserman and members of the Commission. First\, I want to thank you \nJon Spangler: because for your advocacy for the Bay\, I grew up in Redwood City. I’m a second generation Nor Northern California\, and I love the bay. \nJon Spangler: and I appreciate everything you do for the bay \nJon Spangler: and the staff as well\, and I want to commend Lisa Klein for her wonderful staff report \nJon Spangler: recently. \nJon Spangler: It may help the rest of us who are commenting to have up the questions that she posed to the Commission. \nJon Spangler: And I wanna add to that in addition to the letter that I signed from the Bart Bike Advisory task force that you have received \nJon Spangler: electronically \nJon Spangler: as to the questions you should be asking. \nJon Spangler: concurrence is not causality. \nJon Spangler: and I believe that the increased incidence of collisions and collisions are the result of deliberate driver choices. \nJon Spangler: whether to drive distracted\, to drive under the influence or to not pay adequate attention to what you’re doing. \nJon Spangler: Collisions \nJon Spangler: have gone up. \nJon Spangler: and my question \nJon Spangler: to the Bata Staff Uc. Berkeley \nJon Spangler: Group and to the Commission is how much of the increase in collisions\, side swipes and rear enders \nJon Spangler: have been as a result of covid-related changes in driver behavior and emotions. \nJon Spangler: This is not mentioned in the staff report\, and I believe that should be covered. \nJon Spangler: and I thank you very much for your time and your efforts. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Roland Katz. \nBoardroom SX80: You are now up with Tomasso. Wanda. \nRoland Katz: Share my share. My video\, please. I’m Raleigh Katz. I’m the executive director of the Marine Association of Public Employees. We’re the union that represents the overwhelming majority of \nRoland Katz: employees of the county of Marin. \nRoland Katz: We have advocated for years that there be a \nRoland Katz: third lane in the rush hour. Westbound as well as eastbound. I understand that’s not before you today\, but we would support the proposal to \nRoland Katz: the lane for 4 days a week. \nRoland Katz: Yes\, affordable housing is a significant cause of the traffic \nRoland Katz: problem. But that’s not going to get solved tomorrow very simply. If there’s a stall or an accident. \nRoland Katz: The bridge without a shoulder. \nRoland Katz: You get one lane or no lanes. Emergency vehicles can’t get there on a shoulder. Cars cannot avoid the accident without a shoulder\, so we think that having a shoulder \nRoland Katz: will improve traffic time and congestion. \nRoland Katz: and very simply put \nRoland Katz: almost all of our members \nRoland Katz: riding a bicycle to work from the East Bay is simply not a viable alternative. \nRoland Katz: Thank you very much. If we build a new bridge\, as Commissioner Peter suggested\, it should have a bike lane. It should have a pedestrian lane and a \nRoland Katz: rail lane\, but we don’t have a new bridge\, so it’s a matter of balancing the competing interest. \nRoland Katz: and there are far more people driving across the bridge than are riding across the bridge. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Tomasso. You’re up next with Kristen Denver on deck. \nTommaso (he/him): Thank you\, guys\, thank you so much for your time. And\, Mr. Mazubaja\, I’m a resident in Oakland. \nTommaso (he/him): I do not own a car. And I don’t need to remind you\, Commissioners\, that your mandate is to expand access to the Bay. \nTommaso (he/him): You’re not the Metropolitan Transportation Transportation commission. You’re not the Bay Area quality district not making commutes maybe 10 min shorter\, based on data that actually would fail. A stats class is not your mandate. This is one of our decisions that in front of you that you need to apply a class angle to the poorer the household\, the least likely they are to have a car available. \nTommaso (he/him): You have the choice now to marginally improve access to cars\, maybe once again based on questionable data\, while severely restricting access to people who do not. This is in direct opposition to your mandate\, as they are but very Development Commission. I’ve enjoyed riding the bridge to visit family and friends in Marin and Sonoma \nTommaso (he/him): and to recreate a China Camp State Park. But I honestly hesitate to do so every single time\, because the noncar infrastructure in Marin is so hostile. I was kind of shocked by the questions from the Marin representative here \nTommaso (he/him): Marin County has been sabotaging this bike lane from Day one\, and the connection between the path and destinations like China Camp\, or even the further connections to the to the North Bay\, like the smart train\, are absolutely terrifying. I would like to encourage the representative on this board to ride that path. It\, like \nTommaso (he/him): it\, was one of the scariest right I’ve done. \nTommaso (he/him): Please do not use your commissions power \nTommaso (he/him): to restrict access to noncarning households. That is essential through this bridge. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Kristen Denver. You’re up next with John Shorba on deck afterwards. \nKristin Denver: Hello! And thank you. First commission. Thank you for your time. I would like to endorse a lot of what rolling cats the Speaker\, 2 speakers ago just said that was very well said. My name is Dr. Kristen Denver\, and I’m here to express my support for the recommendations presented today with regard to keeping the limited availability lane on the bottom deck of the bridge and piloting a part time shoulder during higher commute times during the work week days. \nKristin Denver: My husband and I have lived in Richmond for over 20 years\, and we have both worked in Sonoma County for that long as well. Additionally\, our son attends school in Sonoma County\, so we are an active commuting family\, who crosses the bridge with 2 vehicles daily\, 6 days a week\, often crossing the bridge in both directions twice a day. \nKristin Denver: I’d like to thank the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the other cohorts who are involved for thinking creatively and facilitating changes to the lower deck and allowance. Limited use of the third lane\, because that was an absolute game changer for our family\, often cutting commute times up to 30 min daily. \nKristin Denver: With regard to the current proposal for the upper deck\, similar to the information shared by Commissioner multimolars. We are among the daily commuters who leave home nearly 2 h in advance to ensure we reach work and school on time. \nKristin Denver: Please note that without traffic. It’s actually only a 45 min drive\, and the majority of our commute time is spent approaching and crossing the bridge \nKristin Denver: in order to ensure that all 3 of us arrive to school and work on time. We have to account for the expanded and extended commute times that are caused by incidents with no access to an emergency shoulder \nKristin Denver: in summary. I’m here in support of a solution that provides continuing access for bikers and pedestrians during the times that the data shows they’re using it the most. \nKristin Denver: However\, I’m an absolute support of a solution that will improve the flow of traffic for the thousands and thousands of daily commuters during the times when the bike and pedestrian lane is highly under utilized. Thank you all for your hard work\, for your time and for your consideration. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: John Charba. You’re up next with Dwayne on deck. \nJohn Chorba: Hi! Thank you so much for allowing me the chance to speak just in the in the nature of of being timely. I did submit my comments to the to the public information\, so I won’t go through all of them here my name is Dr. Shawn\, sure\, but I’m a cardiologist and also a Marin County Resident and I I now work in North Oakland\, and I commute my butt by bike. pretty much every day. \nJohn Chorba: So I’m here to support the the 24 7 opening of the path 3 quick points I want to make one. I think you’ve heard many people say that place called commuting is good for personal health. I want to echo\, that I think as a cardiologist\, I can tell you that from first hand knowledge the second thing is that I I did hear some \nJohn Chorba: concerns or requests\, perhaps\, for more data on what the benefit of the bicycle of of commuting would be in terms of numbers. I had just put my information in through \nJohn Chorba: we’re in commutes.org. And I was pleased to see that over the past month I’ve reduced about \nJohn Chorba: 789 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. So I just want\, you know the commissioners\, to understand what the benefits of having commuters going across the bridge as bicyclists would be. \nJohn Chorba: And the last thing that I wanna mention is\, it seems there’s a big question on you know how to best use the next period of time to get more data\, and I would argue that perhaps the better question is not what would happen\, what we should understand if the bike path were to go away\, but perhaps to keep the bike path open\, and then better understand what we could do with it. \nJohn Chorba: For example\, You know\, I’ve learned from my commuting that the area of Point Richmond is really quite beautiful. And had I known that before\, maybe I would spend more time there. Or might there be a way for us to decadest the bridge by putting in ebay or school rental depos on either side. Those are just some thoughts\, and I I think I would leave you with those. So thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: You \nBoardroom SX80: left \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne. You’re up now. \nBoardroom SX80: John Grubb\, you’ll be next \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne. Can you go ahead and talk into your mic for us? We show that you’re unmuted. \nBoardroom SX80: Go to John and come back. \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne will come back to you. John Grubb\, go ahead and unmute yourself. \nJohn Grubb: Thanks\, John Grubb\, thank you. Chair Wasserman and and Commissioners John Grubb. Coo of the Bay Area Council. \nJohn Grubb: the pandemic and the rise of remote work has laid bare and sometimes conflicting public policy goals in the Bay area. Policy. Makers like yourselves must balance a desire to promote active transportation\, such as walking and biking\, while also working hard on social equity goals\, making life and economic opportunity easier for historically disadvantaged places and people. \nJohn Grubb: Perhaps nowhere in the Bay Area is that conflict more obvious or more raw than on the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge. \nJohn Grubb: The bike pilot\, at least during the commute hours\, has not succeeded with 140 bikers on average a day\, and 80\,000 drivers. \nJohn Grubb: We need to recognize that and correct it. \nJohn Grubb: Who are the people in the backup\, the vast majority of them 63% are people of color. 69% of them do not have a college degree\, and the majority of them make 60% make less than the Bay area is Median income. \nJohn Grubb: We argue that the Richmond side of the bridge preserves deserves the same relief that the Marin side got. We’ve pulled the residents of Richmond and 80% of them favor opening the lane to carpools in transit. Bcdc. Has a mandate to provide public access\, and we would argue that in this case the weekend recreation on the bridge\, and the numerous spike and pedestrian improvements that have been made on both sides of the bridge in recent years. \nJohn Grubb: All satisfy the in lieu access requirement. We would ask you to please amend the permits for the Richmond Center Bridge to restore the historic third lane on the upper deck and dedicate it during commute hours to carpools and transit. \nJohn Grubb: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll try and circle back. Dwayne. Go ahead and unmute \nBoardroom SX80: showing is unmuted. \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne. We show you as unmuted. Go ahead and try and talk into your mic for us. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any speakers after Dwayne? Let’s go to them. We’ll try and circle back David Reynolds. You’re up next with Dave H. After that. \nDavid Reynolds: Hello\, members of the Commission. \nDavid Reynolds: Are you able to hear me? Excellent! So I am a resident of Oakland\, and I am an educator in the mission in San Francisco. \nDavid Reynolds: I am committed to a No car lifestyle\, and have been my entire life. I do this because of our looming climate crisis. \nDavid Reynolds: I do it to live a healthful lifestyle\, and I do it because of the financial constraints that have been placed upon me in my career \nDavid Reynolds: I commute across the Richmond Bridge twice per week \nDavid Reynolds: and 3 weeks ago my friends and I did it 5 days. We did it every single morning. \nDavid Reynolds: It is a pleasurable experience to arrive at work\, having already gotten a workout and to do so in a way that is environmentally sustainable and physically healthy \nDavid Reynolds: many of the points I was going to raise have already been covered\, so I wanted to just share a little bit of napkin math with you. I did some research on Strava. I looked up. How many riders have crossed the bridge \nDavid Reynolds: in the past 90 days \nDavid Reynolds: and assuming 33 grands of carbon dioxide saved per mile on bicycles. \nDavid Reynolds: Richmond Bridge cyclists saved 18\,422 pounds of carbon dioxide in the last 90 days alone. \nDavid Reynolds: It’s a small step\, but it is an important one\, and one that we must make in this day and age\, with a climate crisis crisis all around us. \nDavid Reynolds: Looking at Bcdc’s mandate on your website\, it says that the Commission is intended to forward the protection and enhancement of the Sfa. And the encouragement of the base\, responsible use. \nDavid Reynolds: I hope that you consider the health of our region and the health of our people when you make your final decision. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: David Reynolds. You’re now up with David S. To follow. I think we just did. David Reynolds. \nDavid Reynolds: I will gladly speak for another 2 min. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Hard side. Thank you. Pardon me\, Dave H. Several days. \nDave H.: Good afternoon. My name’s Dave. Morning over the past safe. 8 years I’ve lived in the East Bay\, in Oakland\, in the city\, and I now reside in Sonoma County. I’m a frequent bike commuter. I’m a avid touring cyclist and a transit and urbanism enthusiast \nDave H.: data from the urban planners. Much smarter on science behind the traffic engineering than I is quite conclusive that an additional lane for cars does not alleviate traffic on a long term scale. \nDave H.: The the fact that we have traffic across the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge is actually a lever that can be used to adjust the behaviors of people who are stuck in that traffic to instead use public transit or use HIV vehicles. \nDave H.: The transition to returning this to a non bike lane or an Hov lane \nDave H.: will not alleviate traffic\, it will worsen community resiliency and equity. It will increase carbon emissions\, even if this were made into an Hov lane. This is a massive step backward\, and it is not based on data and facts that have been a scientific consensus for decades. I strongly oppose this measure and ask the commission to advocate against this motion. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I believe we have David S. Up next \nBoardroom SX80: with Maureen Gaffney to follow. \nDavid S: Hey? Now I’m muted\, I guess. \nDavid S: Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is David Shreeman\, and I’ve lived in the East Bay for 8 years\, and I have a degree in applied physics. \nDavid S: First\, I am for the bike path as long as it doesn’t affect the equal nature of lanes in both directions. That doesn’t appear to be the approach that is being taken. \nDavid S: 2 lanes\, one direction\, and 3. The other direction is illogical. Cars have to come back. There is no argument that makes 2 equal\, 3 \nDavid S: 3 lanes westbound on the Richmond bridge until the south one on one interchange\, is the only logical solution. \nDavid S: Only 4.9% of bikes. Slash pedestrians use the bridge to commute to work as seen on page 132 of the report. The path is overwhelmingly for recreation\, which is optional and should not be prioritized above low income workers from the East Bay. \nDavid S: I would encourage the Commission to conduct a poll to look at the relative income levels of who supports the bike lane and who opposes it. \nDavid S: I support a bike lane\, in addition to 3 permanent lanes\, both directions 7 days a week\, and to increase taxes on the wealthy\, to make this possible and to not punish low income workers who are forced to commute to where the job where the jobs are in Marin. \nDavid S: Thank you very much for your time. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: We have Maureen Gaffney with Barry \nBoardroom SX80: Tarantino to follow. \nMaureen Gaffney: Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Maureen Gaffney. A huge part of Bcdc’s mission is public access to the bay\, and this has historically included unwavering support for the San Francisco Bay trail. I would posit that. The current condition is the maximum feasible public access. As you know\, many people have worked for many years to secure this pathway\, and the low hanging fruit on the bay trail has been picked. \nMaureen Gaffney: Removing this pathway will be a first for the Bay trail\, going backwards\, removing public access\, removing 4 miles of bay trail. As has been stated\, the upper deck has never had a third Lane. It’s not proposed to be a third lane here\, so it will not help traffic. Yes\, this pathway is under utilized on weekdays\, and that is\, in fact\, in large part\, because the infrastructure on the marine side is incomplete and inadequate. \nMaureen Gaffney: We need more transportation choices and options not less. This path is not a silver bullet for sea level rise\, Vmt. And climate change\, but removing it is a clear and definitive step backwards for all of these things\, for the Bay trail for public access to the bay and the shoreline that is\, this commission is tasked to protect. \nMaureen Gaffney: Shuttles are notoriously unreliable and do not provide maximum feasible public access. Again\, maximum feasible public access is the current condition on the bridge. I would like to second the notion about Ebikes. We they’re they’re really just taking off now. And and they are a great \nMaureen Gaffney: a great option for people to to be outside of cars to use this pathway. And we really haven’t seen their their full deployment yet. And we should definitely keep this pathway open so that we can continue to get to gather the information that we need\, and that will be done by retaining the path\, not by going back to the previous condition. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Barry. You are next with Nick Sweeting to follow. \nBarry Taranto: Good more. Good evening. Good afternoon. Excuse me. So I am calling as a long time resident of San Rafael. \nBarry Taranto: and and I want to support the marin position on this. The thing is\, though\, is\, I think\, you should look at a permit \nBarry Taranto: on a limited timeframe until they build more affordable housing\, as as was reported by John Grubb\, that the the type of people who use their cars to commute into marin are people of color and of minorities\, and I think you’re not gonna expect them with their families in the East Bay\, and and they afford to Bill and a second jobs to be able to ride a bicycle across the bridge to get to and from their jobs. \nBarry Taranto: And we need these these employees and workers in Marin in order for the county to function just as valuable as other workers. So I wanna say that I think that \nBarry Taranto: the proposal put before you to to have a a a curb\, a curb lane\, \nBarry Taranto: and a a shoulder\, and then to also have h ov Lane would be the best alternative\, and a compromise to what would be having a third lane for all traffic. \nBarry Taranto: I it. It doesn’t need to be third lane for all traffic all the time. But I think there has to be some type of change\, because people’s lives are changed in different ways and and income income and wages have not met up with the changing economy. So I beg you\, and when you do have come this before you that you look at creating a permit \nBarry Taranto: that deals with this issue\, and yet is limited to allow for the creation of more housing and more affordable housing in Marin County. Thank you for allowing me to speak today\, and great questions from the Commissioners to the presenters. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Nick Sweden. You’re up with Lucas to follow. \nNick Sweeting: Hello! I’m a Emoryville resident and Long Time Bay resident. I oppose the path\, closure and support\, keeping it open. 24\, 7 in particular. Uniquely for me weekday nights \nNick Sweeting: in the spirit of maximum feasible public access. Night access is critical to my ability to use the Bay trail for transit and exercise. \nNick Sweeting: Without the path. There’s no way to get to Marin back at night without a car\, as the soonest bus is 6 in the morning. \nNick Sweeting: I have been stuck on the wrong side at night before the path existed\, and it really sucks \nNick Sweeting: I asked the Commission to seriously consider freedom of movement for all citizens. Not just during the day\, but also for people who work and exercise at night. \nNick Sweeting: Also regarding the usage of a shuttle. I\, personally\, would not use a shuttle much. But I do. I would. I do currently use the path about once a week. The shuttle sort of defeats the purpose of having the bridge as a destination for exercise\, and it makes me dependent on a service that’s likely not going to be offered at night. \nNick Sweeting: Regarding benchmarks to judge the success of the path I recommend everyone. Take a look at Terry Town in New York city. They have a similar situation where they started with no bike path. They added a shuttle service on an existing bridge. It wasn’t used much\, and then eventually\, when there finally was a a bike path solution going across \nNick Sweeting: induced demand gradually brought more ridership\, so induced demand teaches us that adding a new lean doesn’t necessarily reduce traffic\, but it cuts both ways. \nNick Sweeting: adding a lane\, for bicyclists \nNick Sweeting: will eventually induce demand for more cyclists and pedestrians across that way. \nNick Sweeting: Thank you for your time. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Lucas. You’re up with Jan Shiller to follow. \nLucas: Hi commission. My name’s Lucas. I experience the bike lane every single day. By looking out of my car window and seeing almost nobody in it\, along with thousands of other people moving very\, very slowly\, just trying to get to work. \nLucas: I don’t think we need more data. It shows that\, like maybe 20 people are commuting with it every day\, the rest is recreational. \nLucas: And so I think this is really a fair proposal that when most people are using it\, they get to use it for biking\, or walking\, or running\, or whatever on the weekends and Friday. \nLucas: but otherwise\, like \nLucas: thousands of us are just trying to get to work. \nLucas: and it really sucks. I have a kid I’d rather be hanging out with instead of getting up early and leaving so that I don’t lose my job. \nLucas: There are more people advocating for the bike lane in this meeting than are using it to commute. \nLucas: I think this is sort of ridiculous that we are equivocating like this. \nLucas: that’s it. Thank you. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Chan Chiller. You’re up next with Drew Levitt to follow. \nJan Schiller: Can you hear me? \nJan Schiller: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nJan Schiller: Great. Thank you. \nJan Schiller: Thank you. I really appreciate being here. I’m a resident of Sonoma County. \nJan Schiller: and I serve on the Advisory Board for in-home supportive services\, representing people with disabilities. \nJan Schiller: and my caregiver is my sister. She lives in the East Bay\, and she drives over here quite often\, and it’s very difficult for her\, with the congestion that it is now \nJan Schiller: in Urban. \nJan Schiller: We would really appreciate having this third lane. \nJan Schiller: so not just her\, but \nJan Schiller: but other caregivers would have an easier time coming over to the North Bay and also I’d like to suggest as alternatives before I became physically disabled. I used to ride my bike and I I noticed they’re making improvements now in Highway 37\, and it’s a beautiful scenic route. \nJan Schiller: and also I’d like to suggest that carpools that there’d be an easier system for people to connect with carpools\, because that’s been very difficult to to get to the North Bay with Carpool. So thank you so much for all the good work you do\, and I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you \nBoardroom SX80: and Drew Levitt. You may unmute Patrick Lake. You’ll be up next. \nBoardroom SX80: Drew. \nBoardroom SX80: Can you unmute. \nDrew Levitt: There we go! Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nDrew Levitt: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Thank you\, Commissioners. My name is Drew Levitt. I live in Oakland. I work for Mtc. But I’m speaking solely in my capacity as a private citizen. Today. I am a travel demand modeler. So I think a lot about self fulfilling prophecies. And it turns out that if you make it easy to do something and give people long enough to adapt their lifestyles accordingly\, more of that thing tends to happen\, and if you make it hard to do something\, people tend to stop doing that thing\, whether they want to or not. \nDrew Levitt: A hypothetical question to consider how many people might walk or bike over the Golden Gate bridge a popular bridge if there weren’t a bike path on that bridge. 0 obviously \nDrew Levitt: travel outcomes take many\, many years to emerge. Land\, use changes. People change their houses in their jobs. People make sticky decisions based on what they believe and will remain available. \nDrew Levitt: So the choice\, as I see it\, is that we can keep making easier to drive\, and harder\, or sometimes impossible to do anything else. And then\, many years from now we can wonder\, while we’re all S sitting in car traffic\, why everyone drives everywhere and nobody walks or bikes\, or we can make important decisions\, large and small\, that may be frustrating this year. But what we remembered is visionary in decades to come. \nDrew Levitt: A few concrete points for the Commission. Please consider how keeping or removing the Richmond S. Nfl. Bridge\, bike path would align with regional plans and policies\, such as our stated commitments to reduce vehicle miles of travel and greenhouse gas emissions\, the incredibly important San Francisco Bay Trail\, as has been discussed\, as well as smaller efforts like Mtc’s Ebake subsidy program. \nDrew Levitt: Frankly\, the proposal before you. I\, in my opinion\, personal opinion is so at odds with these efforts that it feels a little like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing\, and perhaps Bcdc. Can help get the 2 hands on the same page. Specifically. But for question 2. I would urge the Commission to request an analysis of the changes in walk sheds and bike sheds and land use accessibility for non motorized travelers with and without the path. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Patrick Lake. You’re up next with Bruce to follow. \nPatrick Lake: Hi! Getting audio! Here! \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, we can hear you. \nPatrick Lake: Hi! I’m Patrick Lake in Point Richmond\, and I’m lucky to have the bridge in my backyard. \nPatrick Lake: I ride a bike on it many days a week. My favorite ride in the world is a double bridge ride to Sf. Of my dog in a backpack. \nPatrick Lake: This access lets me thrive. \nPatrick Lake: If here as a neural diverse. \nPatrick Lake: So at all the hours of day and night. \nPatrick Lake: My city counselors\, Bcdc. Commissioner\, is a Paida\, and Commissioner Joya appointed me to the contract. Costa County Bicycle Advisory Committee. \nPatrick Lake: I’m a bike instructor with Bike East Bay. I organize events\, and this week I’m joining 1\,000 people for a hundred mile bike ride with the Grizzly Peak cyclists. \nPatrick Lake: We ride for all the reasons that drivers drive\, but we also have a community for all ages and and identities\, and we deserve equity. \nPatrick Lake: I oppose closing the bridge path because the data says there’s nothing to gain. Let’s keep it open. Opponents of the path. Say they want to relieve congestion\, but they’re making it worse. \nPatrick Lake: The real impact of more car space isn’t less congestion. It’s induced demand\, more cars\, more miles more\, pollution\, more parking. It’s choking. Living space out of our cities. \nPatrick Lake: Opponents exaggerate where issues like crashes once in a million miles\, but working cars jam the bridge every day\, just like the Bay bridge gets jammed with 5 full lanes. Extra space doesn’t solve this. If people really care\, the only solution is alternatives\, more rail\, bus and bike instead of a car per person. \nPatrick Lake: Many cyclists are also drivers\, but the less we rely on cars the more we solve the problem. There’s no going back. If we want a working system\, don’t roll back the access to the bay. It can’t be an afterthought just on weekends or somewhere else. After we get out of the way of cars we need reliable 24 7. Access to end car reliance. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to interrupt. \nPatrick Lake: Going to interrupt. \nBoardroom SX80: We have. \nBoardroom SX80: Hip! \nBoardroom SX80: The echo stopped. \nBoardroom SX80: 22 more speakers. We have an additional\, also very important item on this agenda. We are not making a decision today. \nBoardroom SX80: Assuming that Caltrans and Bata wish to proceed with this proposal. \nBoardroom SX80: we don’t know that they will or not. This will come back to us for a permit. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m going to cut. I’m going to stop the public speaking. But any of you who have not spoken\, and for that matter\, any of you who have \nBoardroom SX80: are absolutely free to submit to us through our portal comments\, whether by email or by letter\, and those will be distributed to the Commissioners\, and this will come back to us if it’s going forward. So I thank all of you for your attention and your patience. And we’re now going to move on to the next item. \nBoardroom SX80: Out of respect to the Dean of our commission. I’m going to give him one last short comment. I just want to make sure\, since we’re asking questions. And I think I just want to reset it at the beginning. \nBoardroom SX80: because this has come up and as well in the speaking is is collecting more granular data on the incidents that you do have. And I realize you don’t have the best data \nBoardroom SX80: that any information you have in the pilot period regarding the number frequency of incidents we’re talking going westbound now. \nBoardroom SX80: during the peak hour\, right? During the specifically\, I mean at all times\, but specifically during the peak hour. So that getting more\, I think I’ve heard from several Commissioners\, we need more of that. \nBoardroom SX80: How much the delay was. You know what type of incident you have some of that in there. But putting it all together and summarizing. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: We are now going to Item 9\, which is a briefing on the San Mateo County. Flood and sea level Rise resiliency district. \nBoardroom SX80: commonly known as one shoreline \nBoardroom SX80: representatives of one shoreline working throughout San Mateo County\, will brief the Commission on the vision and plan for the future to build resilience to rising sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: Regulatory director\, Harriet Ross\, will introduce the briefing \nBoardroom SX80: once again I would ask Sarah to keep a close eye on the number of hands that pop up\, and if you do want to public. Speak \nBoardroom SX80: on this. You’re a member of the public. Be sure to submit a card. If you’re in the room and raise your hand. If you are participating virtually. \nBoardroom SX80: Director Ross\, you’re gonna start. Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. I’m happy to introduce the next item. BC. DC\, staff have been working with one shoreline over the last several months\, as we both share common goals of protecting the Bay’s development and resources while creating resilience to climate change. Much of one shorelines. Projects are located within Bcdc’s jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s much to learn from each other. One shoreline was established to address all water related impacts of climate change\, including the most significant long-term impact of sea level rise. They were ahead of the curve in addressing climate impacts in San Mateo county across jurisdictional boundaries much like Bcdc. Was ahead of the game in tackling sea level rise on a regional basis here in the Bay area \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to acknowledge Commissioner Pine\, who has been on BC. DC’s commission since 2011\, and he was the driving force for creation of one shoreline for almost a decade\, and has served as one shoreline board chair since its inception in 2020. So with that\, I’m going to go ahead and turn it over to Lenderman\, chief executive officer of one shoreline to brief the Commission. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, thank you\, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. It’s good to see you. Thank you for the introduction. Harriet\, appreciate that. And\, thanks to Commissioner Pine\, who’s the chair of our board as well as others in Bcdc. Who have been so actively involved in our efforts at the staff level and at the Commissioner level over the years. \nBoardroom SX80: Including Commissioner Showalter. Good to see you. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe what I will do is is first invite one of one Shorelines Board members\, and the Mayor of Burlingame\, who\, I know\, has to leave the meeting shortly. She. She signed on to make a few comments\, in part because of her service\, and one Shorelines board since our inception\, also\, in part because one of \nBoardroom SX80: things I’m going to dive into a little bit is a project that we have on the Millbrain and Burlingame shoreline\, and she’s the mayor of that city. So if I could invite her to say a couple words\, and then I’ll proceed with the presentation. \n_Donna Colson: Thank you very much. Mr. Maderman\, I appreciate this. My name\, and thank you. Chair and commissioners for entertaining this conversation today. My name is Donna Coulson. I’m the Mayor Burlingame\, A. Re. And a regional director of one shoreline. I am grateful that you have added this topic to your busy agenda today. Sea Level rise is a critical concern to Burlingame. Our businesses\, residents\, and visitors. \n_Donna Colson: For the last 4 years we have worked to develop the first in the Bay area and possibly even in the nation. 100 years. Sea level rise\, resilience\, zoning code. And just last week\, with the support of environmental advocates and our community. We approved a new biotech development of approximately 13 acres \n_Donna Colson: that will provide a nature base and other pre protections as well as complete our bay trail and add stream and other habitat restoration to about 13 acres of the shoreline. \n_Donna Colson: This this result. This result protects inland businesses\, residents\, and our vulnerable infrastructure\, which includes highway 101\, at no expense to the tax pair. \n_Donna Colson: This is a feasible model that is being shared with other communities. I’ve done a lot of work with Sausalito as well\, and our leadership up there in in in the city and the county to share all the work we’re doing\, and I’m grateful for their openness. To receive information that is based on what we’ve already done. \n_Donna Colson: The Bay front is a large part of our economic engine in Burlingame. \n_Donna Colson: It provides almost 30% of our budget \n_Donna Colson: resources\, and it hosts critical recreation\, infrastructure\, including parks and fields as well as our wastewater treatment center\, which is quite literally 10 feet away from the bay \n_Donna Colson: protecting these assets has been a priority for my generation of leadership. Here in Burlingame one shoreline has proven indispensable in our efforts to protect our city from rising seas. \n_Donna Colson: We wanna thank CEO Matterman\, and of course\, Supervisor Pine\, my colleagues on one shoreline and all of the regional agencies that have expressed interest and support for the work we’re doing. \n_Donna Colson: Mr. Maderman’s outstanding staff has really led the way on this\, and we appreciate our collaboration with the agencies like Bcdc. \n_Donna Colson: We look forward to continued collaboration and mutual support. I am so sorry I have to leave to go to another meeting at about 4 30\, but I’ll stay on until then and again\, just wanna thank you and tell you how important this work is for our city. \n_Donna Colson: All done. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you\, Mayor Coulson. \nBoardroom SX80: so I will share screen \nBoardroom SX80: and begin a presentation \nBoardroom SX80: and given the the \nBoardroom SX80: the time we’re at\, I will try to make this as \nBoardroom SX80: efficient as possible. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, so my name is Len Matterman. The name of our agency. We go by one shoreline\, and you’ll understand why\, once\, I say\, our full name is San Mateo County. Flood and sea level rise resiliency district and we also one shoreline also kind of expresses the the sentiment and ethos of our of our efforts. It was created with the mentality. By this all the 20 cities in San Mateo County\, as well as the county itself\, thinking that we’re all in this together. \nBoardroom SX80: Bit of background. On one shoreline\, 65 years ago\, a flood control district was created in San Mateo County. Like many other counties in the Bay area and around the nation\, it only worked in 10% of our county. In the areas that are shown in various colors here watersheds. \nBoardroom SX80: and meanwhile\, over the past about 10 years\, many studies done by the county or Caltrans\, or Mtc. A bag or Scripts Institute or Stanford or Berkeley. They pointed to the San Mateo County’s all too common vulnerability to wildfire and drought \nBoardroom SX80: increased vulnerability compared to others in relation to groundwater and and just unique vulnerability to sea level rise around California. \nBoardroom SX80: So there was a realization\, after all\, that that climate change is transformative for our county\, and that no one jurisdiction can do it together. \nBoardroom SX80: In 1919 Assembly Member Kevin Mullen authored a bill in the State House to create one shoreline out of this former flood control district\, and it was established on January 1\, 2020\, to address the climate\, related impacts of the water\, related impacts of climate change. \nBoardroom SX80: We take a holistic view to threats\, geography\, and objectives. What that means is we work multi-jurisdictional. That’s in our DNA. Let’s say in terms of threats. We’re not just looking at a historic flood event that was modeled by Fema in the 1980 s. Or 90 S. We’re looking forward to extreme storms\, and of course\, sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: we think\, in terms of objectives holistically \nBoardroom SX80: cross sector governmental schools\, private sector\, community based organizations and also cross disciplinary climate affects everything\, it affects housing\, transportation\, utilities\, everything that is related to our society\, and so our objective is to have housing advocates or utilities advocates also see climate as their issue\, because it’s important to the resilience \nBoardroom SX80: of their interests. We take a quick look at our priorities. Land use. I show these 2 pictures. One is is a housing project in our county\, and you can see the the bay water level today is quite high compared to the front door and and first floor windows of this housing development\, and then\, of course\, an underground parking garage that has water after a major storm event. During a high tide. \nBoardroom SX80: I bring these up \nBoardroom SX80: to say that that these are these pictures are from developments from about 10 years ago\, but these are also developments that are coming to BC. DC. In 2024\, with underground parking and with front doors right next to the bay\, without any back\, without any setback. And so these are not just issues that we face 10 years ago. These are issues we face today. And it’s important for all of us to work together so that Bcdc. Has the authorities to create resilience beyond its important mission of public access. \nBoardroom SX80: so we’re interested in land use. We want any project\, whether it’s public infrastructure or private development to function for its lifespan. That’s really what this is about. Can it function for the for its intended lifespan\, based on our changing climate. So we’re creating policy guidance around. We already created one related to private development that was approved by the one shoreline board last year. \nBoardroom SX80: and next year we’re focused on public infrastructure. So that’s things like pump stations. You see a picture here of a pump station on a sunny day. No rain across from a private development. And of course\, you see the effects that we’ve seen in other parts of the Bay area as well\, where on the sunny days. There’s quite a bit of water. This picture\, with at Highway 380. This is west of Highway 101. It’s about a mile upstream in San Bruno \nBoardroom SX80: Creek\, and this is again with no rain. Of course this is Highway 101. The public access trails also have substantial resiliency issues. And then here is a picture of a Pg. And E. Tower that won’t have to worry about its No Trespassing Sign much longer. And so we are creating a public infrastructure. Guidance in 2024 to 2025\, and working with Pcdc. Staff on both of those efforts which is. \nBoardroom SX80: are helpful. \nBoardroom SX80: As part of this planning guidance. We have what we call a map of future conditions. And this shows the whole county. Basically\, we look at both effects of sea level rise water coming over the edge of of our shoreline\, but also groundwater rise. And that’s a emerging field with data is\, is improving on that quite a bit as as time goes by. There’s a lot of work being done. \nBoardroom SX80: On that in at Uc. Berkeley\, and one of our fellows\, the Stanford Ph. D. Student\, is specializing in groundwater\, and we’re trying to kind of fine tune our understanding of the effects of groundwater in the shoreline area. \nBoardroom SX80: zeroing in on the area I’m gonna talk a little bit about in a few minutes. This is San Francisco International Airport\, just south of. There is city of Millbury\, and just south of there is city of Burlingame. This area is impacted\, you see\, in in kind of blue green the fema flood zone. And then \nBoardroom SX80: in that area\, plus is the yellow area which is the sea level\, rise overlay district\, and then beyond that is groundwater. So groundwater actually goes farther inland than the effects of anticipated sea level rise. And I need to stop you for one quick moment for procedural action. \nBoardroom SX80: We have lost our quorum\, not your fault. And we’re going to move to a committee of the whole and proceed that way to receive your very important information. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: You can just continue. Okay\, okay\, I will not lose a beat and go to the wrap up of our other priorities. Wanted to say\, we were created as a long-term resiliency agency. That was the intent\, in 2015\, 2016\, etc\, all the way through our legislation\, signed by the Governor in 2019. What quickly became apparent in the fall of 2021 to all of us. \nBoardroom SX80: as well as 22\, the winter of 2223 is the atmospheric rivers that we see\, and we \nBoardroom SX80: at one shoreline believe are fueled by climate change. That’s an impact of climate change now. \nBoardroom SX80: and it was not sufficient for us to just focus on thinking about long term resilience when the the greatest impact of climate is happening today. And so we spend a lot of time on alerting people\, too\, and reducing the impacts of extreme storms. Many of those impacts are exacerbated by high tides\, as you know\, and in a low lying area like the bay shoreline of San Mateo County. That’s a huge issue. \nBoardroom SX80: Where we have storm surge and extreme tides coincident with a big storm. And that’s what creates problems. We don’t have a long-term stable source of funding. That’s a high priority for us as well\, and then finally projects\, and this will transition to zeroing in on this Millbrey Berlin game shoreline. But this is a snapshot of the 53 miles of San Mateo County shoreline. We have 12 cities impacted by the bay\, 11 that touch the bay\, and within those 53 miles and 12 cities there are 10 distinct \nBoardroom SX80: efforts that are looking at long term resilience on our shoreline\, and they range from early early planning to completed construction. Completed construction has been Foster City\, and that was a project really focused on the current fema flood plain\, and our work at one shoreline is to align as much as possible all of these efforts that you see in different colors throughout the shoreline\, so that they are substantial and that they complement one another. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, zeroing in on one aspect of our shoreline\, San Francisco Airport \nBoardroom SX80: course\, a major important facility\, very large\, and they also have a project they call it their shoreline protection programme. You see in yellow the outline there\, and \nBoardroom SX80: what’s interesting to me is when the airport was developed\, not surprisingly\, the creeks were rerouted around the airport\, and the impacts of that are partially shown in in the pictures that we see of the areas around the airport. So on the right. That’s Colma Creek during the king tide\, and then below that is the city of San Bruno during a storm and and high tide. \nBoardroom SX80: And then the city of Bill Bray\, with the flooding scene. This is all areas west of Highway 101 along the creeks and then to the south of there. It’s really just a shoreline shot of the city of Burlingame. So our job with these dashed lines and arrows in green\, extending north from the airport and south from the airport is to leverage the work of San Francisco airport to create greater \nBoardroom SX80: section to the north and south within San Mateo County. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s important to talk about kind of what our objectives are. Our objective is really one objective. And that’s climate resilience for areas with existing or potential development. You see\, appear a picture during during a high tide\, but not extreme tide of a walkway. Alongside a hotel in Berlin game. So resilience for development\, resilience for trails. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s bay trails here in in this area\, like there are in many areas\, most areas thankfully\, of San Francisco Bay. But those trails\, even where they exist\, may not be terribly attractive\, or may not be resilient to climate change\, and so our project is also about creating resilience for public access\, and then resilience for habitat. These are also images from this part of the shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s it’s not so much in my mind about just building habitat for today. It’s about\, what can we build today? That’s not gonna be washed away when the bay expands in in 10 years\, 15 years\, 20 years\, it’s about resilience for development\, public access\, and habitat. \nBoardroom SX80: So we have a project that is in large part at this moment funded by the State of California\, and that is to look at the shoreline of Bill Bray\, which is just next to Sfo\, and then Burlingame\, with the potential to extend it to the city of San Mateo and the fundamental alternatives of this project are shoreline and creek flood protection. We have 6 creeks or channels that flow into San Francisco Bay. You can see that \nBoardroom SX80: kind of purple lines that extend outward from the bay here. And and so this project looks like a very traditional approach of building a levee or wall on the shoreline\, and then building. In this case walls not so much levees along these creeks. I’ll talk about some of those constraints in a second. The other option is\, we stay away from working in the creeks because of land rights\, concerns riparian issues of concerns about environment. \nBoardroom SX80: and cost and working with highway 101\, which is very complicated when all these creeks go under Highway 101 and flood the highway today\, and instead we put tide gates and pump stations on the mouth of these creeks that has opportunities and constraints like all of these. And so we could talk about that \nBoardroom SX80: third fundamental alternative is to put some sort of of a wave break offshore. And this has been done in San Francisco Bay\, and it’s essentially putting a hardened structure that you put some habitat on top of\, and you put these out in the bay\, and they break the waves\, and that reduces the wave height and wave energy which allows for a slightly smaller shoreline protection. But at the end of the day you still need \nBoardroom SX80: shoreline protection. If you’re talking about sea level rise\, because you’re trying to address the water level at some point. \nBoardroom SX80: and then the fourth one is an offshore barrier\, with doors and as well as a pump station and shoreline enhancement for access and for habitat. And this sense is that now today\, if if this were put in\, these doors would basically remain open at all times\, except for during a atmospheric river\, when you need the \nBoardroom SX80: offshore to collect that water to reduce flooding on shore\, so that would be a few times a year\, and then also during king tides\, on whatever 4 days a year. So the doors would be closed for those half dozen days a year\, otherwise they would remain open to allow for \nBoardroom SX80: Riparian Creek flow and tidal action\, and as sea level rises the doors would be closed more so. What our engineers estimate is that after a foot and a half of sea level rise from today the doors would be closed. A total of 1 h per day\, basically 30 min at each high tide. \nBoardroom SX80: and then\, after 3 feet of sea level rise\, they would be closed about 6 HA day\, so they would be closed more and more as time goes on\, and whenever we reach a foot and a half sea level rise\, that’s kind of what the scenario would be\, but for today we can also provide the protection of against allowing these these during the storms the creeks to flow into the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: So those are our options where look at the constraints in the area\, and the number one is that this area is heavily urbanized. You see here a picture of of a building in Burlingame\, right alongside the bay shoreline. Not a lot of room to build protection for this area unless you go into the bay or you take out the building. And so those are your fundamental options. If you have this. And this is not just at this site so \nBoardroom SX80: a concern. And then this is on a creek channel. You see the building on one side\, the parking on the other\, and utilities. And so we have constrained Creek channels as well. Other constraints are. Our goal is to get people out of the fema flood plain\, in part because it’s a certain means as a certifiable project that will last\, and in part\, of course\, because of the financial benefits for the property owners in the area. \nBoardroom SX80: And then this is just adjacent to San Francisco airport\, which has a lot of concerns about birds\, not surprisingly. And so building habitats that attract flying birds is something that they’re they’ve expressed a great concern about \nBoardroom SX80: and and something I wanted to. Highlight is we don’t have a lot of room here\, basically\, the areas that you see in pink are the only areas that either don’t involve private taking or going into the bay. Those are the only areas that we have for actually building resilience. And we have a concern that as the bay shoreline is developed or the creeks are developed in the shoreline area. \nBoardroom SX80: that those projects that are being currently approved by the cities and by regulatory agencies\, are limiting our ability to do natural solutions do resilience period\, but including natural solutions into those projects. It makes it more difficult as the buildings get developed closer and closer to the bay\, like you see in that picture on the left. \nBoardroom SX80: So we’re left with 2 alternatives that we’re currently analyzing. One is onshore fundamentally\, and one is offshore fundamentally. And and our status right now\, on this project is we put out a notice of preparation. We’ve got a lot of comments. They were very robust comments\, mostly on our offshore idea\, and we’re taking those comments in. We’ve learned from them quite a bit. \nBoardroom SX80: and we are beginning analysis! It’s called a leadpa analysis\, which is required by both feet\, both the core and the water board\, and that’s defined the least environmentally damaging practical alternative. We’re also this month hiring an outreach consultant to enhance our outreach efforts. And and after all of that\, and meeting with regulatory agencies. In fact\, next week. And after all of that\, we will begin the environmental process. \nBoardroom SX80: So we’re at early\, so early days on this. But it’s an important project\, and it’s one that’s gotten a lot of attention. And BCC. Bccdc. Staff have asked me to to \nBoardroom SX80: speak on it\, and I’m happy to do so because it just presents all of us with a lot of questions about what is this place gonna look like\, if we’re really serious about about becoming resilient. And we are we in San Mateo\, Caron County are serious about becoming resilient\, and that poses a lot of opportunities and a lot of constraints. So with that\, I thank you. And I’m happy to answer questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: How many public speakers do we have \nBoardroom SX80: currently \nBoardroom SX80: through \nBoardroom SX80: 4. Chair Wasserman 4 4. \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. I’m gonna \nBoardroom SX80: as I did in the last item. \nBoardroom SX80: Give the Commissioners the opportunity to ask questions. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we’ll turn to the Public \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson. \nBoardroom SX80: Just one quick question. One of your earlier graphics showed that you were looking at the potential for walls along some of the creeks that lead out to the bay between one and one in the bay\, and your discussion at the end showed that you’d apparently screen those out. And I’m just hoping you can help me understand why? Why you made that decision. Yeah\, we\, the \nBoardroom SX80: basically going up the creeks. We would have to. If under our sea level rise assumptions we’d have to go all the way up to the caltrain tracks. So it’s beyond highway 101. So the combination of \nBoardroom SX80: of all of that work which is costly and and has environmental impacts. All of the land rights that would be needed to be acquired as part of that\, because a lot of those properties they don’t just end at the edge of the parking lot. They go into the mid center line of the creek\, and so all of the land rights that would have to be involved in building that \nBoardroom SX80: also\, as I mentioned\, the complications of integrating that with highway 101 at 6 different crossings just made it infeasible to us and and the trade-off\, for though all of that is the tie gate and pump station approach at the creek mouse. \nBoardroom SX80: There may be ways to limit that slightly but fundamentally. That’s that’s the alternative. So the the shoreline based alternative that you were looking at includes those tide gates about stations. That’s right\, exactly. I appreciate that. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Gunther Lynn. Thanks so much for this. It’s \nBoardroom SX80: it’s really great to see somebody putting pencil and paper to like\, okay\, so what do we actually do? I wanted to ask you first of all\, when we had our South Bay Shoreline Conference in 2\,017 and created a map just by asking people\, Are you thinking about something? Are you thinking about something? There were lots of holes. \nBoardroom SX80: There was a project\, and then there was no project. Then there was another project. You presented us a. \nBoardroom SX80: Obviously\, there are very different stages of these things. But now everybody that’s got shoreline in San Mateo County is thinking about this issue \nBoardroom SX80: collectively. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, that’s that’s well\, I mean congratulations. I mean\, that’s a great\, that’s a really a really great achievement. I also wanted warm to my heart as a Water Board member to hear you talking about thinking about groundwater and I assume you’re in communication with staff at the waterboard \nBoardroom SX80: on this issue. And that’s gonna be a challenge\, no matter what alternative\, right that you you select. And then\, lastly\, obviously\, you’re gonna eventually get into the dollars and cents of all this\, and I\, unless I missed it\, and sorry \nBoardroom SX80: there’s been a lot coming at us today. But there\, you didn’t seem to have an alternative in which some kind of retreat is mixed in with everything else. That is the assumption is every building that’s there is gonna be protected. \nBoardroom SX80: Do you want me to address that. Well\, I just want it if they do. Yeah\, yeah\, no\, I would like to hear\, cause I know that’s that. That is an alternative that is bandied about. But of course\, you know\, every every place is gonna be a little different. But I just wondered if that was thought of at all\, and and and then how that compares to to the idea of areas getting wet\, bringing more birds near the airport. I didn’t know if that was part of the thinking. \nBoardroom SX80: If I could comment on the retreat question because it is an important one that we hear often. \nBoardroom SX80: there are really 2 parts of my response to that. And one is \nBoardroom SX80: We have put out this planning policy guidance that I discussed about land use policies that we recommend that cities adopt and the county adopts\, and many cities have\, and Burling\, as Mayor Colson mentioned\, Burlingame has taken lead on that the first one in our county to do that\, and in the area generally. \nBoardroom SX80: that planning policy guidance calls for setbacks from the shoreline. It’s not a wholesale retreat of a community or a neighborhood\, but it’s retreat from water to enable us to do \nBoardroom SX80: resilience measures\, including natural features\, within those resilience measures rather than just a wall. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s the part. One of my answer. \nBoardroom SX80: which yeah\, part 2 is as one shorelines does in very specific areas of the county. Do we have land use authority. We don’t really have land use authority. We have land rights in certain areas\, and and none of those areas are on the shoreline \nBoardroom SX80: except for creek mouths in 2 locations \nBoardroom SX80: as long as these projects are\, and I’m not picking on this area at all. I’m talking about Bay Area wide as long as these projects \nBoardroom SX80: are debt buildings right along the shoreline are being approved by environmental regulatory agencies. \nBoardroom SX80: and as long as they’re being approved by local governments\, cities\, and counties. \nBoardroom SX80: Our job is not to say that project you approved last year\, or the one you’re considering in 2\,024 \nBoardroom SX80: has to move. Our job is to say\, how do we take the context of our environment? \nBoardroom SX80: Not just on these development projects on Sfo as as an entity right? How do we take the context of how\, of the and of the \nBoardroom SX80: environment\, small E that we inherit and turn that into the most resilient environment that we can. So I am not an advocate. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’m not talking about me. Personally\, I’m just saying organizationally\, I’m not an advocate for large scale retreat\, because that’s not where our community or governments are\, and bodies like Bcdc. And the water board and other bodies\, they are not at a place to compel that. \nBoardroom SX80: and I think that should change personally\, but until that does\, my job is to take the most vulnerable county and make it the most resilient county. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s all I can do \nBoardroom SX80: well\, I really appreciate that. I I certainly didn’t. Imp! I’m not \nBoardroom SX80: in asking this question \nBoardroom SX80: suggesting that \nBoardroom SX80: retreat is actually the preferred alternative. However\, there’s \nBoardroom SX80: we\, you know\, people say there’s gonna be either managed retreat or chaotic retreat. And and or there’s gonna be more hardening of the shore in the area like you’re talking about. So so and and I think this will come out a little. These alternatives will become clarified. Once we start talking about \nBoardroom SX80: how much these things cost\, and who’s going to pay for them? And then what are other cheaper alternatives? \nBoardroom SX80: And and that’ll also be influenced by our sea level rise projections changing over the next few years. But I really I just really appreciate the way you guys are thinking about this I I mean. And and Dave is\, is there? Is my last question. Is there? \nBoardroom SX80: Is there an analogous \nBoardroom SX80: public institution \nBoardroom SX80: anywhere else? I mean the the way that you guys went and had your. You know\, the legislation rewritten that I don’t know of anyone else in the Bay area. No\, I don’t think so I mean\, we spent a better part of 5 years putting this together. Right? So. But I mean\, so this is you. This is a an approach of national significance. I would think \nBoardroom SX80: I I know you don’t. Guys don’t think about spend time thinking about yourself that way. But but the integrated way that you’re you’re doing this on both shorelines. I mean\, you’re only talking about the bay shoreline now is is something that is\, I think\, worth just remembering that this is really the you know\, you guys are on the cutting edge of of what’s gonna have to happen. \nBoardroom SX80: Anybody else \nBoardroom SX80: you have your light on\, but that was just to answer that \nBoardroom SX80: couple of comments. One question. \nBoardroom SX80: terrific\, is the major comment. I know there’s a lot and a lot and a lot of work to go\, and a lot of problems. What you’ve done over the 5 years and beyond is is terrific. And I I think. \nBoardroom SX80: so I’m sorry. Let me ask my question first. \nBoardroom SX80: Here’s state legislation that \nBoardroom SX80: created you or structured it to create you with the approval of the local agencies \nBoardroom SX80: does give you specifically taxing powers. \nBoardroom SX80: Am I correct in assuming that those taxing powers under the authority given still requires a two-thirds vote. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll just say they record our voting thresholds are the same as any other public entities. \nBoardroom SX80: Right? \nBoardroom SX80: I would add that we \nBoardroom SX80: made sure that the legislation provided us with all the tools\, revenue raising tools \nBoardroom SX80: that are available. \nBoardroom SX80: and one shoreline did spend an extended amount of time looking at a potential parcel tax \nBoardroom SX80: combined with fire\, the combined fire and sea level rise\, flooding measure. And the sport just wasn’t\, wasn’t there? Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: One of the issues that I know has been talked about in the past. I don’t know if there’s any current discussion about it is \nBoardroom SX80: changing the law for flood control districts to make them more like the utilities in imposing fees which do not require 2 thirds do require a majority. \nBoardroom SX80: So I\, as we are looking at our financing the future issues. That’s one of the vehicles I I think we wanna look at. \nBoardroom SX80: if I may comment on that extremely briefly. There is a measure. On the November 2024 ballot to lower the threshold for bonding \nBoardroom SX80: from 2\, 3 to 55. Right now that lower authority\, or that that lower threshold rests with school districts\, but not with climate\, resilience\, projects\, or housing projects\, and the legislation in November\, just for the general public\, and others who may not be aware\, or anyone not aware is is to lower that for those types of projects. So \nBoardroom SX80: one of the things that we’re waiting on to think about\, do we go back. Go to the voters in our county is what happens this November in regards to that and other measures that that makes absolute sense. Our our funding\, simply put. \nBoardroom SX80: is half funded by the county and half funded by the cities. Each of the 20 cities put in puts in very modest amount\, but they all contribute towards the towards the operation. \nBoardroom SX80: most of the staff I’m talking to no disrespect\, Harriet\, are not present for a variety of reasons. I think it would be useful\, not necessarily at a commission hearing\, but perhaps in in one of our workshop formats\, to have a more detailed presentation and and interaction\, and we might want to include Sonoma in that\, because\, although they have not done what you have done\, they have done some interesting and different things. \nBoardroom SX80: And I think the one shoreline in Sonoma are the 2 \nBoardroom SX80: most progressive\, and in in thinking of holistic changes within government agencies to address the issues that we are addressing. \nBoardroom SX80: I thank you very much for the work in the presentation\, of course. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, sorry. Public comment is there. We do have public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Sometimes you get wrapped up in your own thoughts. Please call the public speakers \nBoardroom SX80: Arthur Feinstein\, your first up. \nArthur Feinstein: Whoops unmute chair Wassman and Commissioners. Thanks for the opportunity to talk on this. \nArthur Feinstein: I first recommend that all of you look at this \nArthur Feinstein: scientific article published in urban sustainability in 2\,022 \nArthur Feinstein: I hope Staff can tell me whether you can distribute it to all of the Commissioners. Protection and restoration of coastal habitat \nArthur Feinstein: yield multiple benefits for urban residents. As sea levels rise. Now this is 2\,022. \nArthur Feinstein: Many of the scientists working on this\, and there were like 10 are local ones working for agencies and for Sfei \nArthur Feinstein: and their conclusion. And \nArthur Feinstein: they studied specifically the San Mateo coast \nArthur Feinstein: to look at what were the problems and what could be the solutions? \nArthur Feinstein: Their conclusion\, this work\, as to the growing body of research from around the world\, demonstrating that nature-based solutions help protect coastlines and yield diverse ecosystem services. \nArthur Feinstein: The issue that I’m pointing to. They also recommend and \nArthur Feinstein: not recommended already existed\, but they point to one shoreline as an excellent way of bringing a regional perspective to a shoreline. So you can address all the issues along that shoreline very simple\, similar to what the Rsap and the sub regional sap are doing. \nArthur Feinstein: The problem but run out of time very quickly. Is that what Len is proposing for the shoreline\, the off shoreline gates? It’s already been proposed for the whole bay. You put a gate across the Golden Gate \nArthur Feinstein: and just stop the water\, and then we don’t have to worry about any of this. Well\, his. \nBoardroom SX80: Exactly. \nArthur Feinstein: Well\, it got shot down I’m similarly hoping that this gets shot down \nArthur Feinstein: because it proposes the same reason. Every agency that’s examined it has had. Thank you for. \nBoardroom SX80: Like comment. Your time is now complete. Moving on to Michael Browning. \nMichael Brownrigg: Thanks very much. I’m Michael Brown Rigg. I am a long time council member for the city of Burlingame\, and I really just am here in solidarity for the inquiry in gratitude to one shoreline into Supervisor Pine for creating it. This is\, as Mayor Colson pointed out\, a vital piece of our own economy\, and without \nMichael Brownrigg: a healthy shoreline that allows to allows businesses and recreational use\, our city would be devastated. So this is us a very serious matter for us\, and we appreciate bcdc’s willingness to explore all potential options. In my view\, retreat is not an option. \nMichael Brownrigg: I think the good news is\, you know\, back in Paris in 2\,015\, we thought the world was on path to a 4 to 5 degree warming. Now we’re down to 2 and a half to 3\, which is still unacceptable\, but we’re going in the right direction. \nMichael Brownrigg: so I have hope that we will\, as a planet\, figure this out\, but not before a wall of water comes at us\, and that’s what we need to defend. So I thank Len for his work and his team’s work\, and I appreciate Bcdc. In the spirit of inquiry. That\, you guys are adopting towards this work. I think the only thing that is less sensible than a bad answer is not doing the exploration and research at all. \nMichael Brownrigg: And I think that’s you know that’s the Dark Ages versus the Enlightenment. So thank you very much. I’m done. I’ll give you the balance of my time. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you. Moving to Eileen Mclaughlin. \nEileen McLaughlin: Good afternoon. Chair\, mosterman and commissioners. Thank you for this these few minutes. Here. I’m Eileen Mclaughlin\, with Citizens committee to complete\, direct. \nEileen McLaughlin: and have been \nEileen McLaughlin: studying and following the the one shoreline project and Millbrand rolling game\, for since last fall\, when it was first \nEileen McLaughlin: announced to the public. \nEileen McLaughlin: I want to take a focus on the habitat issues here one that that would be affected by the barrier particularly. This is a place\, Hannah\, 2 mile barrier \nEileen McLaughlin: they want to have at one area. They have tidal marsh at one end\, which is marsh that Sfo must protect for the Ridgeway rails that moves on down southward onto beach and \nEileen McLaughlin: broad mud flats that are have waves coming back and forth them and the shore birds all winter long. Thousands and thousands just use that thoroughly\, and then down further to it\, where the water gets deeper at the shoreline\, and every single day recreational fishermen or women or children \nEileen McLaughlin: are out there catching fish. \nEileen McLaughlin: because the hydrology of idle action serves all of those different kinds of habitats\, and underneath the waters there’s eel grass\, which is also known as something that inhibits and cleans fresh water. \nEileen McLaughlin: This is an area that the project\, says one of its threats and and and opportunities or objectives is habitat\, but that barrier\, even with all its breaks\, is going to completely destroy the hydrological flow of this cove\, and all of the habitats and wildlife \nEileen McLaughlin: that use it today. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Kita Dev is our last public commenter. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Good afternoon chair\, Washington and Commissioners. I know it’s getting late. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: I wanna thank once your line for a lot of good work that they’ve done in San Mateo County\, which is part of our our Sierra Club’s chapter. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: However\, I have to tell you\, right upfront that every single agency\, and also the airport has taken rather violent exception to filling in the bay with a lagoon. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and it’s clear to us that while this may seem like an easy solution. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and we always appreciate research. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: But the scientific community \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: has weighed in on the side of nature \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and using nature-based solutions which they believe \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: will help not only the land\, but also the bay. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and we’ll keep costs down. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: I do want to point out that \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: since one shoreline worked on its guidelines\, which we were very involved with\, and which we very much appreciate. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Sb. 2\, 72 has passed. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: which requires all cities to follow be adapts \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: 6 goals\, the second of which is to put nature first whenever possible. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: but that is because \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: it recognizes that the bay itself. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: its living shorelines\, and its ecosystems are as much at risk \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: with sea level rise as the shoreline and the buildings and the infrastructure around it. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Therefore\, to fulfill the obligations of that law. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: We need Bcdc. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Policy makers to make sure that the public staff and the consultant teams that work on it \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: to extend their adaptation plans \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: to include integrating nature into their plants\, not just as vegetation on levees. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: but with some of the other elements that the scientific community in the paper that Arthur Feinstein mentioned includes. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes our published research. \nBoardroom SX80: One more. You’re Mike\, David. \nBoardroom SX80: any Commissioner want a final comment on this? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Hi\, Lynn\, it’s great to see you and I want to compliment you on this wonderful agency that you’ve created\, and in particular\, I’m delighted to see how you are looking at the protections \nBoardroom SX80: as a continuum all along the shoreline\, because one of the things we learned in Katrina was that those touch points\, those connection points between projects were where things typically broke down. And if that happened\, you had a big flood. \nBoardroom SX80: So we don’t want to do that anymore. And having you look at it all as a system\, is the best way to avoid that. So I’m really delighted to see that this has gone so well\, and so far\, and I’m bringing you greetings from Santa Claire County\, where we are blessed with being ringed by old salt ponds. That can be\, you know that can be restored to marshes. \nBoardroom SX80: But I just want to say that we’re delighted to see that you’re working with that. And I as both A. BC. Commissioner\, as the Mayor of Mountain View\, will do whatever I can to make sure that that connection between your county and my county \nBoardroom SX80: works beautifully\, even though I know that the methodologies there will be different from time to time. But thanks and thanks for this wonderful work\, and keep it up. Let me know how I can help. Thank you very much. Lynn and David. \nBoardroom SX80: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. \nBoardroom SX80: so moved. We have a motion sorry by Commissioner Cheryl Alter\, and I think a second by Commissioner Randolph. Although there were a number of offered seconds\, we are adjourned.\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/may-2-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240501T140000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240501T153000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240528T225619Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240628T213323Z
UID:10000181-1714572000-1714577400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 1\, 2024 Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force
DESCRIPTION:Meeting Notice \nPresentation
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-1-2024-bay-adapt-local-electeds-regional-task-force/
CATEGORIES:Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240424T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240424T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240130T055542Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240424T211404Z
UID:10000152-1713963600-1713978000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 24\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-24-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240424T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240424T120000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240130T044844Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240610T220342Z
UID:10000132-1713951000-1713960000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, TemazcalSan Francisco\, CA  94105(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/83554159479?pwd=IVg0CLNlhMyzk9Zrf0ceEiV6nsr7RZ.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID835 5415 9479 \nPasscode452399 \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\nThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the April 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nBriefing to the Enforcement Committee on the Status of the City of Oakland’s Compliance with Commission Order CCD 2020.001.00.\nBCDC staff and City staff will report out to the committee on the current state of compliance with the terms and conditions of the Commission Order CCD 2020.001.00 requiring remedial actions at Union Point Park. The committee may choose to take action on this item.\n(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic comment letter\nBriefing on Oakland Alameda Estuary and Encampment Issue.\nThe Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels\, and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.\n(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic comment letter\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				 \nAudio Transcript\n[00:00:07] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: GOOD \n[00:00:07] MORNING\, EVERYONE. \n[00:00:12] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: GOOD \n[00:00:13] MORNING. \n[00:00:13] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HANG ON. \n[00:00:14] I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH MY \n[00:00:15] VOLUME HERE. \n[00:00:25] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: GOOD \n[00:00:25] MORNING\, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU \n[00:00:26] FOR JOINING US. CHAIR GILMORE WE \n[00:00:30] HAVE A QUORUM. \n[00:00:32] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HOLD ON. \n[00:00:33] I’M STILL HAVING AUDIO PROBLEMS. \n[00:00:45] CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING TO ME THIS \n[00:00:47] MORNING? \n[00:00:52] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: GOOD \n[00:00:53] MORNING. \n[00:00:54] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: CAN YOU \n[00:00:55] HEAR ME? \n[00:00:57] >>LETTY BELIN: YES. \n[00:00:59] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:00:59] GOOD MORNING\, EVERYONE. AND I \n[00:01:01] SEE THAT IT IS 9:31\, AND THIS \n[00:01:07] MEETING OF THE BCDC ENFORCEMENT \n[00:01:09] COMMITTEE IS HEREBY CALLED TO \n[00:01:11] ORDER. \n[00:01:12] MY NAME IS MARIE GILMORE AND I \n[00:01:12] AM THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. \n[00:01:13] FOR COMMISSIONERS\, INCLUDING \n[00:01:14] THOSE ATTENDING AT BEALE STREET\, \n[00:01:14] PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOUR VIDEO \n[00:01:15] CAMERAS ARE ALWAYS ON AND PLEASE \n[00:01:16] MUTE YOURSELVES WHEN YOU ARE NOT \n[00:01:16] SPEAKING. OUR FIRST ORDER OF \n[00:01:17] BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:01:18] MATTHEW\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:01:34] MATTHEW\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:01:37] COMMISSIONERS\, PLEASE UNMUTE \n[00:01:37] YOURSELVES WHILE HE DOES SO TO \n[00:01:38] RESPOND AND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES \n[00:01:39] AFTER RESPONDING. \n[00:01:43] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: GOOD \n[00:01:44] MORNING. COMMISSIONER BELIN? \n[00:01:46] >>LETTY BELIN: HERE. \n[00:01:49] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: COMMISSIONER \n[00:01:50] VASQUEZ? \n[00:01:52] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \n[00:01:54] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: CHAIR \n[00:01:54] GILMORE. \n[00:01:55] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HERE. \n[00:01:56] WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT AND ARE \n[00:01:57] DULY CONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT \n[00:01:57] BUSINESS. AND THAT BRINGS US TO \n[00:01:58] ITEM THREE ON OUR AGENDA\, PUBLIC \n[00:02:05] COMMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR \n[00:02:08] USUAL \n[00:02:08] PRACTICE AND AS INDICATED ON THE \n[00:02:09] AGENDA\, WE WILL NOW HAVE GENERAL \n[00:02:10] PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON \n[00:02:14] TODAY’S AGENDA. WE’VE RECEIVED \n[00:02:17] NO GENERAL COMMENTS. IS THAT \n[00:02:19] STILL CORRECT\, MARGIE? \n[00:02:22] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: YES\, \n[00:02:23] THAT IS CORRECT. \n[00:02:24] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: IN \n[00:02:25] ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. FOR THE \n[00:02:27] MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING \n[00:02:28] ONLINE\, IF YOU WOULD \n[00:02:29] LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE \n[00:02:30] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR \n[00:02:30] FOR AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA\, \n[00:02:31] PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IN THE \n[00:02:32] ZOOM APPLICATION BY CLICKING ON \n[00:02:32] THE PARTICIPANTS ICON AT THE \n[00:02:33] BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN AND LOOK \n[00:02:34] IN THE BOX WHERE YOUR NAME IS \n[00:02:34] LISTED UNDER ATTENDEES. FIND A \n[00:02:35] SMALL PALM ICON ON THE LEFT. IF \n[00:02:36] YOU CLICK ON THAT PALM ICON\, IT \n[00:02:36] WILL RAISE YOUR HAND\, OR IF YOU \n[00:02:37] ARE JOINING THIS MEETING BY \n[00:02:38] PHONE\, YOU MUST DIAL STAR 9 TO \n[00:02:39] RAISE YOUR HAND THEN DIAL STAR 6 \n[00:02:39] ON YOUR KEYPAD TO UNMUTE YOUR \n[00:02:40] PHONE WHEN THE HOST ASKS YOU IN \n[00:02:41] ORDER TO MAKE A COMMENT. THE \n[00:02:41] MEETING HOST WILL CALL \n[00:02:42] INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED \n[00:02:42] THEIR HANDS IN THE ORDER THEY \n[00:02:43] WERE RAISED. AFTER YOU ARE \n[00:02:44] CALLED UPON\, YOU WILL BE UNMUTED \n[00:02:44] SO THAT YOU CAN SHARE YOUR \n[00:02:45] COMMENTS. PLEASE ANNOUNCE \n[00:02:46] YOURSELF BY FIRST AND LAST NAME \n[00:02:46] FOR THE RECORD BEFORE MAKING \n[00:02:47] YOUR COMMENT. FOR MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:02:48] PUBLIC ATTENDING IN PERSON\, \n[00:02:48] PLEASE QUEUE UP AT THE SPEAKER’S \n[00:02:49] PODIUM AND WAIT TO BE CALLED \n[00:02:50] UPON TO SPEAK. COMMENTERS ARE \n[00:02:50] LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES TO \n[00:02:51] SPEAK. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS \n[00:02:52] RESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED. WE’RE \n[00:02:52] HERE TO LISTEN TO ANY INDIVIDUAL \n[00:02:53] WHO REQUESTS TO SPEAK\, BUT EACH \n[00:02:54] SPEAKER HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY \n[00:02:55] TO ACT IN A CIVIL AND COURTEOUS \n[00:02:55] MANNER AS DETERMINED BY THE \n[00:02:56] CHAIR. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE HATE \n[00:02:57] SPEECH\, DIRECT THREATS\, INDIRECT \n[00:02:57] THREATS OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. WE \n[00:02:58] WILL MUTE ANYONE WHO FAILS TO \n[00:02:59] FOLLOW THOSE GUIDELINES. MARGIE\, \n[00:02:59] DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTERS? \n[00:04:03] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: CHAIR \n[00:04:10] GILMORE\, WE DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC \n[00:04:13] SPEAKER IN THE ROOM OR ONLINE. \n[00:04:15] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:04:15] YOU. SO\, THAT MOVES US ON TO \n[00:04:20] ITEM NUMBER FOUR\, APPROVAL OF \n[00:04:22] DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE LAST \n[00:04:23] MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN \n[00:04:25] FURNISHED DRAFT MEETINGS FROM \n[00:04:26] OUR LAST MEETING. COMMITTEE \n[00:04:29] MEMBERS\, I WOULD APPRECIATE A \n[00:04:30] MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE \n[00:04:32] THESE. \n[00:04:39] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SO MOVED. \n[00:04:40] >>LETTY BELIN: SECOND. \n[00:04:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:04:41] MOVED BY COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ \n[00:04:43] AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER \n[00:04:44] BELIN. DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS \n[00:04:46] TO APPROVING THESE MINUTES? DO \n[00:04:51] WE HAVE ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. \n[00:04:57] THE MEETING MINUTES PASS \n[00:05:00] UNANIMOUSLY. SO\, NOW WE ARE ON \n[00:05:05] TO ITEM NUMBER 5\, WHICH IS A \n[00:05:10] BRIEFING TO THIS COMMITTEE ON \n[00:05:11] THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF \n[00:05:15] OAKLAND’S COMPLIANCE WITH \n[00:05:16] COMMISSION ORDER CCD \n[00:05:18] 2020.001.00. BCDC COMPLIANCE \n[00:05:25] STAFF AND OAKLAND CITY STAFF \n[00:05:27] WILL NOW REPORT OUT TO THIS \n[00:05:29] COMMISSION ON THE CURRENT STATE \n[00:05:31] OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND \n[00:05:33] CONDITIONS OF THE COMMISSION \n[00:05:36] ORDER REQUIRING REMEDIAL ACTIONS \n[00:05:38] AT UNION POINT PARK IN THE CITY \n[00:05:41] OF OAKLAND\, ALAMEDA COUNTY. I’M \n[00:05:44] GOING TO INVITE JOHN CREECH OF \n[00:05:47] OUR COMPLIANCE UNIT TO START US \n[00:05:49] OFF. JOHN? \n[00:05:56] >>SANJAY RANCHOD: CHAIR GILMORE\, \n[00:05:58] IT’S SANJAY RANCHOD\, I JUST \n[00:06:01] WANTED TO NOTE I HAVE JOINED THE \n[00:06:04] MEETING AS WELL. \n[00:06:05] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:06:05] YOU\, SANJAY. WELCOME\, JOHN\, \n[00:06:06] BEFORE YOU START\, CAN WE HAVE \n[00:06:08] THE CITY OF OAKLAND OFFICIALS \n[00:06:09] WHO ARE PRESENT PLEASE IDENTIFY \n[00:06:11] THEMSELVES? \n[00:06:17] >>JOE DEVRIES: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:06:17] CHAIR GILMORE. THIS IS JOE \n[00:06:20] DEVRIES\, DEPUTY CITY \n[00:06:21] ADMINISTRATOR. I DO BELIEVE \n[00:06:22] OFFICER ALBINO IS HERE TO TALK \n[00:06:23] ON THE NEXT ITEM\, BUT I’M NOT \n[00:06:25] SURE BECAUSE I CAN’T SEE WHO \n[00:06:26] ELSE IS IN THE GALLERY. \n[00:06:29] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OFFICER \n[00:06:30] ALBINO? I SEE HIM. \n[00:06:38] >>JOE DEVRIES: HE’S HERE FOR THE \n[00:06:39] NEXT ITEM. \n[00:06:39] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:06:40] GREAT. ALL RIGHT. JOHN? \n[00:06:53] >>JOHN CREECH: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:06:55] COMMISSIONERS\, MY NAME IS JOHN \n[00:06:56] CREECH\, I’M ON BCDC’S COMPLIANCE \n[00:06:58] TEAM. I’M HERE TODAY TO \n[00:07:00] INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER 5\, A \n[00:07:02] BRIEFING ON UNION POINT PARK. \n[00:07:03] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: JOHN\, \n[00:07:04] EXCUSE ME. COULD YOU SPEAK UP A \n[00:07:06] LITTLE BIT? I’M HAVING \n[00:07:08] DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU. THANK \n[00:07:08] YOU. \n[00:07:10] >>JOHN CREECH: THANK YOU FOR \n[00:07:11] LETTING ME KNOW. I’LL START \n[00:07:14] OVER. I’M JOHN CREECH\, I’M ON \n[00:07:16] BCDC’S COMPLIANCE TEAM. I’M HERE \n[00:07:18] TODAY TO INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER \n[00:07:20] 5\, A BRIEFING ON UNION POINT \n[00:07:22] PARK. WE WILL THEN HEAR FROM THE \n[00:07:23] CITY OF OAKLAND ON THE STATUS OF \n[00:07:25] THEIR PARK AND THEIR PLANS FOR \n[00:07:27] MAINTAINING THE PARK. UNION \n[00:07:36] POINT PARK AND UNION POINT \n[00:07:38] MARINA ARE LOCATED IN OAKLAND\, \n[00:07:41] ALAMEDA COUNTY JUST SOUTH OF \n[00:07:43] COAST GUARD ISLAND BRIDGE ALONG \n[00:07:47] OAKLAND’S EMBARCADERO. IT IS \n[00:07:47] GOVERENED BY TWO ADMINISTRATIVE \n[00:07:50] BCDC PERMITS. UNION POINT PARK \n[00:07:51] WAS THE SUBJECT OF BCDC \n[00:07:51] ENFORCEMENT CASE ER 2018.028 AND \n[00:07:52] THAT CASE LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF \n[00:08:03] CEASE AND DESIST ORDER CCD \n[00:08:04] 220.001.00 TO THE CITY OF \n[00:08:05] OAKLAND ON OCTOBER 21\, 2020. AS \n[00:08:07] YOU MAY RECALL\, THE ISSUE OF \n[00:08:09] ENCAMPMENTS AT THE PARK HAS BEEN \n[00:08:10] THE SUBJECT OF MANY PUBLIC \n[00:08:12] COMMENTS OVER THE YEARS. BCDC \n[00:08:13] STAFF AND THE ENFORCEMENT \n[00:08:15] COMMITTEE BEGAN RECEIVING PUBLIC \n[00:08:17] COMMENTS ABOUT THE PARK AGAIN IN \n[00:08:18] LATE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. CCD \n[00:08:27] 2020.01.00 REFERS TO THE \n[00:08:30] ENTIRETY OF UNION POINT PARK\, \n[00:08:31] THOUGH THE PARK ITSELF IS \n[00:08:36] PERMITTED USING TWO SEPARATE \n[00:08:38] PERMIT AUTHORIZATIONS. THE ORDER \n[00:08:38] COVERS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARK \n[00:08:40] AND IS ISSUED TO THE CITY OF \n[00:08:40] OAKLAND. THE ORDER REQUIRED \n[00:08:43] OAKLAND TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT \n[00:08:44] AN ENCAMPMENT CLOSURE PLAN AND A \n[00:08:47] PARK RESTORATION PLAN. ALL \n[00:08:49] PARTIES UNDERSTOOD THAT THE \n[00:08:51] ENCAMPMENT ENCLOSURE PLAN WOULD \n[00:08:52] TAKE TIME TO IMPLEMENT AND WAS \n[00:08:54] TO OCCUR IN STAGES. AS SUCH\, THE \n[00:08:55] CITY WAS TO ESTABLISH A REPRIEVE \n[00:08:57] ZONE TO CONSOLIDATE ENCAMPMENTS \n[00:08:59] AND THEN WORK TO CLEAR AND CLEAN \n[00:09:00] UP THE SURROUNDING AREAS. THE \n[00:09:02] CITY WAS TO PROVIDE NECESSARY \n[00:09:04] SERVICES INCLUDING SANITARY\, \n[00:09:06] OUTREACH\, HOUSING\, WEEKLY \n[00:09:09] GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICES IN \n[00:09:11] THE REPRIEVE ZONE. BY FEBRUARY \n[00:09:13] 12\, 2021\, THE CITY WAS TO HAVE \n[00:09:16] CONDUCTED AN ENCAMPMENT CLOSURE \n[00:09:18] INTERVENTION IN THE ENTIRETY OF \n[00:09:20] THE PARK. THEN THE CITY WAS TO \n[00:09:23] IMPLEMENT ITS PARK RESTORATION \n[00:09:25] PLAN. BY APRIL 1\, 2022\, THE CITY \n[00:09:28] WAS TO HAVE FULLY RESTORED THE \n[00:09:30] PARK. IN THE INTEREST OF \n[00:09:34] PREVENTION\, THE CITY WAS TO \n[00:09:35] DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN \n[00:09:37] ENCAMPMENT ENFORCEMENT PLAN BY \n[00:09:41] APRIL 15\, 2021\, AS WELL AS A \n[00:09:41] LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PLAN BY \n[00:09:42] SEPTEMBER — EXCUSE ME\, BY \n[00:09:52] SEPTEMBER 1\, 2021. THE CITY OF \n[00:09:52] OAKLAND SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED \n[00:09:54] THE ALLOWED REPRIEVE ZONE AND \n[00:09:56] CLEANED UP THE PARK OUTSIDE OF \n[00:09:57] THE ZONE AS DOCUMENTED IN A \n[00:09:59] NOVEMBER 20\, 2021 EMAIL TO BCDC \n[00:10:01] STAFF. THEN\, CITY STAFF \n[00:10:04] CONFIRMED VIA EMAIL THAT THE \n[00:10:05] PARK HAD BEEN SUCCESSFULLY \n[00:10:07] CLEANED UP ON DECEMBER 11\, 2020. \n[00:10:10] THE CITY PROVIDED THE REQUIRED \n[00:10:12] PLANS FOR BCDC REVIEW IN \n[00:10:14] COMMENTS AND THE CITY WAS — \n[00:10:17] CITY REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED \n[00:10:19] AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE \n[00:10:21] THE NECESSARY RESTORATION OF THE \n[00:10:22] PARK. THE COMMITTEE IS BEING \n[00:10:30] BRIEFED TODAY BECAUSE THERE \n[00:10:31] SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SOME ISSUES \n[00:10:32] WITH ORDER COMPLIANCE AT THE \n[00:10:34] PARK RECENTLY. STARTING IN \n[00:10:35] JANUARY 2024\, BCDC STAFF AND THE \n[00:10:39] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE BEGAN \n[00:10:40] RECEIVING PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT \n[00:10:41] EXPRESSED CONCERNS OF \n[00:10:43] ENCAMPMENTS RETURNING TO UNION \n[00:10:44] POINT PARK. STAFF CONDUCTED A \n[00:10:46] SITE VISIT IN MARCH AND \n[00:10:47] CONFIRMED THE PRESENCE OF \n[00:10:49] SEVERAL TENTS THROUGHOUT THE \n[00:10:50] PARK AS WELL AS AN RV IN THE \n[00:10:51] SOUTHERN PARKING LOT. BCDC \n[00:10:53] SUBSEQUENTLY CONTACTED THE CITY \n[00:10:54] OF OAKLAND STAFF AND LEARNED \n[00:10:58] THEY WERE AWARE OF THE ISSUE BUT \n[00:11:00] WERE FACING CHALLENGES WITH THE \n[00:11:02] REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE SHELTER\, \n[00:11:03] AND THAT THERE WERE \n[00:11:04] INTERRUPTIONS IN THE CONTRACT \n[00:11:05] WITH THE OAKLAND OUTREACH TEAM\, \n[00:11:07] THIS TEAM PROVIDES FIRST CONTACT \n[00:11:10] WITH INDIVIDUALS ENCAMPED IN THE \n[00:11:11] PARKS. I WILL NOW INTRODUCE CITY \n[00:11:14] OF OAKLAND’S DEPUTY CITY \n[00:11:16] ADMINISTRATOR\, JOE DEVRIES. \n[00:11:24] >>JOE DEVRIES: THANK YOU\, JOHN. \n[00:11:26] SO\, I DON’T HAVE SLIDES. I JUST \n[00:11:28] WANT TO GIVE THE MOST RECENT \n[00:11:30] UPDATE. I THINK\, JOHN\, THAT WAS \n[00:11:32] VERY ACCURATE. WE\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:11:34] LOOKING AT OUR LONG-TERM \n[00:11:38] ENFORCEMENT PLAN THAT WE AGREED \n[00:11:39] TO IN THE ORIGINAL CEASE AND \n[00:11:42] DESIST\, WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE \n[00:11:43] FIRST FEW STEPS OF THAT PLAN. AS \n[00:11:45] JOHN MENTIONED\, WE HAD A \n[00:11:47] DISRUPTION IN OUR OUTREACH \n[00:11:49] CONTRACT. THAT DISRUPTION ENDED \n[00:11:51] A FEW WEEKS AGO. WE WERE ABLE TO \n[00:11:53] SEND OUR OUTREACH WORKERS OUT TO \n[00:11:54] MAKE CONTACT WITH THE PERSONS IN \n[00:11:55] THE ENCAMPMENT AND EXPLAIN THE \n[00:11:57] PARK RULES AND THE REQUEST THAT \n[00:11:59] PEOPLE MOVE VOLUNTARILY. OR \n[00:12:02] ACCEPT OFFERS OF SHELTER. \n[00:12:06] UNFORTUNATELY WE DON’T HAVE \n[00:12:07] SHELTER BEDS TO OFFER RIGHT NOW. \n[00:12:08] WE HAVE ADDED THE ENCAMPMENT TO \n[00:12:10] THE WEEKLY AGENDA FOR THE \n[00:12:12] ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM\, \n[00:12:13] WHICH IS STEP TWO OF THE \n[00:12:14] LONG-TERM ENFORCEMENT PLAN THAT \n[00:12:15] WE AGREED TO. AND THAT TEAM \n[00:12:18] HOPES TO HAVE BEDS AVAILABLE TO \n[00:12:19] BE ABLE TO PERFORM A CLOSURE IN \n[00:12:22] EARLY JUNE AT THIS POINT\, BASED \n[00:12:24] ON BED AVAILABILITY. WE’VE ALSO \n[00:12:28] DEPLOYED OAKDOT\, THE DEPARTMENT \n[00:12:32] OF TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE \n[00:12:34] ENFORCEMENT UNIT THREE TIMES IN \n[00:12:35] THE PAST THREE MONTHS TO TRY TO \n[00:12:39] GAIN VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE FOR \n[00:12:41] THE RV TO LEAVE THE PARKING LOT. \n[00:12:45] THEY HAVE REFUSED TO. SO\, IN \n[00:12:47] ORDER TO CLOSE THAT PORTION OF \n[00:12:50] THE ENCAMPMENT\, WE NEED TO \n[00:12:52] PROVIDE A SAFE RV PARKING SPOT. \n[00:12:54] WE DID OPEN A SAFE RV PARKING \n[00:12:56] SITE A YEAR AGO. IT IS CURRENTLY \n[00:12:58] FULL. SO\, WE’RE REALLY LOOKING \n[00:13:00] TO FIND A SPACE FOR THAT RV \n[00:13:02] BEFORE WE CAN CLOSE IT SO THAT \n[00:13:03] WE DON’T VIOLATE ANY OF OUR \n[00:13:05] LEGAL SETTLEMENTS OR OUR \n[00:13:08] ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY. \n[00:13:10] SO\, WE’LL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE \n[00:13:13] OUTREACH AT THE SITE UNTIL WE \n[00:13:15] SCHEDULE THE CLOSURE. AND THE \n[00:13:17] CLOSURE WILL BE SCHEDULED BASED \n[00:13:18] ON BED AVAILABILITY. HAPPY TO \n[00:13:24] ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n[00:13:27] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:13:28] YOU. I WASN’T SURE THAT YOU WERE \n[00:13:30] FINISHED. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS \n[00:13:33] HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. \n[00:13:36] DEVRIES? I JUST HAVE ONE \n[00:13:43] QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND\, YOU \n[00:13:47] KNOW\, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS \n[00:13:49] AND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO \n[00:13:57] REMOVE THESE ENCAMPMENTS OR RVs \n[00:14:00] ONCE THEY’RE ESTABLISHED. I \n[00:14:02] THINK WHAT I WANT TO KNOW AND \n[00:14:03] MAYBE WHAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \n[00:14:04] WANT TO KNOW IS GIVEN THE FACT \n[00:14:09] THAT THE CITY OF OAKLAND HAS \n[00:14:11] SPENT SO MANY RESOURCES ON \n[00:14:13] CLEANING UP THIS PARK\, WHY ISN’T \n[00:14:17] THERE MORE VIGILANCE IN TERMS OF \n[00:14:20] MONITORING THE PARK TO MAKE SURE \n[00:14:23] THAT THE ENCAMPMENTS DON’T GET A \n[00:14:26] FOOTHOLD IN THE FIRST PLACE? AND \n[00:14:29] IT MAY VERY WELL BE LACK OF \n[00:14:32] RESOURCES IN THE POLICE \n[00:14:35] DEPARTMENT OR WHATEVER. I WOULD \n[00:14:36] REALLY LIKE TO GET THIS ON THE \n[00:14:38] RECORD. THIS IS A QUESTION WE \n[00:14:40] GET A LOT. \n[00:14:44] >>JOE DEVRIES: I THINK YOU’RE \n[00:14:45] ASKING A QUESTION THAT \n[00:14:46] TRANSCENDS UNION POINT PARK. YOU \n[00:14:48] KNOW\, WE HAVE LAWS\, WE HAVE \n[00:14:50] RULES\, AND WE ALSO HAVE A \n[00:14:52] POPULATION THAT — THAT LIVES \n[00:14:54] OUTSIDE OF THOSE FOR A VARIETY \n[00:14:56] OF REASONS. YOU KNOW\, I FAILED \n[00:14:59] TO MENTION EARLIER\, WE DID ALSO \n[00:15:02] IMPLEMENT SOME SET-TED MEASURES. \n[00:15:07] YOU MAY RECALL\, LAST YEAR WE HAD \n[00:15:08] PEOPLE DRIVING INTO THE PARK\, WE \n[00:15:10] WERE ABLE TO QUICKLY GET THOSE \n[00:15:11] ENCAMPMENTS REMOVED\, AND WE \n[00:15:13] ACTUALLY PUT IN IN CONCRETE \n[00:15:15] BLOCKS TO AVOID CARS DRIVING \n[00:15:16] INTO THE PARK. THAT WAS A \n[00:15:19] SUCCESSFUL SET-TED ENDEAVOR. OPD \n[00:15:21] CAN GO AND ASK PEOPLE TO \n[00:15:23] VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH OUR PARK \n[00:15:25] RULES\, WITH OUR NO-CAMPING ZONE\, \n[00:15:28] WHICH IS CLEARLY BEEN POSTED \n[00:15:30] MULTIPLE TIMES. IF THEY DON’T\, \n[00:15:32] HOWEVER\, IT KICKS OVER TO THE \n[00:15:35] ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM. AND \n[00:15:36] THE ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY \n[00:15:39] IS REALLY CLEAR AND HAS BEEN \n[00:15:41] APPROVED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE THAT \n[00:15:42] WE CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO LEAVE \n[00:15:45] THE PARK UNLESS WE HAVE A \n[00:15:47] SHELTER BED FOR THEM. I THINK \n[00:15:52] THAT IS THE BIGGEST HURDLE WE \n[00:15:53] HAVE. WE HAVE EXPANDED OUR \n[00:15:55] SHELTER BED CAPACITY IN OAKLAND \n[00:15:56] SINCE 2017 BY SOMETHING LIKE \n[00:15:58] 800%. LITERALLY WENT FROM 100 \n[00:16:02] BEDS TO 800\, AND THEN WE ADDED \n[00:16:04] SAFE RV PARKING SITES ON TOP OF \n[00:16:06] THAT. AT THE SAME TIME\, THE \n[00:16:07] UNSHELTERED POPULATION HAS \n[00:16:12] TRIPLED. FOR ALL THOSE \n[00:16:13] EFFORTS — I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY \n[00:16:14] THE OTHER MAJOR HURDLE THE CITY \n[00:16:16] OF OAKLAND IS FACING IS THAT WE \n[00:16:18] ARE NOT MOVING PEOPLE OUT OF \n[00:16:20] SHELTER INTO PERMANENT HOUSING \n[00:16:22] BECAUSE THE PERMANENT HOUSING \n[00:16:23] DOESN’T EXIST. \n[00:16:26] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: MM-HMM. \n[00:16:28] >>JOE DEVRIES: THAT’S THE \n[00:16:29] BOTTLENECK THAT OUR CITY \n[00:16:30] STRUGGLES WITH DESPERATELY. WHEN \n[00:16:32] I STARTED DOING THIS WORK — \n[00:16:33] I’VE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOUR \n[00:16:35] COMMITTEE NOW SINCE BEFORE THE \n[00:16:36] PANDEMIC. YOU KNOW\, WE WOULD \n[00:16:40] MOVE SOMEONE INTO A CABIN\, FOR \n[00:16:42] EXAMPLE\, AND EXPECT A SIX-MONTH \n[00:16:44] STAY. AND WE — WITH OUR \n[00:16:47] ORIGINAL COMMUNITY CABIN \n[00:16:49] PROGRAM\, WE ACTUALLY MOVED TWO \n[00:16:52] THIRDS OF THE FIRST RESIDENTS OF \n[00:16:53] THOSE CABINS INTO PERMANENT \n[00:16:56] HOUSING WITHIN SIX MONTHS. \n[00:16:57] THAT’S NO LONGER THE CASE. WE \n[00:16:58] ARE FINDING THAT WE MOVE PEOPLE \n[00:16:59] INTO THESE CABIN SHELTERS OR \n[00:17:02] INTO SAFE RV SITES AND WE’RE NOT \n[00:17:05] EXITING THEM AT NEARLY THE PACE \n[00:17:08] WE WERE BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE \n[00:17:09] THE HOUSING TO EXIT THEM TO. YOU \n[00:17:10] KNOW\, AS YOU KNOW\, THERE’S A \n[00:17:12] SUPREME COURT CASE THAT WAS \n[00:17:13] HEARD JUST ON MONDAY REGARDING \n[00:17:15] THE 9th CIRCUIT AND REALLY WILL \n[00:17:18] BE A MOMENT WHERE WE’RE REALLY \n[00:17:21] HOPING TO SEE WHAT THE SUPREME \n[00:17:23] COURT SAYS IN LATE JUNE AT THE \n[00:17:25] END OF THEIR SESSION. THAT COULD \n[00:17:27] SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR \n[00:17:29] OPERATIONS AND GIVE US MORE \n[00:17:31] LEEWAY. NOT TO GO INTO TOO MUCH \n[00:17:35] DETAIL\, BUT MY OPINION\, I’M NOT \n[00:17:36] AN ATTORNEY\, I’VE READ THE 9th \n[00:17:40] CIRCUIT CASE\, I HAD TO BE IN \n[00:17:41] FEDERAL COURT SIX TIMES ON THIS\, \n[00:17:43] I BELIEVE THE JUDGES MADE IT \n[00:17:45] CLEAR\, THE CITIES COULD REGULATE \n[00:17:47] TIME\, PLACE AND MANNER\, BUT IT’S \n[00:17:49] NOT BEEN INTERPRETED THAT WAY AT \n[00:17:51] THE LOCAL LEVEL. OUR LOCAL \n[00:17:53] FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE GOTTEN VERY \n[00:17:56] INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN WHAT TYPE \n[00:17:57] OF SHELTER WE OFFER\, WHAT \n[00:17:59] AMENITIES WE OFFER AT THE \n[00:18:00] SHELTER BEFORE WE’RE ALLOWED TO \n[00:18:01] TAKE ACTION WHEN A RESTRAINING \n[00:18:03] ORDER IS FILED AGAINST US. I’M \n[00:18:06] CITING WOOD STREET AS THE MOST \n[00:18:08] RECENT EXAMPLE WHERE THE JUDGE \n[00:18:09] WOULD NOT LET US CLOSE THE WOOD \n[00:18:11] STREET ENCAMPMENT UNTIL SOME \n[00:18:13] VERY DETAILED ASPECTS OF THE \n[00:18:15] COMMUNITY CABIN PROGRAM COULD BE \n[00:18:17] PROVED OR IMPLEMENTED. THINGS \n[00:18:19] SUCH AS WHETHER WE HAD THE \n[00:18:22] SHOWERS UP AND RUNNING\, EVEN \n[00:18:24] THOUGH WE HAD THE BATHROOMS UP \n[00:18:25] AND RUNNING. WHETHER WE PROVIDED \n[00:18:27] A COMMUNITY KITCHEN. THAT \n[00:18:29] DEFINITION OF WHAT IS ADEQUATE \n[00:18:31] EMERGENCY SHELTER BEING PLAYED \n[00:18:32] OUT IN A FEDERAL\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:18:35] COURT LOCALLY I THINK HAS REALLY \n[00:18:38] MADE OPERATIONS DIFFICULT. I \n[00:18:39] THINK WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN AT \n[00:18:41] THE SUPREME COURT WILL REALLY \n[00:18:42] SHAPE THINGS MORE IN THE FUTURE. \n[00:18:47] SORRY\, I’VE GONE ON A LONG TIME \n[00:18:48] ABOUT THAT. I HOPE IT GIVES YOU \n[00:18:50] A BIT OF CONTEXT. REST ASSURED\, \n[00:18:52] THIS ENCAMPMENT IS ON THE EMTs \n[00:18:55] RADAR. IT IS GOING TO BE \n[00:18:56] PRIORITIZED. I WASN’T SURE IF I \n[00:18:58] SHOULD TALK ABOUT IT DURING THIS \n[00:18:59] AGENDA ITEM OR THE NEXT ONE\, WE \n[00:19:01] DID JUST HAVE A VERY MASSIVE \n[00:19:05] CLOSURE OF THE LEET DRIVE-IN \n[00:19:08] ENCAMPMENT. OUR CENSUS DATA FROM \n[00:19:11] UNION POINT PARK SHOWS IT’S \n[00:19:12] ABOUT FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE. ONCE \n[00:19:13] WE GET THOSE BEDS IT SHOULDN’T \n[00:19:16] AN DIFFICULT LIFT TO GET IT \n[00:19:18] CLOSED. WE JUST CLOSED A MUCH \n[00:19:20] LARGER ENCAMPMENT ON LEET DRIVE\, \n[00:19:22] WHICH THIS COMMITTEE WAS \n[00:19:23] INTERESTED IN IN TERMS OF THE \n[00:19:24] IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY BECAUSE \n[00:19:26] IT WAS ALONG THE CHANNEL. THAT\, \n[00:19:28] WE CONSIDER A SUCCESS. WITH EACH \n[00:19:31] SUCCESS WE TAP OUR RESOURCES AND \n[00:19:34] MAKE THE NEXT ONE TAKE THAT MUCH \n[00:19:36] LONGER TO IMPLEMENT. \n[00:19:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:19:40] YOU VERY MUCH. I DEFINITELY \n[00:19:41] APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT. I THINK \n[00:19:43] IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE — I’M \n[00:19:48] SORRY? JOHN? YOU’RE MUTED. OKAY. \n[00:19:57] I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT. \n[00:20:00] I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT THE \n[00:20:02] PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THE CONTEXT \n[00:20:05] AND THE CONSTRAINTS UPON WHICH \n[00:20:09] ALL OF THIS IS SURROUNDED BY OR \n[00:20:11] AFFECTED BY. BEFORE I GO TO \n[00:20:14] PUBLIC COMMENT\, DO ANY MEMBERS \n[00:20:16] OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY \n[00:20:19] QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING \n[00:20:24] NONE. MARGIE\, DO WE HAVE ANY \n[00:20:27] PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? \n[00:20:33] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: YES\, WE \n[00:20:33] HAVE A PUBLIC SPEAKER HERE IN \n[00:20:36] PERSON. \n[00:20:47] >>SPEAKER: GOOD MORNING CHAIR \n[00:20:48] GILMORE\, COMMISSIONER AND STAFF. \n[00:20:51] MY NAME IS MICHAEL GORMAN\, I \n[00:20:54] RESIDE IN ALAMEDA. I COME TO \n[00:20:56] REPRESENT 300 TO 400 KIDS THAT \n[00:20:59] PARTICIPATE IN OUR SAILING \n[00:21:01] PROGRAM ALL YEAR LONG AND \n[00:21:02] ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER. IT \n[00:21:04] CONTINUES TO CONCERN US AND \n[00:21:05] DISGUST US THAT THE GARBAGE AND \n[00:21:08] HUMAN WASTE CONTINUES TO BE PUT \n[00:21:09] INTO THE WATERS OF THE OAKLAND \n[00:21:12] ESTUARY WHERE OUR KIDS SWIM AND \n[00:21:16] RECREATE. MANY ADULTS DO THE \n[00:21:18] SAME. I’M ALSO INVOLVED WITH A \n[00:21:20] BUSINESS IN OAKLAND ON KENNEDY \n[00:21:21] STREET. I’M THERE DAILY. I \n[00:21:25] WITNESSED THE NETWORK OF RVs \n[00:21:30] ANCHORED OUT — ILLEGALLY \n[00:21:32] ANCHORED-OUT BOATS AND OTHER \n[00:21:35] STREET PEOPLE WHO OBVIOUSLY \n[00:21:37] OPERATE A NETWORK OF DRUG \n[00:21:40] DISTRIBUTION AND THIEVERY AND \n[00:21:44] ITEMS CONTINUALLY MISSING OFF OF \n[00:21:47] PROPERTY OWNERS AND BOATS IN THE \n[00:21:48] AREA. IT’S NOT JUST BY \n[00:21:51] OBSERVATION. I’VE BEEN INVOLVED \n[00:21:53] WITH THE DEA\, HOMELAND SECURITY\, \n[00:21:58] THE COAST GUARD SPECIAL \n[00:22:00] INVESTIGATORS AND THE POLICE \n[00:22:01] DEPARTMENTS\, THERE HAVE BEEN \n[00:22:03] ARRESTS MADE OF THESE PEOPLE. \n[00:22:08] CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM. I \n[00:22:10] GUESS THE CULMINATION OF THIS \n[00:22:11] WAS LAST WEEK OR ABOUT TEN DAYS \n[00:22:13] AGO IN A SHOOTING AND MURDER IN \n[00:22:14] THE MIDDLE OF KENNEDY STREET \n[00:22:17] AMONGST THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE. \n[00:22:22] THE KIDS ARE MY MAIN CONCERN IN \n[00:22:24] ALAMEDA\, BUT THE BUSINESSES AND \n[00:22:25] PUBLIC IN OAKLAND AND THE \n[00:22:27] WATERFRONT AND PUBLIC WATERWAYS \n[00:22:29] ARE ALSO A CONCERN. BEING A \n[00:22:32] BOATER ALL MY LIFE AND \n[00:22:34] APPRECIATIVE OF THE WATER AND \n[00:22:35] ITS RESOURCE\, I LOOK TO BCDC AS \n[00:22:36] BEING THE MAIN CONTROLLER AND \n[00:22:41] WATCHKEEPER OF THOSE RESOURCES \n[00:22:43] FOR THE PUBLIC. FRANKLY\, THE \n[00:22:46] INTRUSION OF THE ANCHOR-OUTS\, \n[00:22:48] ILLEGAL ANCHOR-OUTS\, THE OTHER \n[00:22:51] THINGS THAT I MENTIONED ON LAND \n[00:22:53] AND WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS OF UNION \n[00:22:56] POINT PARK KEEP THE PUBLIC AWAY \n[00:22:57] FROM THE AREA. THE ONLY PEOPLE \n[00:22:59] WHO GO THERE ARE THOSE \n[00:23:00] PARTICIPANTS OF THOSE \n[00:23:02] ACTIVITIES. I’VE BEEN OVER THERE \n[00:23:04] FOR YEARS. I’VE YET TO SEE A \n[00:23:06] FAMILY WALKING A CHILD DOWN THAT \n[00:23:07] BAY TRAIL OR EVEN HARDLY A \n[00:23:11] INDIVIDUAL RIDING A BIKE OR \n[00:23:12] GOING DOWN THE BAY TRAIL IF \n[00:23:14] THEY’RE NOT PART OF WHAT I WOULD \n[00:23:15] CALL THE ILLEGAL COMMUNITY. I’VE \n[00:23:17] ALWAYS FELT BCDC HAS DONE A \n[00:23:19] GREAT JOB. I WANT TO THANK YOU \n[00:23:21] FOR YOUR PAST ACTIONS IN \n[00:23:22] CLEANING UP THE PARK. YOU HAVE \n[00:23:24] THE ULTIMATE CLOUT THROUGH THAT \n[00:23:26] PERMITTING PROCESS AND \n[00:23:28] ENFORCEMENT\, THIS COMMITTEE \n[00:23:31] ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR THE CITY \n[00:23:32] OF OAKLAND. I WOULD URGE YOU TO \n[00:23:34] STEP IT UP. PUT MORE \n[00:23:36] ENFORCEMENT\, FIRM ENFORCEMENT \n[00:23:38] ACTION IN PLACE AND TRY TO GET \n[00:23:40] SOMETHING DONE ABOUT THIS \n[00:23:41] PROBLEM. I APPRECIATE OAKLAND’S \n[00:23:45] COMMENTS\, THE DEPUTY \n[00:23:48] ADMINISTRATOR’S COMMENTS ON \n[00:23:49] THEIR CONSTRAINTS AND \n[00:23:51] DIFFICULTIES\, I ALSO KNOW IT’S A \n[00:23:53] MATTER OF PRIORITIES. IF YOU \n[00:23:54] HAVE PRESSURE ON THEM FOR AN \n[00:23:56] ENFORCEMENT ACTION\, I’M SURE \n[00:23:57] THEIR PRIORITIES WILL INCREASE\, \n[00:23:59] ESPECIALLY IF IT INCLUDES \n[00:24:01] PENALTIES AND FINES. THANK YOU \n[00:24:03] FOR YOUR COMMENTS — THANK YOU \n[00:24:05] FOR LISTENING. \n[00:24:09] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:24:09] YOU\, SIR. I’M GOING TO ASSUME \n[00:24:11] THAT THOSE COMMENTS APPLY \n[00:24:15] EQUALLY TO ITEM NUMBER 6\, WHICH \n[00:24:18] IS A BRIEFING ON OUR \n[00:24:20] ALAMEDA-OAKLAND ESTUARY \n[00:24:22] ENCAMPMENT ISSUES. \n[00:24:24] >>SPEAKER: YES. \n[00:24:25] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I’M NOT \n[00:24:26] SURE IF YOU MEANT TO SPEAK ON \n[00:24:31] THAT ITEM OR IF THESE COMMENTS \n[00:24:33] APPLY TO BOTH ITEMS. \n[00:24:35] >>SPEAKER: THE COMMENTS APPLY TO \n[00:24:36] BOTH. I PROBABLY FORGOT TO \n[00:24:38] COMMENT ON MY THANK YOU TO THE \n[00:24:41] OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT\, \n[00:24:42] ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR \n[00:24:43] ALL THEY ACCOMPLISHED ALREADY. \n[00:24:46] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:24:47] THANK YOU\, SIR. \n[00:24:49] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:24:49] YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ONE MORE \n[00:24:50] PUBLIC SPEAKER. PLEASE STATE \n[00:24:52] YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU \n[00:24:53] HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n[00:24:55] >>SPEAKER: MY NAME IS CHRIS \n[00:24:56] McKAY\, I’M WITH THE EMBARCADERO \n[00:24:59] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. A YEAR \n[00:25:02] AGO WE WERE PLANTING TREES IN \n[00:25:05] THE PARK. WE HAD A BUNCH OF \n[00:25:07] SCHOOL CHILDREN COME IN. WE \n[00:25:08] CLEANED UP GRAFFITI\, PICKED UP \n[00:25:10] LITTER\, EVERYBODY WAS TALKING \n[00:25:12] ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, HOW GREAT THE \n[00:25:13] PARK WAS LOOKING AND WE COULD — \n[00:25:16] WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH \n[00:25:18] FIXING UP THE PLAYGROUND AND \n[00:25:19] PLANTING MORE TREES. A DAY AFTER \n[00:25:21] THAT\, SOMEBODY MOVED INTO THE \n[00:25:22] PARK WITH A TENT. NOBODY TOLD \n[00:25:25] THEM TO LEAVE. IT GREW AND MORE \n[00:25:27] PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND MORE PEOPLE \n[00:25:28] SHOWED UP. AND NOW I’VE \n[00:25:31] SUBMITTED PICTURES OF THIS\, \n[00:25:33] THERE’S BASICALLY A TWO-BEDROOM \n[00:25:34] HOUSE THAT’S BEEN BUILT IN THE \n[00:25:36] CENTER OF THE PARK RIGHT NEXT TO \n[00:25:38] THE PLAYGROUND. EVERY NIGHT \n[00:25:40] PEOPLE HAVE BONFIRES THERE. \n[00:25:43] THEY’RE SURROUNDED BY TRASH\, \n[00:25:45] HUMAN WASTE. RECENTLY THE GUY \n[00:25:48] HAS GOTTEN A DOG. I WAS — HAD \n[00:25:53] TO RUN YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS OVER \n[00:25:54] THERE TAKING PICTURES BECAUSE \n[00:25:56] THIS BIG BLACK DOG CAME OUT OF \n[00:25:59] THIS STRUCTURE AND I HEARD FROM \n[00:26:01] OTHER PEOPLE THAT HE’S ATTACKED \n[00:26:03] PEOPLE AND THAT THERE’S ANOTHER \n[00:26:04] DOG ROAMING THE PARK THAT \n[00:26:09] BELONGS TO ONE OF THE PEOPLE. \n[00:26:10] THE PARK IS ABANDONED. THERE’S \n[00:26:12] NOBODY THERE. NO ONE NOW WILL GO \n[00:26:14] NEAR IT WITH THIS DOG. I CAN \n[00:26:17] UNDERSTAND SOMEONE IN A TENT\, \n[00:26:19] BUT THIS GUY HAS BUILT A HOUSE \n[00:26:21] IN THE CENTER OF THE PARK AND \n[00:26:23] BEEN ALLOWED TO STAY THERE FOR \n[00:26:25] OVER SIX MONTHS. IT’S JUST \n[00:26:28] UNBELIEVABLE THAT THIS HAS \n[00:26:31] HAPPENED. THE AMOUNT OF TRASH IS \n[00:26:33] RIDICULOUS. THE CRIME ELEMENT \n[00:26:35] NOW. THERE WAS A SHOOTING\, AS \n[00:26:37] MICHAEL MENTIONED\, ON KENNEDY \n[00:26:43] STREET TWO WEEKS AGO. THIS CAME \n[00:26:45] FROM THE THEFT OF THE COPPER \n[00:26:46] WIRING FROM JACQUELINE SQUARE \n[00:26:48] MARINA. IT WAS TAKEN — IT WAS \n[00:26:52] STOLEN BY THE GUYS ON THE BOATS \n[00:26:54] FROM THE ANCHOR-OUT. THE POLICE \n[00:26:57] KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS. THEY STOLE\, \n[00:26:59] I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY THOUSANDS \n[00:27:00] OF DOLLARS WORTH OF COPPER WIRE. \n[00:27:03] THEY TOOK IT DOWN TO KENNEDY \n[00:27:04] STREET AND THEY STRIPPED IT ALL \n[00:27:06] THERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE — YOU \n[00:27:08] KNOW\, THE REMAINS FROM THE \n[00:27:10] STRIPPING. ANOTHER GANG OR A \n[00:27:13] GANG CAME AND ATTEMPTED TO ROB \n[00:27:16] THE GUY\, GRAY DUBEL\, THAT STOLE \n[00:27:20] THE WIRING. GRAY DUBEL SHOT THE \n[00:27:24] GUY IN THE HEAD AND KILLED HIM. \n[00:27:25] THIS WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF \n[00:27:27] KENNEDY STREET AT 3:30 IN THE \n[00:27:28] AFTERNOON\, WHICH IS AROUND THE \n[00:27:29] CORNER FROM THE DOWNTOWN CHARTER \n[00:27:32] ACADEMY WHERE ALL THE PARENTS \n[00:27:34] WERE PICKING UP THEIR KIDS AND \n[00:27:35] DRIVING DOWN KENNEDY TO GET ON \n[00:27:37] THE FREEWAY. WHAT’S GOING ON \n[00:27:39] THERE IS IT’S ALL TIED TOGETHER. \n[00:27:41] IT’S THE MURDER ON KENNEDY \n[00:27:43] STREET\, IT’S THE PEOPLE IN THE \n[00:27:45] PARK LIVING IN THE PARK\, AND \n[00:27:47] IT’S ALSO THE ANCHOR-OUTS. SO\, \n[00:27:51] SOMEWHERE THIS LINK HAS TO BE \n[00:27:53] BROKEN. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER \n[00:27:55] IT’S THE PARK\, GETTING RID OF \n[00:27:57] THE ANCHOR-OUTS\, CLOSING KENNEDY \n[00:27:59] STREET. WE’D LIKE TO SEE ALL \n[00:28:00] THREE OF IT\, THREE THINGS \n[00:28:03] HAPPEN. BECAUSE THIS IS \n[00:28:04] UNTENABLE. WE ASK BCDC\, USE ITS \n[00:28:09] ENFORCEMENT POLICY. THE CITY HAS \n[00:28:11] 23 MILLION OF UNSPENT MONEY FROM \n[00:28:16] MEASURE Q ALLOCATED FOR LEANING \n[00:28:17] UP THE PARKS. WHY HASN’T HAS \n[00:28:20] BEEN SPENT? YOU COULD PUT PEOPLE \n[00:28:22] IN RITZ CARLTON IF YOU NEED A \n[00:28:24] PLACE FOR THEM WITH THIS MONEY. \n[00:28:26] PLEASE DO SOMETHING. WE CAN’T \n[00:28:28] TAKE IT ANYMORE. THANK YOU. \n[00:28:34] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:28:35] YOU. \n[00:28:35] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:28:36] YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIR GILMORE\, \n[00:28:38] THAT’S ALL WE HAVE FOR THE \n[00:28:42] PUBLIC SPEAKER IN-PERSON. WE \n[00:28:45] HAVE A COMMENTER ONLINE. \n[00:28:52] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:28:52] YOU. \n[00:29:01] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: VH? \n[00:29:03] >>SPEAKER: HI. \n[00:29:07] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: PLEASE \n[00:29:08] STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD \n[00:29:08] AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n[00:29:11] [ BROKEN AUDIO ] \n[00:29:13] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. WE \n[00:29:14] CAN’T HEAR YOU OR UNDERSTAND \n[00:29:15] YOU. \n[00:29:17] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: VH? WE \n[00:29:24] CANNOT HEAR YOU. \n[00:29:29] [ BROKEN AUDIO ] \n[00:29:35] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: SORRY\, \n[00:29:36] WE CAN’T HEAR YOU. \n[00:29:43] >>SPEAKER: I’M A RESIDENT — CAN \n[00:29:46] YOU STILL NOT UNDERSTAND ME? \n[00:29:48] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YOU’RE \n[00:29:49] FADING IN AND OUT. TRY AGAIN. \n[00:29:51] >>SPEAKER: I’M SORRY. I JUST \n[00:29:52] DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN DO ON \n[00:29:54] MY END. \n[00:29:55] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YOU’RE \n[00:29:56] FINE RIGHT NOW. \n[00:29:57] >>SPEAKER: OKAY. GREAT. I WOULD \n[00:29:58] RATHER NOT STATE MY NAME. I HAVE \n[00:30:02] SPOKEN MANY TIMES AT THESE \n[00:30:05] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS \n[00:30:07] IN THE PAST. I’M A RESIDENT AT \n[00:30:10] UNION POINT MARINA. I FEEL LIKE \n[00:30:15] IF I GIVE MY NAME\, I WILL BE A \n[00:30:19] TARGET FOR RETALIATION. AS A \n[00:30:26] RESIDENT\, VERY\, VERY GRATEFUL \n[00:30:29] FOR THE ANCHOR-OUT SITUATION \n[00:30:31] BEING IMPROVED. THERE’S STILL \n[00:30:33] TRAFFIC BACK AND FORTH PAST THE \n[00:30:35] MARINA\, PAST BUD BOAT ALL NIGHT \n[00:30:40] LONG OF — I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S \n[00:30:42] GOING ON. ALL NIGHT LONG THERE’S \n[00:30:44] TRAFFIC BACK AND FORTH FROM THE \n[00:30:45] REMAINING ANCHOR-OUTS GOING PAST \n[00:30:48] THE MARINA. THERE ARE FREQUENT \n[00:30:55] ARGUMENTS AND FIGHTS IN THE \n[00:30:57] PARKING LOT. THE SCENE HAS \n[00:31:00] STARTED — JUST GOING TO MY CAR \n[00:31:02] HAS STARTED TO FEEL UNSAFE \n[00:31:04] AGAIN. WHAT I TRULY DON’T \n[00:31:08] UNDERSTAND IS WHY THERE IS A \n[00:31:11] PUBLIC BATHROOM AT UNION POINT \n[00:31:15] PARK. THERE ARE MANY\, MANY\, \n[00:31:18] MANY\, MANY PARKS IN THE CITY OF \n[00:31:20] OAKLAND THAT DON’T HAVE PUBLIC \n[00:31:22] BATHROOMS AND DON’T HAVE \n[00:31:23] FOUNTAINS AND FAUCETS. THERE ARE \n[00:31:26] MANY\, MANY\, MANY MILES OF \n[00:31:29] SHORELINE AROUND THE BAY WHERE \n[00:31:31] THERE’S NO IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO \n[00:31:34] BATHROOMS AND WATER. AS LONG AS \n[00:31:36] THOSE BATHROOMS ARE THERE AND AS \n[00:31:38] LONG AS THOSE WATER FOUNTAINS \n[00:31:40] AND THOSE FAUCETS ARE THERE\, \n[00:31:41] PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BATHE THERE. \n[00:31:43] PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WASH THEIR \n[00:31:45] CLOTHES THERE. PEOPLE ARE GOING \n[00:31:46] TO — IT IS A — IT IS A MAGNET \n[00:31:50] FOR THE PROBLEM\, THE FACT THAT \n[00:31:52] THOSE FACILITIES ARE THERE. I \n[00:31:53] WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE \n[00:31:55] FACILITIES CLOSED. THEY WERE \n[00:31:57] CLOSED FOR A WHILE AFTER THE \n[00:32:00] ENCAMPMENT WAS REMOVED. IT \n[00:32:03] REALLY — IT REALLY HELPED. IT \n[00:32:05] WAS ACTUALLY THE REOPENING OF \n[00:32:07] THOSE BATHROOMS AND TURNING THE \n[00:32:11] WATER BACK ON THAT RE-STIMULATED \n[00:32:14] PEOPLE TO START MOVING BACK IN. \n[00:32:19] PLEASE — PLEASE DO SOMETHING \n[00:32:23] ABOUT THIS. I DON’T KNOW IF THIS \n[00:32:25] HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED \n[00:32:29] SHUTTING DOWN THOSE BATHROOMS. \n[00:32:30] THEY SERVE — OTHER THAN — \n[00:32:36] OTHER THAN FACILITIES FOR THE \n[00:32:38] HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS\, THEY \n[00:32:41] REALLY ARE NOT SERVING ANY OTHER \n[00:32:43] PUBLIC PURPOSE. THAT’S ALL FOR \n[00:32:45] THE MOMENT. THANK YOU. \n[00:32:49] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:32:50] YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIR GILMORE\, \n[00:32:51] THAT’S ALL WE HAVE. \n[00:32:53] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:32:54] YOU\, MARGIE. I GUESS MY FINAL \n[00:32:58] QUESTION IS ONE FOR STAFF. \n[00:33:02] CLEARLY WE’VE ALL BEEN KEEPING \n[00:33:05] AN EYE ON THE SITUATION. DO WE \n[00:33:08] HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THIS MIGHT \n[00:33:10] COME BACK TO US FOR AN UPDATE? \n[00:33:17] >>JOHN CREECH: IN MY NEXT \n[00:33:18] PRESENTATION I WILL PROPOSE TO \n[00:33:20] BRING OAKLAND AND ALAMEDA BACK \n[00:33:21] FOR A BRIEFING ON THE \n[00:33:25] OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY\, AND IT \n[00:33:28] MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THEM ADDRESS \n[00:33:29] THIS ISSUE THEN AS WELL. \n[00:33:31] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:33:32] GREAT. I GUESS I JUST JUMPED THE \n[00:33:34] GUN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM \n[00:33:36] COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THIS ISSUE? \n[00:33:43] OKAY. SEEING NONE. LET’S MOVE ON \n[00:33:45] TO ITEM NUMBER 6\, WHICH IS A \n[00:33:48] BRIEFING ON THE ALAMEDA-OAKLAND \n[00:33:52] ESTUARY AND ENCAMPMENT ISSUE. \n[00:33:54] THIS COMMITTEE WILL RECEIVE A \n[00:33:56] BRIEFING ON THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO \n[00:33:57] ADDRESS SHORELINE ENCAMPMENTS\, \n[00:34:00] ABANDONED AND DERELICT VESSELS \n[00:34:02] AND ANCHOR-OUTS IN THE \n[00:34:05] ALAMEDA-OAKLAND ESTUARY BY BCDC \n[00:34:08] STAFF AND THE CITIES OF OAKLAND \n[00:34:10] AND ALAMEDA. BEFORE WE GET \n[00:34:14] STARTED\, CAN WE HAVE \n[00:34:17] REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY OF \n[00:34:20] ALAMEDA AND OFFICER ALBINO \n[00:34:25] IDENTIFY THEMSELVES FOR THE \n[00:34:26] RECORD\, PLEASE? \n[00:34:31] >>JOSHUA CROSSLEY: LIEUTENANT \n[00:34:32] JOSHUA CROSSLEY\, CITY OF ALAMEDA \n[00:34:36] POLICE DEPARTMENT. \n[00:34:42] >>KALEO ALBINO: OFFICER KALEO \n[00:34:43] ALBINO\, OAKLAND POLICE \n[00:34:43] DEPARTMENT MARINE UNIT. \n[00:34:47] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:34:48] YOU AND WELCOME. I WILL INVITE \n[00:34:49] JOHN CREECH OF OUR COMPLIANCE \n[00:34:49] UNIT TO START THE BRIEFING. \n[00:34:51] JOHN? \n[00:35:02] >>JOHN CREECH: GOOD MORNING \n[00:35:02] AGAIN. I’M STILL JOHN CREECH ON \n[00:35:05] BCDC’S COMPLIANCE TEAM. THIS IS \n[00:35:08] ITEM 6\, A BRIEFING ON \n[00:35:10] OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY. WE WILL \n[00:35:12] THEN HEAR FROM THE CITIES OF \n[00:35:13] ALAMEDA AND OAKLAND ON THE \n[00:35:15] PROGRESS THEY MADE TOWARDS \n[00:35:16] CLEANING UP THE ESTUARY \n[00:35:22] SHORELINE BAND AND THE PLANS FOR \n[00:35:24] PREVENTING ISSUES IN THE FUTURE. \n[00:35:27] THE ISSUES OF SHORELINE \n[00:35:28] ENCAMPMENTS\, ABANDONED AND \n[00:35:31] DERELICT VESSELS AND ANCHOR-OUTS \n[00:35:34] IN AND AROUND THE \n[00:35:35] OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY IN \n[00:35:36] ALAMEDA COUNTY WAS INTRODUCED TO \n[00:35:36] THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE AT THE \n[00:35:38] FEBRUARY 23\, 2022 MEETING. AT \n[00:35:40] THAT MEETING\, BCDC AND CITIES \n[00:35:41] AGREED TO CONTINUE TO \n[00:35:42] COLLABORATE AND REGULARLY RETURN \n[00:35:44] TO PROVIDE PROGRESS REPORTS TO \n[00:35:45] THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE. THIS \n[00:35:48] COLLECTIVE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT \n[00:35:50] BACK TO THE ENFORCEMENT \n[00:35:51] COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 22\, 2023\, \n[00:35:54] WHERE THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED \n[00:35:55] THAT BCDC’S NEWLY-FORMED \n[00:35:58] COMPLIANCE TEAM CONTINUE TO WORK \n[00:35:59] WITH THE CITIES TO ADDRESS THIS \n[00:36:00] ISSUE. BCDC STAFF HAVE BEEN \n[00:36:03] HOSTING MONTHLY CHECK-IN \n[00:36:05] MEETINGS WITH REPRESENTATIVES \n[00:36:05] FROM THE CITIES OF OAKLAND\, \n[00:36:07] ALAMEDA\, BOARD OF OAKLAND\, EAST \n[00:36:11] BAY REGIONAL PARKS\, OAKLAND PD \n[00:36:12] AND ALAMEDA PD. THESE MEETINGS \n[00:36:16] HAVE BEEN VERY BENEFICIAL TO \n[00:36:18] FACILITATE PRODUCTIVE \n[00:36:20] CONVERSATION AND KEEP THIS ISSUE \n[00:36:21] IN THE FOREFRONT OF PEOPLE’S \n[00:36:22] MINDS. THE COMMITTEE LAST HEARD \n[00:36:25] FROM THE CITIES OF ALAMEDA AND \n[00:36:27] OAKLAND AT THE JANUARY 24th \n[00:36:30] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING \n[00:36:30] AND STAFF PROPOSES TO INVITE THE \n[00:36:32] STAFFS OF ALAMEDA AND OAKLAND \n[00:36:33] BACK FOR THE AUGUST 8\, 2024 \n[00:36:36] COMMITTEE MEETING TO GIVE \n[00:36:37] ANOTHER UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF \n[00:36:38] THE ESTUARY. AT THE ENFORCEMENT \n[00:36:46] COMMITTEE BRIEFING IN JANUARY\, \n[00:36:47] WE LEARNED THAT THE ESTUARY WAS \n[00:36:50] SUCCESSFULLY CLEANED UP OF \n[00:36:52] ILLEGAL VESSELS AND ANCHOR-OUTS. \n[00:36:54] OFFICER KALEO ALBINO OF OAKLAND \n[00:36:57] PD BRIEFED THE COMMITTEE ABOUT \n[00:36:57] THE TASK FORCE HE ASSEMBLED \n[00:36:59] WHICH RESULTED IN OVER 400 HOURS \n[00:37:00] OF WATER PATROL AND ARRESTS \n[00:37:03] RELATED TO ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES \n[00:37:07] PERFORMED FROM ANCHOR-OUTS AND \n[00:37:09] 25 VESSELS BEING ABATED FROM THE \n[00:37:10] ESTUARY. THIS PICTURE SHOWS \n[00:37:15] ABATED VEHICLES PILED UP AND \n[00:37:16] JACK LONDON’S AQUATIC PARKING \n[00:37:17] LOT WHERE THEY WERE LOADED ON TO \n[00:37:18] DUMP TRUCKS AND HAULED OFF. \n[00:37:23] MOVING FORWARD\, BCDC STAFF AND \n[00:37:25] CITY STAFF ARE COMMITTED TO \n[00:37:27] CONTINUING TO REGULARLY CHECK IN \n[00:37:28] AND MONITOR THE STATUS OF THE \n[00:37:29] ESTUARY TO ENSURE IT REMAINS \n[00:37:31] CLEANED UP AND FREE OF ILLEGAL \n[00:37:33] VESSELS. BCDC STAFF IS PLEASED \n[00:37:36] WITH THE PROGRESS IN \n[00:37:37] COLLABORATION WITH OAKLAND AND \n[00:37:40] ALAMEDA DEMONSTRATED OVER THE \n[00:37:41] YEARS TO WORK TOWARDS GETTING \n[00:37:42] THE ESTUARY WHERE IT IS TODAY. \n[00:37:44] WE REALIZE THIS JOB IS NOT \n[00:37:46] COMPLETE\, WE’RE HAPPY WITH THE \n[00:37:47] PROGRESS AND DEDICATION THE \n[00:37:49] CITIES HAVE DEMONSTRATED. \n[00:37:52] PREVENTION IS BECOMING THE POINT \n[00:37:53] OF FOCUS FOR US AND THE CITIES. \n[00:37:55] WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING \n[00:37:56] REGULAR UPDATES ON HOW THEY ARE \n[00:37:58] KEEPING ESTUARY AND SHORELINE \n[00:38:00] BAND CLEAN AND ENSURING THAT THE \n[00:38:02] CITIES ARE DEVOTING THE \n[00:38:04] NECESSARY RESOURCES TO THE \n[00:38:06] SHORELINE AND TO THE ESTUARY. I \n[00:38:10] WILL NOW INTRODUCE LIEUTENANT \n[00:38:12] JOSH CROSSLEY OF ALAMEDA PD AND \n[00:38:16] THEN DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR \n[00:38:19] JOE DEVRIES\, OFFICER KALEO \n[00:38:23] ALBINO OF OPD\, AND I ALSO SAW \n[00:38:26] LIEUTENANT THEBEL FROM OPD IF HE \n[00:38:32] HAS ANYTHING TO ADD. THANK YOU. \n[00:38:35] >>JOSHUA CROSSLEY: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:38:36] LUTENANT CROSSLEY\, ALAMEDA PD. \n[00:38:38] I’M THE HEAD OF OUR MARINE \n[00:38:40] PATROL UNIT. I’LL START WITH A \n[00:38:42] BRIEF UPDATE ON OUR S.A.V.E. \n[00:38:44] GRANTS AND FUNDING. OUR S.A.V.E. \n[00:38:46] ’22 GRANT\, GOING INTO THIS WEEK\, \n[00:38:49] WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 36\,000 LEFT \n[00:38:53] ON THAT. THE S.A.V.E. ’23 GRANT \n[00:38:57] WE HAVE 200\,000\, THE S.A.V.E. \n[00:39:00] ’24 WE HAVE 150\,000 THAT’S IN \n[00:39:03] THE PROCESS OF BEING APPROVED. \n[00:39:04] WE HAVE NO REPORTED ANCHOR-OUTS \n[00:39:07] ON OUR END OF THE ESTUARY AS OF \n[00:39:09] YESTERDAY. WE DO HAVE — WE DID \n[00:39:11] HAVE FOUR SUNKEN VESSELS OFF THE \n[00:39:13] ROCKWALL THERE THAT PARKER \n[00:39:17] DIVING IS IN THE PROCESS OF \n[00:39:18] REMOVING. THEY STARTED MONDAY. \n[00:39:19] THEY SHOULD BE DONE TODAY\, MAYBE \n[00:39:22] TOMORROW. THEY’RE PULLING UP ON \n[00:39:24] THE BOAT RAMP AND DISPOSING OF \n[00:39:27] THEM. WHILE THEY’RE DOING THAT\, \n[00:39:28] WE WENT AHEAD AND TOOK THREE OF \n[00:39:30] OUR V-TIPS WAITING IN LINE AND \n[00:39:33] HAD THEM DISPOSE OF THAT AS WELL \n[00:39:35] AS THEY WERE DOING THE SUNKEN \n[00:39:37] VESSELS. I HAVE A FINAL AMOUNT \n[00:39:39] THAT WILL PROBABLY TAKE UP ABOUT \n[00:39:40] 75\,000\, SO THAT SHOULD LEAVE US \n[00:39:42] WITH ABOUT 160\,000 LEFT ON THE \n[00:39:45] ’23 S.A.V.E. GRANT FOR OTHER \n[00:39:48] V-TIPS. WE PROBABLY HAVE 12 TO \n[00:39:51] 15 IN MIND THAT WE NEED TO GO \n[00:39:52] AND TAKE AND GET RID OF. SO\, \n[00:39:55] THAT’S THE CLEANUP. THE HOMELESS \n[00:39:57] ENCAMPMENT ISSUE\, THE ONLY ONE I \n[00:39:59] TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME WAS MAIN \n[00:40:01] STREET. THAT HAS SINCE PRETTY \n[00:40:03] MUCH BEEN CLEANED UP TO ONE \n[00:40:04] LITTLE SMALL AREA THERE. IT’S ON \n[00:40:06] THE OTHER SIDE\, NOT ON THE WATER \n[00:40:08] SIDE. IT’S NOT AFFECTING THE \n[00:40:10] SHORELINE THERE AT ALL. OUR BOAT \n[00:40:13] IS STILL GOING OUT ABOUT THREE \n[00:40:15] TO FOUR DAYS A MONTH. I WOULD — \n[00:40:19] PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE IT TO GO \n[00:40:20] OUT THREE TO FOUR DAYS A WEEK\, \n[00:40:22] BUT WITH OUR BUDGET RESTRAINTS \n[00:40:24] AND OUR STAFFING ISSUES\, IT’S \n[00:40:25] ALL OVERTIME. WE WOULD HAVE TO \n[00:40:27] KEEP IT DOWN TO ABOUT THREE\, \n[00:40:28] FOUR DAYS A MONTH THAT WE’RE OUT \n[00:40:30] THERE PATROLLING THE ESTUARY. IF \n[00:40:33] ANYTHING POPS UP\, SOMETHING \n[00:40:34] MAJOR\, WE’LL SEND THEM OUT TO \n[00:40:35] TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUES. I \n[00:40:37] BELIEVE THAT’S ABOUT IT. \n[00:40:41] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:40:42] YOU. I’M NOT SURE IF WE GO TO \n[00:40:47] MR. DEVRIES OR OFFICER ALBINO. \n[00:40:52] >>JOE DEVRIES: IF I COULD\, \n[00:40:53] BEFORE OFFICER ALBINO JUMPS IN\, \n[00:40:55] I WANT TO REITERATE\, SINCE THIS \n[00:40:57] IS ABOUT SHORELINE AS WELL\, WE \n[00:40:59] DID HAVE A MAJOR OPERATION ON \n[00:41:01] LEET DRIVE. WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT \n[00:41:03] THAT. THAT WAS A REALLY BIG \n[00:41:07] ENTRENCHED ENCAMPMENT FOR A LONG \n[00:41:09] TIME WITH HUGE DEBRIS BEING \n[00:41:11] GENERATED. THAT’S ON THE \n[00:41:12] SHORELINE. FOR THE WATER\, I’LL \n[00:41:14] TURN IT OVER TO OFFICER ALBINO. \n[00:41:16] WHEN HE’S DONE\, I WANT TO TALK \n[00:41:17] ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE IS LOOKING \n[00:41:19] LIKE OR WHAT OUR HOPES ARE. \n[00:41:26] OFFICER ALBINO? \n[00:41:28] >>KALEO ALBINO: GOOD MORNING. \n[00:41:28] THANK YOU\, JOHN\, THANK YOU\, JOE\, \n[00:41:30] THANK YOU LIEUTENANT CROSSLEY. I \n[00:41:34] WANT TO EXTEND MY COMMENTS OUT \n[00:41:35] TO MR. GORMAN\, MR. McKAY AND THE \n[00:41:37] OTHER PERSON WHO LIVES AT UNION \n[00:41:39] POINT. I SHARE YOUR CONCERNS AS \n[00:41:41] FAR AS THE ESTUARY CONCERNS. I \n[00:41:44] DIRECT MOST OF MY DAILY \n[00:41:45] RESOURCES TO THOSE CONCERNS. I \n[00:41:48] ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I SHARE \n[00:41:51] THE SAME ISSUES THAT ARE GOING \n[00:41:53] FORWARD AND I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS \n[00:41:56] WILL BE RELIEVED TO HEAR IN THE \n[00:41:57] NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS OR SO WITH \n[00:41:59] THE WORK WE HAVE PROJECTED AHEAD \n[00:42:01] OF US FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR. \n[00:42:03] THANK YOU\, JOHN\, FOR THOSE \n[00:42:05] SLIDES ON THE ESTUARY. SINCE \n[00:42:08] THAT JANUARY 24th DATE\, WE HAVE \n[00:42:11] ABATED OR REMOVED APPROXIMATELY \n[00:42:12] 30 VESSELS FROM THE ESTUARY. WE \n[00:42:15] HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE DEPARTMENT \n[00:42:17] POLICIES THAT WE HAVE SET IN \n[00:42:19] PLACE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF \n[00:42:20] YEARS WITH OUR NUISANCE VESSEL \n[00:42:22] ORDINANCE AND OUR ABANDONED \n[00:42:25] VESSEL ORDINANCE AS WELL. MY \n[00:42:27] DEPARTMENT HAS GRACIOUSLY GIVEN \n[00:42:30] ME THREE OFFICERS ON LOAN OVER \n[00:42:32] THE LAST SIX MONTHS. THAT HAS \n[00:42:34] BEEN A HUGE HELP FOR ME. PRIOR \n[00:42:37] TO THAT\, I’VE BEEN WORKING \n[00:42:39] ESSENTIALLY BY MYSELF OR HAVING \n[00:42:41] OTHER OFFICERS ON OVERTIME\, \n[00:42:43] WHICH HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE. THAT \n[00:42:45] LOAN IS ENDING SOON\, BUT I THINK \n[00:42:49] THE PATHWAY FORWARD WILL BE \n[00:42:51] OKAY\, CONTINUING OPERATIONS ON \n[00:42:53] OVERTIME OR SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT. \n[00:42:57] RECENTLY\, THE MEDIA HAS SHOWN TO \n[00:43:00] LIGHT THE RECENT CRIME CASE THAT \n[00:43:02] WE’VE HAD ON THE OAKLAND \n[00:43:03] ESTUARY. SPECIFICALLY THE \n[00:43:08] ANCHOR-OUTS OFF OF UNION POINT \n[00:43:09] PARK WHERE WE SERVED TWO \n[00:43:11] SIMULTANEOUS SEARCH WARRANTS AND \n[00:43:12] CONDUCTED THREE ARRESTS. THE \n[00:43:14] DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALAMEDA \n[00:43:17] COUNTY CHARGED THOSE SUSPECTS IN \n[00:43:19] THAT CASE AND THE CASE IS \n[00:43:20] CURRENTLY JUST WORKING ITS WAY \n[00:43:22] THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM. WE DO \n[00:43:24] HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE FOR THOSE \n[00:43:25] THREE ANCHOR-OUTS. THERE HAS \n[00:43:27] BEEN SOME CONTRACTING DELAYS \n[00:43:30] WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATION\, \n[00:43:32] BUT I’M HAPPY TO SAY THAT \n[00:43:36] ADMINISTRATIVE WORK IS COMING TO \n[00:43:37] A POSITIVE CLOSE AND WE WILL BE \n[00:43:39] CONTRACTING WITH LYNN MARINE TO \n[00:43:42] REMOVE MULTIPLE VESSELS OUT OF \n[00:43:44] THE ESTUARY. LIKELY THOSE THREE \n[00:43:47] ANCHOR-OUTS\, IF THEY DON’T LEAVE \n[00:43:48] BEFORE WE SEIZE THOSE VESSELS. \n[00:43:53] WE HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE OVER THE \n[00:43:54] NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS TO REMOVE \n[00:43:57] 40 VESSELS OUT OF THE OAKLAND \n[00:44:00] MARINAS. THOSE ANCHOR-OUTS ARE \n[00:44:02] INCLUDED IN THAT 40-VESSEL \n[00:44:04] COUNT. THAT IS A PROJECT TO — I \n[00:44:08] GUESS A LONG-TERM WAY TO ATTACK \n[00:44:10] THIS PROBLEM\, REMOVING THESE \n[00:44:13] ABANDONED VESSELS WHERE PEOPLE \n[00:44:14] HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM THEIR \n[00:44:16] VESSELS INSIDE OF MARINAS \n[00:44:18] ESSENTIALLY\, WHERE THEY WILL PAY \n[00:44:20] FOR A SLIP INSIDE OF A MARINA\, \n[00:44:23] THEY CAN’T AFFORD TO FIX THEIR \n[00:44:25] BOAT AND THEY JUST SIMPLY JUST \n[00:44:27] STOP PAYING THEIR BILL. THEY \n[00:44:28] WON’T SHOW UP. THAT BURDEN IS \n[00:44:31] LEFT ON THE HARBORMASTERS. SO\, \n[00:44:35] THIS PROJECT IS LENDING A HAND \n[00:44:36] TO THE HARBORMASTERS LOCALLY TO \n[00:44:38] REMOVE THOSE 40 VESSELS OUT OF \n[00:44:41] THE MARINAS AND GET AHEAD OF \n[00:44:43] THIS PROBLEM OF HAVING THESE \n[00:44:45] VESSELS END UP AS ANCHOR-OUTS OR \n[00:44:47] SUNKEN BOATS INSIDE OF THE \n[00:44:49] OAKLAND ESTUARY. I WANT TO THANK \n[00:44:52] ALAMEDA POLICE FOR DOING YOUR \n[00:44:54] GUYS RECENT CLEANUP. ANY CLEANUP \n[00:44:57] THAT I THINK OR ANY ACTIVITY \n[00:45:00] THAT WE DO THAT MAKES THE \n[00:45:01] MEDIA — HAS A RIPPLE EFFECT \n[00:45:06] AMONGST BRINGING VESSELS TO THE \n[00:45:10] OAKLAND ESTUARY TO EITHER LEAVE \n[00:45:12] THERE\, STORE\, OR LIVE ABOARD\, I \n[00:45:15] THINK IT HELPS US ALL OUT AND IT \n[00:45:17] KEEPS THE ESTUARY CLEANER. OUR \n[00:45:22] FUTURE CHALLENGES THAT WE’RE \n[00:45:23] FACING ARE LOSING THOSE OFFICERS \n[00:45:25] ON LOAN. I WILL CONTINUE TO BE \n[00:45:27] VERBAL ABOUT MAYBE GETTING A NEW \n[00:45:30] LOAN ONCE OUR NEW CHIEF GETS SET \n[00:45:32] IN PLACE AT THE DEPARTMENT. I’LL \n[00:45:35] REATTACK THAT PLAN THERE. I’M \n[00:45:38] GOING TO CONTINUE DIRECTING MOST \n[00:45:41] OF MY TIME AND RESOURCES INTO \n[00:45:43] THE ANCHOR-OUT ISSUES. I’M \n[00:45:45] CURRENTLY APPLYING FOR $200\,000 \n[00:45:47] FOR THE NEXT CYCLE OF THE \n[00:45:49] S.A.V.E. GRANT THROUGH THE STATE \n[00:45:50] OF CALIFORNIA. WE STILL \n[00:45:52] CURRENTLY TO DATE HAVE $167\,000 \n[00:45:55] LEFT TO SPEND WITH OUR 2023 \n[00:45:59] GRANT\, AND THAT’S WHAT WE’LL \n[00:46:01] REMOVE THESE 40 VESSELS WITH. \n[00:46:03] WE’RE ALSO WAITING TO HEAR BACK \n[00:46:04] TO SEE IF WE’RE AWARDED THROUGH \n[00:46:07] NOAA FOR OUR MULTIMILLION DOLLAR \n[00:46:09] GRANT PROGRAM. I THINK WE’LL \n[00:46:10] HEAR BACK MAYBE IN THE FALL OR \n[00:46:11] THE WINTER OF THIS YEAR TO SEE \n[00:46:13] IF WE WERE AWARDED ANY FUNDING \n[00:46:15] FROM THAT. IF WE DO GET THAT \n[00:46:19] FUNDING\, THAT WILL BE A HUGE \n[00:46:21] DEAL FOR BOTH ALAMEDA AND \n[00:46:22] OAKLAND. WE’LL BE ABLE TO REMOVE \n[00:46:24] ALL OF THE VESSELS THAT ARE \n[00:46:26] SUNKEN BELOW THE WATER LINE IN \n[00:46:27] THE ESTUARY AS WELL AS A TON OF \n[00:46:29] PROJECTS ALONG THE SHORELINE AND \n[00:46:33] THE PARKING LOTS AS WELL. I \n[00:46:35] BELIEVE THAT’S ALL THAT I HAVE \n[00:46:36] FOR AN UPDATE ON THE OAKLAND \n[00:46:38] ESTUARY. IF YOU HAVE ANY \n[00:46:39] QUESTIONS FOR ME\, I’M FREE TO \n[00:46:41] TAKE THEM AT THIS TIME. \n[00:46:44] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:46:44] YOU. JOE? \n[00:46:48] >>JOE DEVRIES: JUST TO ROUND OUT \n[00:46:49] WHAT OFFICER ALBINO HAS SAID\, \n[00:46:51] HE’S DONE FANTASTIC WORK. THE \n[00:46:52] NOAA GRANT IS NOT JUST ABOUT \n[00:46:56] REMOVING THE SUNKEN BOATS\, SOME \n[00:46:58] OF THE BIGGER ONES THAT WILL \n[00:46:59] COST A LOT OF MONEY\, IT’S ALSO \n[00:47:01] ABOUT SHORELINE CLEANUP OF \n[00:47:03] MARINE DEBRIS AND REALLY DEGREE \n[00:47:06] IN GENERAL. IT’S A REALLY \n[00:47:08] INNOVATIVE GRANT PACKAGE THAT WE \n[00:47:10] PUT FORWARD THAT WORKS WITH I \n[00:47:12] HEART OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY. \n[00:47:16] IT’S A CLEANUP PROGRAM AS WELL \n[00:47:18] AS AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM WHERE \n[00:47:20] THEY WILL TAKE STUDENTS OUT \n[00:47:22] ON — IN KAYAKS TO DO SHORELINE \n[00:47:25] CLEANUP WHILE EDUCATING THEM \n[00:47:27] ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER \n[00:47:28] QUALITY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL \n[00:47:30] IMPACTS THAT HUMANS ARE HAVING. \n[00:47:33] IT ALSO IS AN ECONOMIC WORK \n[00:47:36] FORCE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY IN \n[00:47:37] THAT THEY’LL BE HIRING SOME \n[00:47:39] STUDENTS AND THEY’LL BE MAKING \n[00:47:41] SOME MONEY DOING IMPORTANT WORK. \n[00:47:43] WE THINK IT’S A REALLY BALANCED \n[00:47:45] PROPOSAL. WE’RE REALLY KEEPING \n[00:47:47] OUR FINGERS CROSSED. THERE’S A \n[00:47:49] LOT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH INVOLVED. \n[00:47:51] WE BUILT IN MONEY FOR A BOAT \n[00:47:53] BUYBACK PROGRAM. OFFICER ALBINO \n[00:47:56] MENTIONED SOME OF THOSE BOATS \n[00:47:57] THAT PEOPLE WALK AWAY FROM AT \n[00:47:58] THE MARINA. WE BUILT IN AN \n[00:48:00] OUTREACH COMPONENT SO WE CAN LET \n[00:48:03] MARINA RESIDENTS KNOW AHEAD OF \n[00:48:04] TIME OR PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOATS \n[00:48:06] THAT THERE IS A PROGRAM\, SO THAT \n[00:48:07] THEY SHOULDN’T WALK AWAY OR SINK \n[00:48:08] THEIR BOAT. I THINK THIS COULD \n[00:48:10] BE A REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY \n[00:48:12] IF WE GET THE GRANT. EVEN IF WE \n[00:48:14] ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL GETTING THIS \n[00:48:16] GRANT\, WE’VE WRITTEN A PROPOSAL \n[00:48:18] THAT I THINK WE CAN SHOP AROUND \n[00:48:21] TO OTHERS IF THIS ONE’S NOT \n[00:48:23] SUCCESSFUL. THAT’S ALL. \n[00:48:26] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:48:27] YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY ELSE \n[00:48:29] FROM YOUR STAFF HERE OR IS THAT \n[00:48:31] IT FOR YOU GUYS? \n[00:48:35] >>JOE DEVRIES: AGAIN\, WE HAVE \n[00:48:38] MR. THEBEL\, BUT I THINK OFFICER \n[00:48:41] ALBINO SAID EVERYTHING SO I \n[00:48:42] THINK WE’RE GOOD. \n[00:48:43] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:48:44] YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS \n[00:48:45] FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS? NOT \n[00:48:53] SEEING ANY. MARGIE\, DO WE HAVE \n[00:48:55] ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? \n[00:49:04] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: UM\, \n[00:49:05] ONLINE WE HAVE A COUPLE. \n[00:49:08] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:49:08] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: FIRST \n[00:49:09] ONE IS MR. BROCK DE LAPPE. YOU \n[00:49:16] HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n[00:49:18] >>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \n[00:49:19] COMMISSIONERS. I JUST WANT TO \n[00:49:21] COMMENT ON THE ESTUARY CLEANUP \n[00:49:24] ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN \n[00:49:24] UNDERTAKEN BY BOTH OAKLAND AND \n[00:49:27] ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENTS. I \n[00:49:29] REALLY HAVE TREMENDOUS \n[00:49:31] APPRECIATION FOR THE WORK \n[00:49:32] THEY’VE DONE. THE ESTUARY RIGHT \n[00:49:34] NOW IS CLEANER THAN IT’S BEEN IN \n[00:49:36] PROBABLY CLOSE TO A DECADE. MY \n[00:49:40] CONCERN IS THAT AFTER A CLEANUP\, \n[00:49:44] JUST LIKE WE’VE SEEN IN UNION \n[00:49:47] POINT PARK\, IF THERE’S NOT \n[00:49:48] ONGOING ENFORCEMENT\, THE PROBLEM \n[00:49:50] WILL RECUR. AND THIS IS A \n[00:49:54] DISASTER. THIS IS AN ENDLESS \n[00:49:55] CYCLE OF CLEANUP AND THEN LET IT \n[00:49:59] BE REOCCUPIED. I’M VERY \n[00:50:02] CONCERNED THAT OFFICER ALBINO IS \n[00:50:05] LOSING THE TEMPORARY STAFFING \n[00:50:08] THAT HE HAS FOR THE MARINE \n[00:50:10] PATROL UNIT. AS GOOD AS HE IS\, \n[00:50:12] HE CANNOT DO THIS BY HIMSELF. I \n[00:50:16] ENCOURAGE BCDC TO ENCOURAGE THE \n[00:50:20] CITY OF OAKLAND TO MAKE SURE \n[00:50:22] THAT THERE’S SUFFICIENT STAFFING \n[00:50:25] FOR THE MARINE PATROL UNIT TO \n[00:50:27] GUARD AND PROTECT THE ESTUARY \n[00:50:29] GOING FORWARD. I ALSO WOULD LIKE \n[00:50:32] TO GIVE KUDOS TO THE ALAMEDA \n[00:50:35] POLICE DEPARTMENT. I’VE BEEN \n[00:50:37] MONITORING THE CLEANUP THAT’S \n[00:50:39] UNDER WAY AT THE ROCKWALL JETTY \n[00:50:43] ON THE SOUTHWEST END OF ALAMEDA. \n[00:50:45] THEY’RE REMOVING MANY SUNKEN \n[00:50:47] BOATS FROM THAT SITE. THAT’S A \n[00:50:50] TREMENDOUS ACHIEVEMENT. I WAS \n[00:50:53] UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT \n[00:50:54] WAS FUNDED THROUGH YOUR S.A.V.E. \n[00:50:56] GRANT\, LIEUTENANT CROSSLEY. I’D \n[00:51:00] LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THAT \n[00:51:02] BECAUSE WHEN I WAS OUT AT THE \n[00:51:03] SITE YESTERDAY\, I WAS TOLD THAT \n[00:51:05] IT WAS ALAMEDA COUNTY FUNDING. I \n[00:51:07] JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT \n[00:51:09] THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY GOT \n[00:51:11] CREDIT FOR THAT CLEANUP. IN ANY \n[00:51:13] EVENT\, THAT’S A REAL BENEFIT TO \n[00:51:16] THE BAY. JUST LIKE THERE’S BEEN \n[00:51:19] PUBLICITY ABOUT THE PROBLEMS \n[00:51:22] THAT HAVE OCCURRED FROM THE \n[00:51:24] CRIME AND THE ANCHOR-OUTS\, I \n[00:51:27] THINK IT’S EQUALLY IMPORTANT \n[00:51:28] THAT THERE BE PRESS COVERAGE ON \n[00:51:32] THESE CLEANUP EFFORTS. IT SHOWS \n[00:51:34] THAT THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES \n[00:51:35] ARE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY AND \n[00:51:38] THAT THERE ARE EFFORTS BEING \n[00:51:39] MADE TO CLEAN AND PROTECT THE \n[00:51:41] BAY AND THERE NEEDS TO BE CREDIT \n[00:51:44] FOR THAT AS WELL. AGAIN\, THANK \n[00:51:47] YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU’VE \n[00:51:48] DONE. I REALLY HOPE THAT GOING \n[00:51:50] FORWARD THERE IS SUFFICIENT \n[00:51:52] SUPPORT TO MAINTAIN REGULAR \n[00:51:55] MARINE PATROLS. IF YOU STOP IT \n[00:51:58] AT NUMBER ONE\, THERE WILL NEVER \n[00:51:59] BE TWO\, FOUR\, EIGHT\, 16\, 32 \n[00:52:03] BOATS IN THE ESTUARY AGAIN. \n[00:52:07] LET’S MAKE SURE THAT WE DON’T \n[00:52:09] BACKTRACK. LET’S MAKE SURE THAT \n[00:52:11] THERE IS APPROPRIATE STAFFING \n[00:52:13] FOR THE RESPECTIVE MARINE PATROL \n[00:52:15] UNITS. THANK YOU. \n[00:52:18] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:52:18] YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP WE HAVE \n[00:52:20] VH. VH? \n[00:52:28] >>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n[00:52:30] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YES. \n[00:52:31] >>SPEAKER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. \n[00:52:32] YEAH. I MADE COMMENTS ON THE \n[00:52:35] EARLIER ITEM ON THE AGENDA. \n[00:52:39] FIRST\, I WANT TO REALLY \n[00:52:42] APPRECIATE OFFICER ALBINO FOR \n[00:52:45] HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED COMMENTS \n[00:52:47] FROM THE PUBLIC. IT JUST FEELS \n[00:52:56] GREAT TO KNOW WE’RE HEARD. I \n[00:52:57] WANT TO POSE THE QUESTION — I’M \n[00:52:59] NOT SURE WHY PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE \n[00:53:02] NOW BEING DONE AT THE END OF AN \n[00:53:05] AGENDA ITEM AS OPPOSED TO AT THE \n[00:53:07] BEGINNING\, BECAUSE THE EFFECT \n[00:53:09] OVER HERE IS THAT WE’RE MAKING \n[00:53:12] COMMENTS AND ASKING QUESTIONS \n[00:53:15] AND THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT \n[00:53:21] SOMEBODY MIGHT TAKE THOSE INTO \n[00:53:23] ACCOUNT IN THEIR — IN THEIR — \n[00:53:27] BASICALLY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \n[00:53:28] WHO BOTHER TO COME AND SHOW UP \n[00:53:30] AND SPEAK UP\, IT HANDS US A \n[00:53:32] DEAD-END. I WOULD REALLY \n[00:53:34] APPRECIATE THAT BEING MOVED BACK \n[00:53:35] TO COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF \n[00:53:38] AN AGENDA ITEM. I’M GLAD TO HEAR \n[00:53:40] THERE’S A PLAN IN PLACE FOR THE \n[00:53:45] REMOVAL OF THE REMAINING \n[00:53:48] ANCHOR-OUTS AT UNION POINT AND \n[00:53:51] FOR DEALING WITH THE ABANDONED \n[00:53:53] VESSELS AT UNION POINT MARINA. \n[00:53:57] THRILLED TO HEAR THAT. AND THERE \n[00:54:00] IS A LONGSTANDING ENCAMPMENT \n[00:54:04] RIGHT NEAR WHERE THE — RIGHT \n[00:54:06] WHERE THE SHORELINE MEETS COAST \n[00:54:11] GUARD ISLAND BRIDGE. THERE’S A \n[00:54:13] BIG WHITE TENT WITH AN ENORMOUS \n[00:54:15] PILE OF TRASH NEXT TO IT. IT \n[00:54:17] APPEARS TO BE UNINHABITED FOR A \n[00:54:21] LONG TIME. THE KING TIDES \n[00:54:23] WENT — FLOODED IT COMPLETELY. \n[00:54:25] SO WHAT THERE IS IS JUST A \n[00:54:28] MOUNTAIN OF TRASH IN THAT CORNER \n[00:54:29] BY THE SHORE. I SEE NO REASON \n[00:54:32] WHATSOEVER\, GIVEN THAT NOBODY \n[00:54:34] APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN LIVING \n[00:54:35] THERE FOR QUITE AWHILE NOW. IT’S \n[00:54:38] ALL BEEN FLOODED\, EVERY TIME THE \n[00:54:39] TIDE GOES HIGH\, MORE TRASH GOES \n[00:54:41] INTO THE WATER. I SEE ABSOLUTELY \n[00:54:43] NO REASON WHY THE CITY OF \n[00:54:44] OAKLAND CAN’T MOVE AHEAD AND \n[00:54:46] HANDLE THAT DEBRIS. I UNDERSTAND \n[00:54:48] THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE VESSEL \n[00:54:50] THAT IS UP ON THE ROCKS ON THE \n[00:54:52] SHORE IS A MUCH BIGGER DEAL AND \n[00:54:54] THAT THAT’S GOING TO REQUIRE \n[00:54:57] SPECIAL FUNDING AND SO FORTH\, \n[00:54:58] BUT CERTAINLY THE CITY CLEANING \n[00:55:02] UP THE TRASH SURROUNDING AN \n[00:55:07] ABANDONED ENCAMPMENT TENT WOULD \n[00:55:10] REALLY APPRECIATE SEEING THAT \n[00:55:12] DONE. THANK YOU. \n[00:55:17] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: ALL \n[00:55:18] RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n[00:55:18] CHAIR GILMORE\, THAT’S ALL WE \n[00:55:20] HAVE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE \n[00:55:21] PUBLIC SPEAKER HERE IN PERSON. \n[00:55:25] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:55:27] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: MR. \n[00:55:27] McKAY? \n[00:55:28] >>SPEAKER: YES\, MY NAME IS CHRIS \n[00:55:29] McKAY. I’M WITH THE EMBARCADERO \n[00:55:31] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I JUST \n[00:55:34] WANT TO REALLY ACKNOWLEDGE \n[00:55:37] OFFICER KALEO\, THE WORK HE’S \n[00:55:40] DONE AND ALSO BROCK DE LAPPE FOR \n[00:55:43] BRINGING THIS — KEEPING THIS IN \n[00:55:45] FOCUS. I SUBMITTED A PICTURE \n[00:55:49] YESTERDAY OF THE SHORELINE CLOSE \n[00:55:52] TO THE COAST GUARD ISLAND \n[00:55:54] BRIDGE. YOU CAN SEE IT. I THINK \n[00:55:58] IT’S ON YOUR WEBSITE. IT’S \n[00:55:59] REALLY A LOT OF TRASH. AS THE \n[00:56:01] TIDES CHANGE\, IT GETS PICKED UP \n[00:56:03] AND FLOATED OUT. YOU CAN SEE \n[00:56:04] THAT PICTURE. THERE’S NO ONE IN \n[00:56:07] THERE. IT WOULD SURE BE GREAT TO \n[00:56:10] SEE THAT GET CLEANED UP. I JUST \n[00:56:12] HOPE THAT THE FUNDING IS IN \n[00:56:14] PLACE FOR THESE PROJECTS AND I \n[00:56:18] REALLY APPRECIATE\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:56:20] EVERYBODY — ALL YOU’RE DOING \n[00:56:22] AND EVERYBODY WORKING TOGETHER \n[00:56:23] BECAUSE OUR SHORELINE IS \n[00:56:26] CRITICAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n[00:56:27] BYE. \n[00:56:31] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:56:31] YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S ALL WE \n[00:56:33] HAVE. \n[00:56:35] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:56:36] YOU\, MARGIE. DO WE HAVE ANY \n[00:56:39] QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM \n[00:56:41] COMMITTEE MEMBERS? OH\, MR. \n[00:56:44] DEVRIES? \n[00:56:46] >>JOE DEVRIES: THANK YOU\, CHAIR \n[00:56:47] GILMORE. I WANTED TO THANK THE \n[00:56:48] CALLER WHO DIDN’T IDENTIFY \n[00:56:50] THEMSELVES AND THE GENTLEMAN \n[00:56:54] FROM EMBARCADERO COVE. I DIDN’T \n[00:56:55] KNOW THAT THAT ENCAMPMENT AT \n[00:56:57] COAST GUARD BRIDGE — I DID SEE \n[00:56:59] HIS PICTURE YESTERDAY. I DID NOT \n[00:57:01] KNOW THAT WAS AN ABANDONED \n[00:57:02] ENCAMPMENT. THAT DOES FALL UNDER \n[00:57:04] A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR US. SO\, \n[00:57:06] WE CAN SEND PEOPLE OUT TO \n[00:57:08] CONFIRM THAT IT’S ABANDONED. IF \n[00:57:10] THEY CAN CONFIRM THAT\, THEY WILL \n[00:57:11] PICK UP THAT GARBAGE. I WILL \n[00:57:13] FOLLOW UP ON THAT ONE. I’M \n[00:57:15] ASSUMING MR. McKAY’S PICTURE\, \n[00:57:17] THAT WAS IN THE EMAIL YESTERDAY \n[00:57:19] THAT WAS COPIED TO ME\, IS OF \n[00:57:21] THAT SPOT. IF THAT’S THE ONE. TO \n[00:57:22] THE OTHER PERSON WHO DIDN’T \n[00:57:23] IDENTIFY THEMSELVES\, THEY’RE \n[00:57:25] WELCOME TO EMAIL ME IF THEY HAVE \n[00:57:27] ADDITIONAL PHOTOS AND \n[00:57:28] INFORMATION THAT IT’S BEEN \n[00:57:31] ABANDONED. I THINK THE FACT THAT \n[00:57:33] IT’S WASHED OUT DURING THE KING \n[00:57:34] TIDE IS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT IT’S \n[00:57:36] ABANDONED. I THINK WE SHOULD BE \n[00:57:37] ABLE TO GET THAT CLEANED UP \n[00:57:38] WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A LONG \n[00:57:40] ENCAMPMENT PROCESS. THANK YOU. \n[00:57:44] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:57:45] YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. SO\, \n[00:57:50] NEXT STEPS\, IF WE CAN GET \n[00:57:52] AGREEMENT ON THIS IS TO ALL BE \n[00:57:57] BACK HERE — I BELIEVE IT WAS IN \n[00:57:58] EARLY AUGUST FOR A CHECK-IN? IF \n[00:58:02] THE DATE MEETS EVERYBODY’S \n[00:58:04] SCHEDULES. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO \n[00:58:08] OTHER COMMENTS\, I’M GOING TO \n[00:58:11] CLOSE THIS ITEM. COMMITTEE \n[00:58:15] MEMBERS\, I WILL ENTERTAIN A \n[00:58:16] MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADJOURN \n[00:58:19] OUR MEETING. \n[00:58:23] >>LETTY BELIN: MOVE TO ADJOURN. \n[00:58:26] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:58:27] >>LETTY BELIN: OKAY. \n[00:58:28] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:58:29] COMMISSIONER BELIN MOVES. I \n[00:58:31] BELIEVE THAT WAS COMMISSIONER \n[00:58:33] VASQUEZ WHO SECONDED. YES. YES. \n[00:58:35] OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS \n[00:58:38] TO THE MOTION TO ADJOURN? SEEING \n[00:58:41] NONE\, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. \n[00:58:43] THANK YOU\, EVERYBODY\, FOR YOUR \n[00:58:45] ATTENDANCE AND YOUR COMMENTS. \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/april-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240418T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240418T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240118T072902Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240627T200355Z
UID:10000095-1713445200-1713459600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 18\, 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 LocationMetro Center375 Beale Street\, First FloorTemazcal ConferenceSan Francisco(415) 352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n1028A Howard St.\, San Francisco\, CA 94103\nSan Francisco City Hall\, 1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Pl\, Room 268\, San Francisco\, CA 94102\nVTA Headquarters\, 3331 N First St.\, San Jose\, CA 95134\nSPUR Urban Center\, 654 Mission St.\, San Francisco\, CA 94105\nCALTRANS District 4\, 111 Grand Ave.\, #300\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n14265 Highway 128\, Boonville\, CA 95415\nCNRA Building\, 715 P St.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n400 County Center\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\nFront Porch at 112 Trellis Dr.\, San Rafael\, CA 94903\n111 Grand Ave.\, RM 15-220\, Mountain View Conf Rm.\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n3833 Lakeshore Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94610\nMountain View City Hall\, 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n360 Alcatraz Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94618\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\nMarin County Civic Center\, 3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Ste 326\, San Rafael\, CA 94903\n1415 L St.\, Suite 1000\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n890 Osos St.\, Suite H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\nSouth San Francisco City Hall\, 400 Grand Ave.\, Mayor’s Office 2nd floor\, South\, San Francisco\, CA 94080\n675 Texas St.\, Suite 6500\, Fairfield\, CA 94533-6342\n2500 Acton St.\, Berkeley\, CA 94704\nSafe Credit Union Convention Center\, 1401 K St.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\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/82729378498?pwd=WFQzdtfdf6uNAGbQ2ZDgzBH5a2dPzw.0ti0hTquvstHm9Eu \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID827 2937 8498 \nPasscode190155 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.\n(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for April 4\, 2024 Meeting\n(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\nThere is no administrative listing\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on 505 East Bayshore – POSTPONED\nThe 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.\n(Jessica Finkel) [415-352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on Enforcement Case ER2015.024.00 – City of San Rafael\nThe Commission will consider a Recommended Enforcement Decision and Proposed Settlement Agreement to cause the City of San Rafael by May 10\, 2024\, to re-open a closed public restroom and pay an administrative civil penalty of $30\,000\, half of which may be stayed if it complies with certain conditions as enumerated in the agreement.\n(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPresentation // Public comment letter\nBriefing on RSAP Subregional Adaptation Plans\nThe Commission will have a briefing and a discussion regarding BCDC development of guidelines that local jurisdictions will use as they develop their subregional adaptation required by SB 272’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan mandate\, particularly about what elements those plans should contain and how they should be developed.\n(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing Ben Hamlington SLR Science\nDr. Ben Hamlington of NASA will brief the Commission on the science underpinning the recently released draft California 2024 Sea Level Rise Guidance.\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				 \nAudio transcript \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: good afternoon all. welcome to our almost fully hybrid bcdc commission meeting. my name is zach wasserman. our first order of business is to call the role. commissioners please unmute yourself to answer the roll and then mute after responding. sierra\, please call the roll. [ roll called ] \n>>Sierra Peterson: did i forget anyone? \n>>David Ambuehl: ambuehl. \n>>Sierra Peterson: thank you. \n>>Sheri Pemberton: pemberton. \n>>Sierra Peterson: 20 commissioners present. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: we have a quorum and so we’re duly ready to conduct business. are we not showing the video or are we showing the video? we are showing the video. let’s roll the video. \n>>speaker: welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation and development commission. this commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the bagley-keene open meeting act. commissioners are located both at metro center and at publicly accessible venues throughout the bay area as specified on the meeting notice. commissioners who participate virtually will keep their cameras on throughout the meeting so that they will be visible for the public. for members of the public attending virtually\, if you would like to speak either during the public comment period\, which is item 3 on the agenda\, or during a period received for public comment during another agenda item\, you will need to do so in one of two ways. first\, if you’re attending virtually on zoom\, please raise your hand in zoom. to do so\, click the participant’s icon at the bottom of your screen. find your name and the small hand to the left and click on that hand. if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone to make a comment. individuals who have raised their hands will be called in the order that they have been raised and they will be unmuted. those attending this meeting in person\, either at metro center or at a publicly noticed teleconference location who want to address the commission should follow the protocol at your location. those attending the meeting in person at metro center will use the podium on their right. wherever you choose to attend from\, please state your name prior to providing your comments. all members of the public will be allowed three minutes to address the commission at the discretion of the chair. comments must be respectful and focused and each individual has the responsibility to act in a civil manner without using hate speech\, direct or indirect threats\, and/or abusive language. bcdc has also established an email address to address public comments. its address is publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov. emails received before 10:00 this morning have been shared with the commissioners and any received since then will also be shared with the commissioners and the public. welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation & development commission. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i do want to note that today all but one of our commissioners are participating remotely due to construction in the yerba buena room on the first floor of the metro center. under the bagley-keene rules\, we need to have at least one commissioner present at metro center which is deemed bcdc’s primary physical location. i want to thank commissioner Karl Hasz for coming into the city today to represent all of us here — all of us there in the temzacal room. also for agenda purposes\, we have postponed our discussion of item 8\, the permit application relating to 505 east bayshore in redwood city. we plan to take that up at our next meeting. that brings us to item 3\, public comment period. if anyone wishes to address the commission on an item not on today’s agenda or the subject of a public hearing\, you are fully entitled to do so and now is the time to do so. sierra\, do we have any public speakers? \n>>Sierra Peterson: we do have one. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: will you call that speaker\, please? \n>>Sierra Peterson: gita dev with the sierra club. you may unmute. \n>>speaker: thank you\, bcdc commissioners and staff. the reason i wanted to take this opportunity with so many commissioners present was to just bring to the attention of the whole commission how much of the shoreline along the peninsula is currently under consideration or under design. and more justly information\, it’s all the way from the airport down to san mateo\, coyote point. and then leaving aside foster city\, it’s redwood city all the way to menlo park. and then leaving east palo alto and palo alto\, there is a feasibility study starting up for all of moffett field\, sunnyvale down to alviso where work is actually ongoing. so\, it’s a large part of the coastline. in addition\, the design review committee has been looking at projects in burlingame\, in belmont\, in redwood shores\, yeah. i would say those are the ones. i just wanted to bring it to the commission’s attention because there are a lot of commissioners present how much is being designed right about now along the peninsula. that’s all. thank you very much. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. all right. with no further public speakers\, that brings us to item 4\, approval of the minutes of our april 4th meeting. we have been furnished draft copies of those minutes. i would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes. commissioner nelson moves\, commissioner gilmore seconds. thank you. little hard to scan on this. if there are no objections or corrections\, the minutes are approved. thank you. that brings us to my report. the first item is administrative. since commissioner eisen is out of the country\, i’ve asked commissioner gilmore to act as vice chair of our meeting this afternoon. thank you for doing so. i hope the technology i am using today does not require you to step in. i appreciate your willingness to do so if i have a technical failure. commissioner randolph has been kind enough to agree to act as vice chair during our hybrid meetings in the month of may — well\, actually both hybrid and real or physical. i do want to remind commissioners that the second meetings in may and june will also be hybrid because of construction at the metro center. the first meetings in those months are — will be hybrid meetings where we will have people physically present at the metro center. i encourage you\, particularly for the first meeting in may\, for as many as possible for you to be there. we have a full agenda and i’d like to make it a what we labeled as an anchor meeting where as many of us as possible are present in person. i also on an administrative issue wanted to announce an upcoming change to our meetings order of business. we are going to set up procedures that will allow us to approve stipulated enforcement settlement agreements much more quickly than we have in the past. i’ve asked in that regard for staff to create a consent calendar\, almost all of you are familiar with those in your own local jurisdictions. bcdc has not used one. i do not know the historical reasons for that\, but i think in efficiency we can do that. and we plan to place both minutes and any stipulated enforcement judgments on that consent calendar. there may be other matters that we deem minor enough to put on there. like consent calendars you are familiar with\, any commissioner will be able to ask an item taken off the calendar and agendize it at that meeting for full discussion. and we will have public comment on the consent calendar as well. staff is now working on this issue and we expect to have it more detailed and hopefully start implementing it in a couple of weeks. our next meeting will occur in two weeks on may 2nd. it will be an action-packed meeting. and as i stated\, i hope all of us or as many as possible can attend in person. at that meeting\, we expect to take up the following matters. consideration of a permit application for development at 505 east bayshore in redwood city\, which was postponed from today’s agenda. consideration of an enforcement case in the city of richmond\, a briefing from the metropolitan transportation commission on its plans for extending the pilot project on the richmond-san rafael bridge that now includes a bicycle lane\, and a briefing by our staff on the recent sediment management workshops that are leading the commissioner sediment working group toward create new policies designed to increase the use of sediment as a part of adapting to rising sea levels. a couple of comments\, there was an article which was in the “new york times” climate newsletter — not all of you may have gotten or seen that today — which i would label bad news and good news. it talked about a missing trillion dollars\, that’s trillion with a t-r-i-l-l-i-o-n\, and it’s talking about the world bank commitment to developing countries around the world to address climate change. they have basically estimated that it will take a trillion dollars a year to address climate change issues in those undeveloped countries. the difficulty\, of course is they have not identified the sources of that trillion dollars a year\, although they have some of it. and the reason that i label it both bad news and good news is the fact that it is necessary and the fact that they don’t have it are both pieces of bad news. but it — i think it helps to put our problem in context. we’re dealing with a billion rather than a trillion. and i think also we’ll help to create a background in which we can better educate people in the bay area of our needs to raise that money to adapt to rising sea levels in the bay. the last item in my report is ex parte communications. if any commissioner wishes to report communication they had outside public meetings about a matter on which we’re going to sit in judgment or have a public hearing that you have not made in writing you may do so now. you do still have to make it in writing. any commissioners who wish to make an ex parte communication report? i do not see any. thank you. that brings us to the report of the executive director\, take it away\, larry. \n>>Lawrence Goldzband: thank you\, chair wasserman. april 18th is a red letter date on the american calendar. it was on this evening in 1775 that paul revere and william dawes galloped out of boston towards lexington and concord\, towards hancock\, adams\, and the minutemen as british regulars were headed their way and loaded for bear. in a tremendous coincidence it was exactly eight years later on april 18\, 1783 that general george washington issued his general orders announcing that the cessation of hostilities between the united states of america and the king of great britain would be publicly proclaimed the next day. i mention this because today you’ll learn how our planning team has started to gallop through the bay area’s nine counties\, to ask local elected officials to work closely with us as we develop the guidelines their jurisdictions will need to use to create their local rising sea level adaptation plans. and unlike george washington who could not foresee when the revolutionary war would end\, we know it will be no longer than eight months\, not eight years until the commission will adopt those regulations later this year. good news on staffing. unless we hear otherwise from you\, we plan to transfer rachel cohen\, who not only serves on the enforcement team right now but is sitting somewhere behind me here in this weird temzacal room\, we will transfer her to the long-range planning team as an environmental scientist. rachel is a blue hen\, having earned her undergraduate degree in energy and environmental policy from the university of delaware. she was originally hired by bcdc as a secretary and supported our sediment team in a number of planning efforts. she was promoted to the enforcement team in october ’22\, and you’ll remember her from her presentation two weeks ago. working withh the long-range planning team\, rachel will be part of the group that is reviewing how the bay adapt regional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines may lead to future amendments to the san francisco bay plan\, and the process by which subregional plans developed under sb272 will be reviewed and approved by bcdc. also on the screen today is rose ahn who joined the bcdc sediment team last month as a sea grant fellow. there you go. she’s waving at you. rose is helping develop the beneficial reuse roadmap and subsequent proposed bay plan amendment and is working to understand outcomes of the sand mining studies. rose is a lady trojan\, having earned her undergraduate and graduate degrees from the university of southern california. prior to starting with us\, she completed an internship for the sea grant research arm in which she worked at various outreach events to effectively communicate to the public the importance of marine protected areas\, coastal issues and environmental justice. prior to that\, she interned for los angeles mayor karen bass\, performed research on red abalone and conducted stakeholder outreach on oil well remediation and solid waste management on catalina island. and we’re thrilled to have her with us. with regard to policy\, you may remember that several years ago\, bcdc approved the creation of the wings landing educational kayak program\, which was developed as a way to provide public access to the wings landing tidal habitat restoration project in the suisun marsh. we knew that creating a program that would create public access by putting kids in kayaks would be a grand experiment. it started in 2021. we have received the good news that the program has been fully integrated into the summer school curriculum for crystal middle school as part of a multi-session week-long science camp and is expanding to include additional schools this summer. each year has been met with excitement and overwhelming positive reviews by everyone including the students. and the local soroptimist club is granting the program an additional $20\,000 to keep it going. this is a great example of how public access can be developed not just on land but on the water\, and demonstrates that bcdc continues to need to be creative as we explore new ways of providing public access in light of rising sea level. assistant planning director Dana Brechwald and i had a terrific discussion with members of the solano county board of supervisors and the mayors of the cities of solano county last week about sb272 and the developoment of the subregional adaptation plans. i want to note this particularly because and pay attention local elected officials\, the supervisors and mayors seem to agree that the best way for the county to move forward is to work together on a joint plan to cover the entire county shoreline. we don’t know whether that will happen\, or if it does if other counties will take the same approach — hint\, hint — but we couldn’t help but be terribly impressed by the seriousness and insightfulness of the supervisors and mayors. we want to thank commissioner vasquez for his help in setting up the meeting. and i’ll let you know now that next week we will have meetings with marin county officials and the week after that we will be in contra costa to meet with their local officials. in what is likely the last time that i will need to mention the oakland athletics\, the alameda county superior court dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit filed by east oakland stadium alliance against bcdc and the a’s over the commission’s approval of the howard terminal bay plan amendment almost two years ago. we all know that the athletics have more than just indicated their intent to abandon the ballpark and the city and the mixed use development proposal\, so all litigants stipulated to certain terms to dismiss the lawsuit. that being said\, staff will continue to apprise the commission of any further issues of note surrounding the bay plan amendment\, relevant legislation including ab1191\, and the oakland athletics miracle start to the season. finally\, here is a notice for the bcdc book club. our friend from uc davis\, professor mark lubell\, who sits on bay adaptation advisory group\, and his former researcher\, francesca pia vantaggiato of kings college in london\, have written a book specifically about the governance issues surrounding rising sea level policy in san francisco bay. its title is “governing sea level rise in a polycentric system.” and it is available on amazon. we look forward to mark explaining the title much less many of the book’s graphics in the near future. with that\, chair wasserman\, i’m happy to answer any questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: do the commissioners have any questions for our executive director? i see no hands. that brings us to item 7\, consideration of administrative matters. we did not have an administrative listing\, which means our regulatory director\, harriet ross\, is spared once again. as i previously noted\, item 8 is postponed. so\, that brings us to item 9\, a public hearing and possible vote on the enforcement committee’s recommendation to require statutory and permit compliance at starkweather in san rafael\, marin county\, and payment of up to $30\,000 in administrative\, civil liability to resolve bcdc case — enforcement case er2015.024.00 against the owner of record the city of san rafael. on march 7\, 2024\, after a duly noticed public hearing on this matter\, the bcdc enforcement committee voted to recommend this enforcement proceeding go to the full commission for approval. the recommendation includes a proposal settlement agreement with the city of san rafael that requires it to reopen a required public restroom at the park and pay an administrative civil penalty by no later than may 10\, 2024. adrienne klein of our enforcement team will present the item in just a few minutes. first\, i would like the representatives for the city of san rafael\, if they are virtually present\, to identify themselves for the record. \n>>Connor Maclean: hello\, i’m Connor Maclean\, attorney for the city of san rafael. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman. thank you very much. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: my name is Fabiola Guillen\, i am the senior project manager for the department of public works for the city of san rafael. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you for being with us as well. bcdc enforcement staff will first present the case and the proposed settlement agreement\, after which time the respondent will be given an opportunity to comment. after that presentation and comments\, we will open the public comment period. public comments will be limited to three minutes per person. after the public comment period has been closed\, we will — the floor will be open to members of the commission to ask follow-up questions of bcdc staff and the respondent and to deliberate on the matter. all speakers must limit their presentation and comments to the evidence already made part of the record that has been published online with this meeting’s agenda and/or the policy implications of such evidence. we will not allow the presentation of any oral testimony or new evidence. the public hearing is declared open. adrienne\, will you please make the presentation? \n>>adrienne klein: thank you\, chair wasserman. thank you\, director goldzband. i believe everyone can hear me. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i think you need to boost your volume. \n>>Pat Eklund: i cannot hear you. \n>>adrienne klein: good afternoon chair wasserman and commissioners. \n>>Pat Eklund: needs to be up higher\, please. \n>>adrienne klein: i have a presentation to share. could it be loaded? the purpose of this formal enforcement proceeding is to resolve a single violation involving a closed public restroom at starkweather park on francisco boulevard in the city of san rafael. the presentation will identify the site where the violation is occurring\, briefly review the permit and enforcement history\, summarize the terms of the settlement agreement that will resolve the violation and conclude with the staff recommendation. the next three slides identify starkweather park in the city of san rafael near the western terminis of the richmond-san rafael bridge in marin county. with this image showing a site overview with enough detail — oops\, sorry. this is zoomed in closer. next slide. now there is enough detail for you to see the restroom building visible inside the red cloud bubble at the bottom left of the image in the parking lot area. francisco boulevard is below the bottom of the image\, and the shoreline trail pictured adjacent to that restroom continues to the north and west above the top of the image. there is a beach pictured on the right. next slide. this google earth image shows the view of the restroom looking north\, the public shore parking required by the bcdc permit is located in the parking lot where the photo was taken. you can see that shoreline trail behind and to the right of the restroom\, beach is off to the right. this formal enforcement proceeding seeks to resolve a single violation\, the failure as has been noted to maintain a public restroom in violation of special condition ii.b.4 of a 1978 permit. next. now to the timeline. the 1978 permit authorizes a portion of two commercial buildings and fill placement for paved roads and parking in the commission’s shoreline band jurisdiction. special condition 2b3 of this permit requires among other public access improvements that the permitee provide a public restroom that shall be open to the public prior to the use of any commercial facility and that commercial facility has been in use since at least 1987. while the public restroom was constructed and open to — constructed according to approved plans and open to the public in september 1985 the city closed it approximately six months later in or around march 1986. and it has remained closed since that time. therefore\, as noted in the previous slide\, the city is in violation of the maintenance condition of its permit which requires the city to maintain a permanent public restroom. and by its closure\, the city has failed to maintain the permanent public restroom. between 1986 and 2015\, bcdc was unaware of the public restroom’s closure. staff received no reports from the public nor did staff discover the violation. the building was non-descript structure for many years which made it difficult to identify the violation for anyone without knowledge of — detailed knowledge of the permit’s public access conditions. in july 2015\, the city submitted a permit amendment request\, in fact\, to remove the restroom from the permit requirements. this is how bcdc discovered the violation. in october 2015\, bcdc staff opened this enforcement case and notified respondent of its permit violation. in april of 2016\, one year later\, staff requested documentation from the city to support its position that to open the restroom would constitute a public safety hazard. between april and november 2016\, the city provided — did not provide that data to bcdc staff. and in november\, also in november\, bcdc issued a letter that commenced the accrual of standardized fines or the restroom closure violation among others that have since been resolved. in december of 2016\, staff understanding the difficulty inherent in reopening this long-closed\, unused structure to the public in a manner compliant with building requirements\, agreed to allow the city to install a portable restroom and hand washing station at the site on a temporary basis in order to provide the basic service that was — that the city had denied to the public for the past 30 years. staff did not contemplate at the time of this arrangement that the temporary portable restroom would remain in place more than seven years. in january 2017\, bcdc staff informed the city with the installation of the portable restroom and hand washing station\, staff had determined that the violation had been provisionally resolved\, temporarily halting the standardized fine accrual through a specific date of june 30\, 2017 by which time staff expected the permanent restroom to be open to the public or standardized fines would recommence accruing. the city unfortunately did not open the restroom by the end of june. so\, in july\, bcdc staff informed the city that as the restroom remained close\, the provisional resolved status of the case was being rescinded and that the standardized fines as of that date accrued to over $18\,000 and would continue to accrue to the administrative maximum of $30\,000 until the violation had been resolved. staff informed the city of its request to eliminate the restroom from the permit was not approved by the commission that staff may commence a formal enforcement proceeding. in 2018 and ’19\, the city prepared and submitted restroom reconstruction plans to bcdc which bcdc staff conditionally approved in december 2019. the approved plans were for a single ada compliant plumed restroom with exterior lighting and the inclusion of a drinking fountain and wattle bottle filling station built into the exterior of the structure in order to offset the loss of the second restroom that was part of the original structure. for most of 2020 there was no contact between the city and bcdc due to covid-19. in november 2020\, staff reinitiated contact with the city to request progress on the restroom reconstruction and reopening project. in early 2021\, the city informed bcdc that the restroom reconstruction commenced and later that it had also been completed and passed plumbing and electrical inspections. the city stated the restroom might be open by the summer of 2021\, but that pg&e would have to first turn on the power. in march 2022\, the city reported that pg&e had reported that it would take five to eight months to start work once a construction contract between the city and pg&e was paid for and in place. the city reported to bcdc that pg&e needed to drop a power line from a pole and run conductors and conduit from the pole to the restroom. the city also reported that it was working with san rafael sanitation district to obtain a sewer connection permit and with marin municipal water district to obtain new water service. in january of 2023 the city reported that it had reinstalled the water service\, rehabilitated the sewer lateral\, installed a metered pedestal and conduit. they also stated that the city was still waiting on pg&e to provide electrical service\, the last utility required for the restroom to be functional. for the remainder of 2023\, there was no contact between bcdc and the city and on january 30\, 2024\, bcdc commenced a formal enforcement proceeding to cause the restroom to be opened through issuance of a violation report and complaint to cause resolution of the eight-year long violation. a week prior to issuance of the violation report and complaint\, city staff informed bcdc staff that the restroom reconstruction had occurred consistent with bcdc staff approved restroom reconstruction plans. and that pg&e had installed the power conduit to the restroom on a privately owned parcel adjacent to the restroom and would not turn on the electric power service to the restroom building until the city presented pg&e with an easement from the owner of that privately owned parcel. during a telephone conversation at the end of february of this year\, bcdc staff received the following further update. that the city had met with the private — the owner of the privately owned parcel who had agreed to enter into an easement with the city\, that pg&e had agreed to accept a letter from the owner pending completion of the easement process to enable pg&e to turn on the power to the restroom\, and that the city had obtained said letter from said private property owner and submitted it to pg&e who\, based on the assurance it provided that an easement would be forthcoming had scheduled an april 10th site visit to turn the power on to the restroom. on march 4th\, counsel for the city of san rafael and bcdc held a confidential negotiation which resulted in an agreement to settle this matter as follows. next slide. the city has agreed to pay bcdc $30\,000 by may 10th unless it demonstrates that it has made available for use by the public the permanent restroom facilities and water fountain — water fountain\, water bottle filling station by april 27th\, and restored the site by removing the nearby temporary toilet and hand washing station and restoring some landscaping behind the restroom by may 6th. in that event\, the settlement agreement would authorize the executive director to accept a payment of $15\,000\, no later than may 10th. next slide. on march 27th\, the enforcement committee adopted the staff recommended enforcement decision and today the enforcement committee recommends that the full commission adopt the proposed recommended enforcement decision which includes a proposed settlement agreement to resolve enforcement case er-2015-24. if adopted\, this case would be transferred from the enforcement to the compliance department for compliance monitoring. that concludes the staff’s presentation. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. do the — either or both of the representatives from san rafael wish to address us? \n>>Connor Maclean: hi\, Connor Maclean\, attorney for san rafael. thank you\, adrienne\, for your presentation. we’ve enjoyed working with you on this and we’ve enjoyed working with other members of bcdc to put together this settlement agreement. i will have fabiola explain a bit more of what’s going on right now. i wanted to update everyone about the progress on this bathroom. unfortunately\, you know\, pg&e had told the city it would come on april 10th to finish installing power. we were expecting that shortly thereafter the bathroom could be reopened so we could meet the april 26th deadline for a $15\,000 reduction in fines. it’s pretty clear the city is not going to meet that deadline thanks to pg&e’s cancellation. we hope to meet the may 10th deadline for compliance to get this bathroom open\, but honestly\, at this point\, i don’t — i’ve never really trusted pg&e\, i continue not to trust pg&e\, and so\, you know\, we would like to ask for an extension if you would be willing to grant an extension for the timeline for compliance for opening the bathroom. i think that could benefit bcdc and the city. we understand the reasons for imposing the fines for the past violations. the bathroom wasn’t opened for all this time\, the public was harmed\, we get that. but at this point\, i don’t think that imposing additional fines on the city benefit anyone. it’s just taking funds from one public entity and giving it to another public entity and those are funds that could be used to actually open this bathroom. i understand that there’s an interest in putting a fire under the city’s feet to get this done\, the fire is there. you know\, we’re working on it. fabiola has been meeting with the neighboring property owner\, pg&e\, bcdc to get this bathroom open. at this point\, the city finds its hands completely tied. we are completely held by pg&e at this point. we were promised they would be here on april 10th. they then didn’t show. we are working with them to get them to come as soon as possible but there’s really nothing that the city can do at this point. so\, to impose additional fines if the bathroom were not opened by may 10th on the city would\, you know — seems a bit unnecessary given that the city is doing everything it can to get this bathroom open. i’ll turn it over to fabiola to explain a bit of the process of how we got to where we’re at right now. she has been with this process every step of the way. i think can explain a bit better some of the complications that happened with pg&e digging a ditch in the wrong place. making promises to the city to install service and falling through. i will turn it over to fabiola. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: hi\, everyone. Fabiola Guillen from the city of san rafael. it’s been an adventure. thank you\, adrienne\, for the presentation. there’s so much detail there. though it may appear otherwise\, the city has been working really hard to try to get this open\, this restroom open. it’s not only for our community but it’s a project that’s been lingering for so long that it’s in everybody’s best interest to get completed. i wanted to put it out there\, there’s absolutely 100% commitment from the city to get this done. secondly\, what connor mentioned\, pg&e has kind of put us in a very difficult position. we had an agreement with them\, they had — we had a commitment from them that they were going to install this power on april 10th\, and originally it was just with a promissory letter from the property owner\, adjacent property owner\, that they were giving us permission to install this power. later on that changed to requiring the formal easement\, which we produced and i have to say in record time\, and provided it to pg&e. only on april 8th did they tell us that the easement had to be issued earlier. so that they had bumped us off the schedule basically and we were never notified of this. our city manager got involved and has contacted pg&e about the director’s level and they seem to have committed now to rescheduling our job for may 10th\, for installation of the power. i have received the confirmation that that’s going to happen\, and the job may take a full week\, intermittent — different crews will come at different times and they’re going to install this power. we on our end have made arrangements to fulfill the rest of the agreement\, which is to remove the temporary power — the temporary toilet once the restroom is complete and restore the adjacent landscape so we can open the permanent bathroom to the public\, as soon as possible — as soon as the power gets connected. i also did a little investigation before the meeting and we have issued a $15\,000 check to bcdc as of march — let me double check. april 5th we issued this check for bcdc for the original $15\,000 amount. and we will hopefully be ready after all this is done and reopen the bathroom as soon as possible. like connor said\, our level of confidence and trust in pg&e’s commitment is — \n>>Connor Maclean: i’ll add to what fabiola said\, in case people are unaware of kind of the background here. the reason that we needed to get an easement from the adjacent property owner is because — fabiola\, you can step in and let me know the year in a second\, maybe a year ago or two years ago\, pg&e said they would come and install power for the bathroom\, they did so\, and afterwards they realized they installed it on the neighbor’s property and not the city’s property. the neighbor had to ask pg&e to either\, you know\, redo it\, which was going to cost a ton of money or\, you know\, negotiate an easement with the neighboring property owner. the neighboring property owner agreed that they would\, you know\, give the city an easement. that took some time to negotiate. but\, again\, you know\, this delay stems in the first place from once again another mistake by pg&e. you know\, i want to kind of highlight that even a year or two years ago\, the city was on track to get this bathroom open\, pg&e keeps making mistakes that prevent this bathroom from getting open. \n>>Greg Scharff: the commission really can’t give an extension on this. the commission could send it back to the enforcement committee if they want\, who could look at it. but staff can give an extension. the agreement says that the executive director can modify the agreement\, sign a modification. at this point\, staff is considering it. we would like the commission to allow the executive director — that would be our preference\, modify it assuming the city’s continuing to work in good faith and all of that. we don’t want to make the decision right now if we want to do that. so\, if you do nothing and approve this\, the executive director may very well grant an extension on this given the circumstances. the other choice you have is to send it back to the enforcement committee\, we will work with the city of san rafael and possibly give an extension depending on the circumstances. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you\, greg. sierra\, do we have any public comments? \n>>Sierra Peterson: no public comment. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: then i would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. \n>>Pat Eklund: before we do that\, zach\, i have some questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioners will have an opportunity to ask questions after we close the public hearing. \n>>Pat Eklund: what if it requires the city of san rafael to do some responses. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: they can do that after we close the public hearing. this is basically saying the time for additional public input is over. \n>>Pat Eklund: that’s fine. i raised my hand first\, i’d like to — \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i saw that. i will recognize you. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: do i have a motion to close the hearing? commissioner nelson moves. commissioner gilmore seconds. thank you. unless there’s an objection\, the public hearing is closed. now is the time for questions and comments by commissioners. commissioner eklund\, go ahead. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much\, chair wasserman. i have a question for the city of san rafael. connor\, you mentioned in your presentation that pg&e didn’t show up\, and then later it was said due to a cancellation. can you help me to understand which one was it? did they cancel in advance or can you help me understand that sequence of events? \n>>Connor Maclean: yeah. fabiola is more familiar with this. i’ll let her take this question. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: yeah\, so — i guess we’re all familiar with pg&e\, they have several divisions and what appears to have happened is the land development department who is in charge of the easements had everything that they needed to re-ease the project\, however somewhere in the construction side of things\, they didn’t get the easement in times in their mind to proceed with the work. so they basically removed the project from their schedule and we didn’t know until april 8th\, two days before that they’re supposed to come out\, even though with several follow-up emails and calls\, we confirmed that we were on track. it wasn’t until april 8th that we started hearing that that was not going to happen. they needed confirmation from the construction department. so\, i would consider it both\, a cancellation and\, you know\, basically took us off the schedule. it took a lot of — a lot of communication with them to try to get that information out. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. help me to understand this lack of an easement. so\, the property that the bathroom is going to be on was actually not in a — in an approved location by the city of san rafael? \n>>Fabiola Guillen: the bathroom itself is on our property. it’s on a city property parcel. and maybe the presentation that adrienne had might have helped us understand. i don’t know if you remember the picture that we took from the — of the front of the building from the parking lot. \n>>Pat Eklund: mm-hmm. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: behind that parking lot is the street. that street is where the power is coming from. you imagine a line directly from the street to the bathroom\, that part\, that section is a private right of way that is private property. that’s where the — where pg&e runs the empty conduit without permission. \n>>Pat Eklund: had the city of san rafael talked with the owner of that property and got their approval to actually place the power line through that area? \n>>Fabiola Guillen: yes. so\, that is the easement that we procured. first\, we thought that a letter would suffice and allow us to fully conduct — allow pg&e to do the work and installation of the meter\, however they changed their mind and said we needed a formal easement which granted the city — or pg&e the right to use that land. that’s what the city did after negotiating with the property owner. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. great. thank you. chair wasserman\, do you want me to make comments now or do you want me to wait until after all the questions are asked? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: go ahead and make your comments now\, please. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. i really feel that the bcdc or the enforcement committee or — should work with san rafael and not necessarily give them the full penalty. obviously for not doing it way back 20 years ago\, the city can’t change that. but for the work that is occurring now\, it sounds like — the city of novato has also had issues with pg&e. so\, it’s not — i think all cities and counties have had some issues with pg&e\, it’s just — it’s very hard sometimes to get them committed and they have — you know\, they do have high turnover. i would really welcome and would encourage the enforcement committee and bcdc to give the city of san rafael a little bit more time with that additional penalties because obviously they are committed to this\, and as a sister organization\, having issues with pg&e\, you know\, i — i would feel for the city of novato any way that we are being penalized for something we didn’t have control over. so\, that’s my comment. i would like staff at some point to let me know what i need to do in order to follow up on this if necessary. anyway\, that’s my feeling. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner moulton-peters? \n>>Stephanie Moulton-peters: thank you. similar comments on my part. i want to thank the enforcement committee for bringing this to us and the staff. i think we’re all familiar with the difficulty pg&e has had in scheduling service and hitting the schedule\, whether it’s equipment shortages\, work priorities or the wildfire work they prioritize. i would also like to ask for consideration for san rafael be given some more time to pull this together with pg&e and have a reduced fine still in effect. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner vasquez? \n>>John Vasquez: thank you\, chairman. i will take a different route. i have no sympathy at all. the public has gone without a bathroom for 38 years. i think there’s been plenty of time to rectify it. for the last eight years we’ve known that it — the restroom has been closed. right? nine years at least. there’s plenty of time to get it done right. if it is the fact that they put the conduit in the right place\, i think the city or — had the power to simply condemn that piece of land and say this is where the easement is\, and this is where it’s going to stay. certainly it had power from 1978 to 1986\, because it was functioning. i — you know\, the — somebody from the city used the word promise a couple times. and i think one of the other speakers used commitment. there was a promise to the public to have these functioning restrooms\, and that promise was made 46 years ago. so\, i don’t see where there should be anymore leniency. those are my comments. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner addiego? \n>>Mark Addiego: thank you\, chair wasserman. i’m feeling a little bit more generous today than supervisor vasquez. i think most of the local elected people that serve on this commission could give you examples of where pg&e has delayed anything from much-needed traffic signals for safety to major developments worth tens of millions of dollars. i’m sympathetic to what san rafael is facing. i guess i’m directing my comments to the director\, it sounds like\, according to mr. sharpe\, that he’ll be the determining body. that was for you\, larry. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner showalter? \n>>Patricia Showalter: i’m sympathetic with san rafael on one hand. on the other hand\, if you have been having this problem for so many years\, why haven’t you thought of an alternative? there’s lots of lights that go on on batteries. i mean\, as an engineer\, there’s other ways to do things. this doesn’t seem like it’s a very remote place\, but\, you know\, i know there’s other technology. i just want to say in the future\, if we’re having a problem like this\, let’s ask people to think outside the box a little bit. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i don’t see any other commissioners. connor\, i’ll give you a moment to respond and then i’ll make a couple comments. \n>>Connor Maclean: hi again. thank you all for your comments. i just\, you know\, wanted to point out\, i hear concerns and desire to hold the city accountable for not having had the bathroom open in the past. you know\, i just want to highlight\, again\, the city recognizes that that — that the bathroom should have been opened. again\, we’re doing everything we can to get the bathroom open. the city was composed 38 years ago\, 37 years ago\, 36 years ago. 20 years ago\, 10 years ago\, 5 years ago of different people than it’s composed of now within city staff. current city staff takes this seriously and is working to get it open. i don’t think it’s fair to — you know\, useful in any way to penalize the current composition of the city for past composition of the city. just to the point of commissioner vasquez\, you wondered why the city wouldn’t just condemn the land where the conduit was mistakenly built\, condemnation is not in that. were it\, the city may have considered that option. that’s not even on the table. you know\, we appreciate your leniency if that’s possible. we look forward to continuing to work with you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: given our limited option — i’m sorry\, go ahead\, commissioner eklund? \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much for allowing me a second bite at the apple here. so — because i have not had too much experience with this. can you tell me what the process is? i guess is it appropriate for us to have some off-line discussions with the executive director on — \n>>Greg Scharff: let me tell you the process. the process is as staff were listening to what the commissioners have said and taken their comments into consideration\, the executive director — there’s two choices. you can either send it back to the enforcement committee\, which i do not think you should do. my recommendation is to approve what you have before you\, the executive director heard everything you said. san rafael and us will have discussions. we may or may not grant an extension. it’s not just granting an extension. it’s for how long an extension will be granted. it’s what milestones need to occur. there’s a whole procedure here so that we make sure that\, you know\, frankly their feet are to the fire. i don’t disagree that pg&e has caused the problem. i think san rafael has been working in good faith. we’re definitely taking that into consideration. but that’s really what the process is. \n>>Pat Eklund: so then\, do we have the ability as a commissioner to talk with the executive director on whether or not\, you know\, staff is going to give them extension\, whether or not we have an opportunity to bring it back to the commission if — \n>>Greg Scharff: no. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: those are different questions. let’s answer them separately. go ahead\, greg. \n>>Greg Scharff: the answer is i can’t stop you from sending emails\, but the answer is no\, it’s not appropriate in an enforcement matter to be weighing in on the executive director. now is your opportunity. you weighed in publicly. at least i took your comment as work with the city of san rafael. \n>>Pat Eklund: right. \n>>Greg Scharff: it’s not their fault. i heard you. i heard commissioner vasquez say the opposite. i heard commissioner moulton-peters say work with them. we’re hearing what you’re saying. i think it’s really up to the executive director. but i can tell you what our process will be. it will be to talk to the city of san rafael and to understand the situation and to take into account commissioner comments and figure out how best to move forward. \n>>Pat Eklund: great. thank you very much for explaining that. i just hope that the executive director will take what city san rafael said into consideration and try to work with them to urge pg&e to follow through on their commitments when to show up to help with the installation of the electrical connection. thank you very much. \n>>Greg Scharff: you’re welcome. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i would support for my own perspective the position that our general counsel has proposed. i’m sympathetic as all of you are to delays by pg&e that are outside the limits of san rafael. but i think given our choices\, which are to totally reject this or to return it to enforcement\, or to approve it with the understanding that the executive director does have the power to grant extensions and determine the timing and conditions of those\, that that would be the appropriate matter. so i would entertain a motion on the matter. commissioner gilmore. \n>>Marie Gilmore: thank you\, chair wasserman. i move that the commission approve the enforcement committee’s recommended enforcement decision including the proposed settlement agreement with the city of san rafael. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: is there a second for that motion? i see commissioner moulton-peters and i’ll give you a third to commissioner pemberton. will you please call the roll\, sierra? \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner addiego. \n>>Mark Addiego: i guess i need a clarification. so\, with this motion\, it does not go to the executive director? \n>>Greg Scharff: no\, it does go to the executive director. \n>>Mark Addiego: okay. then yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ahn? \n>>Eddie Ahn: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ambuehl? \n>>David Ambuehl: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner burt: \n>>Pat Burt: yes \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ecklund. \n>>Pat Eklund: aye\, with the understanding that the executive director will be able to follow through on this action. \n>>Sierra Peterson: thank you. commissioner gilmore. \n>>Marie Gilmore: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner hasz. \n>>Karl Hasz: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner kimball? \n>>Justie Kimball: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner kishimoto. \n>>Yorko Kishimoto: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner moulton-peters. \n>>Stephanie Moulton-peters: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner pemberton? \n>>Sheri Pemberton: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner peskin: \n>>Aaron Peskin: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner pine. \n>>Dave Pine: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ramos. \n>>Belia Ramos: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner showalter. \n>>Patricia Showalter: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner vasquez? \n>>John Vasquez:. yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner wasserman — chair wasserman. sorry. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: nine yeses\, no nos — pardon me. 19 yeses. no nos. no absentions. my apologies chair and commission. the motion passes. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: we all make math mistakes from time to time. the motion passes. i think that both the city of san rafael and the executive director and staff have clearly heard the concerns of the commissioners. and will act accordingly. that brings us to item 10. a briefing on our progress to create a regional shoreline adaptation plan. developing guidelines that local jurisdictions will use as they develop their subregional adaptation required by sb272’s regional shoreline adaptation plan mandate. these include a list of what elements those plans should obtain and how they should be developed. Dana Brechwald\, bcdc’s assistant planning director for climate change will provide a briefing after a brief introduction from our executive director. \n>>Lawrence Goldzband: thank you\, chair wasserman. and i haven’t told dana i would do this\, i want to do two things. number one\, i want to give dana props in front of the commission for what she did with the representatives from solano county last thursday night when she gave sort of the same presentation. and i want to draw all of your attention as local public officials to this presentation because this is what you all are going to experience after december when these guidelines are ultimately published. it will be your responsibility to work through them\, and we need you to think about them now before they get published\, much less before they’re really drafted in\, you know\, anything other than wet cement. and that’s why we really want you to pay attention to this presentation and as we go around the rest of the counties to be with us so that you understand what it is we’re trying to do\, and more important\, we get your help to do it right. with that\, go ahead\, dana. \n>>Dana Brechwald: thank you\, larry and chair wasserman. good afternoon\, commissioners. let me adjust all my moving parts here. okay. success. so\, good afternoon\, and it’s wonderful to see you all\, commissioners. i’m going to talk to you a little bit about our draft concept for subregional shoreline adaptation plans as identified and mandated by 272. you’ve seen the slide before. i know you’re familiar with the basic structure of sb272\, but just as a reminder\, this bill supports the regional preparation that we know we need by requiring local jurisdictions to develop subregional resiliency plans and for bcdc to develop the guidelines that the plans must follow. the bill also encourages consistency in coordination\, that’s what our regional shoreline adaptation plan is seeking to provide around the region. and the bill adds that bcdc is required to review and approve or deny subregional plans based on consistency with these guidelines. and lastly it adds an important carrot that projects within the approved plans are prioritized for state funding which supports our objective of supporting strategic implementation of projects around the region. the bill does contain some minimum requirements\, which are fairly basic. use best available science\, creation of a local vulnerability assessment that includes efforts to ensure equity for at-risk communities\, developing adaptation strategies for recommended projects\, developing lead and implementation agencies\, a timeline for updates as needed\, and an economic impact analysis for critical public infrastructure. obviously\, this doesn’t say much about what the plan actually is or what each of these elements should contain. that’s the basis for my presentation today. i’ll share with you our current thinking on what we’re calling plan requirements. and as larry mentioned\, the cement is still very wet\, so we’re hoping to hear your feedback today. as you know\, we’ve been working on developing the regional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines since before the bill was signed. we worked with senator laird to make sure the bill language was aligned with our vision for the regional shoreline adaptation plan and we’re on track to complete the guidelines by december\, per the bill’s language. i’ll also note that funding is already available for these plans. this is not an unfunded mandate for jurisdictions\, but there is grant funding for developing shoreline adaptation plans through available through the ocean protection council through the sb1 grant program. other pots could be applied to this purpose as well. we’ve been working with ocean protection council on — we worked with them on the grant criteria for the sb1 grants and staff is reviewing proposals from the bay area for alignment. once our guidelines are complete\, we will continue to work with opc to update their grant guidance for future rounds of this grant starting in 2025. i’ll also note that while there is a lot of money available right now for adaptation\, given our current state budget situation\, we don’t know how long this will last. it’s in the jurisdictions best interests to get these plans funded and developed soon. our first step towards establishing a regional process for adaptation planning and fulfilling sb272 was to develop our one bay vision to drive the scope and ambition of regional guidelines and local plans. we shared this with you in detail in february. the one bay vision establishes our ideal in-state if adaptation is successful in each of these eight topic areas you see here. so\, in addition to pop-ups around the region\, this vision was developed through an online survey and engagement with our advisory group which consists of 40 subject matter experts in various fields related to the topics you see here. sb272 requires bcdc to develop guidelines for subregional shoreline resiliency plans\, but that’s just the first phase for getting plans in place around the bay. phase one\, which will be completed by december\, includes our one bay vision that i just spoke of. the vision will first and foremost inform how local plan guidelines are developed. these guidelines will lay out consistent regional standards for how local jurisditions and create subregional plans and. provides — and develops adaptation strategies that meet minimum criteria to advance the region’s priorities of the one bay vision. the vision will also inform how we select the region’s strategic priorities. this component will identify key priorities for the region and identify where certain types of adaptation are most appropriate and beneficially locally to advance our goals of the region. these are based in products like our art bay area\, which was published in 2020\, which lays out a comprehensive vulnerability picture for the regions systems. so\, our next phase is supporting local jurisdictions to create these subregional adaptation plans\, which will include a variety of elements\, which i’ll discuss today\, such as our vulnerabilities assessments that were identified in 272\, and these will ultimately identify adaptation projects and land use changes with implementation strategies that will help get projects on the ground. and lastly\, up in — clicked too many times. the last component that we’re developing that you can see up here in the corner is our mapping platform which supports these efforts\, and it’s a data mapping designed to provide key information to local governments to support the development of subregional adaptation plans. right now\, as we develop an initial draft of the guidelines that specify what goes into subregional shoreline plans\, we also have to decide fairly quickly what these plans should look like\, what they should include\, what is the scale of the subregion and who leads\, what should these plans include to maximize effectiveness while recognizing the limited capacity of local jurisdictions to do these plans at the local and county scale\, and lastly how are these plans approved\, codified and translated into the real world. we have a concept that we developed that i’ll talk about\, but this is an important time to pause and say this is — we’re road testing these concepts. both through our commission\, this commission briefing today\, the meetings that we’re having with the counties that larry has mentioned\, and we’ve also been meeting with our advisory group and various focus groups to vet this material as well. it’s really important for us to test drive these concepts with the audiences who will be making the decisions about organizing and developing these plans such as you\, local elected officials\, local planners and other local staff. working with our stakeholders\, here are the guiding principles that we are bearing in mind as we develop our plan requirements. this concept that i’m about to share with you has been developed collaboratively starting with a research phase to look at various plan models throughout the region and the state\, working with a subcommittee of our advisory group and holding focus groups with local and county planners\, engineering and planning consultants and special districts. we want to make sure that the plans that we are developing through these guidelines are flexible\, aligned\, right-sized\, build on the existing efforts of local jurisdictions and are impactful. they actually have meaning in the real world. so\, the foundation for subregional plans is the scale at which they should occur. what we’re proposing is plans happen at the county scale and local scale to ensure we’re covering all portions of the bay shoreline. as a reminder\, our plan only covers local governments within bcdc’s jurisdiction\, while the coastal commission’s lcp process is being amended to enact sb272 on the outer coast. we learned by talking with cities and counties that every situation is different and we need to account for that as we move forward. so\, we anticipate working closely with cities and counties to identify the best scales and combinations of jurisdictions to do these plans. our county plans are intended to cover unincorporated parts of the county\, and we also believe the county should play a lead role in coordinating all the local plans within the county. at the local level\, jurisdictions may choose to do a single jurisdiction local plan or participate in a multi-jurisdictional local plan. single plans may be suited for large or high capacity jurisdictions\, or those that already have an adaptation plan in place. while multi-jurisdictional local plans may be organized around existing relationships\, geographic or landscape features such as an operational landscape unit or a watershed\, or small jurisdictions with limited capacity\, it can be expanded through partnerships. we’re open to any combination of cities and counties or any combination of cities. for example\, in a county with a handful of jurisdictions along the bay shoreline\, the county and cities may want to partner together to submit one combined plan\, such as what we heard may be the preference in solano county last week. staff is currently working to develop the content for the guidelines. here’s an initial outline of two major sections. we want you to take a look at this and think about whether these are the appropriate elements that should be in these plans. our goal here is to keep this document concise and effective without being overly complicated or prescriptive. the focus here is on the guidelines for what should be included in each plan element. that’s the column on the left. this is what should be in those plans. then the minimum standards and considerations for how to fulfill these guidelines. that’s the column on the right. what we’re proposing here is that each subregional shoreline adaptation plan should contain basic planning information\, assessment of existing conditions\, the vulnerability assessment as outlined in 272\, a section that outlines adaptation strategies and pathways for short\, medium and long-term for all sections of vulnerable shoreline\, a short-term project list\, a land use plan that outlines land use changes that need to happen in order to enact the shoreline changes\, and then an implementation plan that outlines how all of these adaptation strategies will be enacted over time. we also are coming up with minimum standards over equitable engagement and participation\,what time horizons people should be planning for\, what are the flood hazards that we think everyone should be planning for\, what are the minimum categories that people should be assessing in their vulnerability assessment\, and most importantly\, what are the adaptation strategy standards. it looks like a tiny little line on the slide here\, but that is are several pages for developing adaptation strategies such as looking at nature-based solutions\, how do you consider what adaptation strategies should go where given vulnerability and other conditions. one important thing to note is while plans may include multiple jurisdictions within a single plan\, each jurisdiction must meet all the guidelines in some way\, shape or fashion either on their own or in partnership with other jurisdictions. also really want to note here we are definitely anticipating allowing content that’s been already developed in other plans to be used or incorporated by reference in these plans\, especially in local hazard mitigation plans\, safety elements\, and existing climate action plans or adaptation plans. we recognize there’s a lot of very similar content that jurisdictions may have already developed. we would like to account for that as much as possible. so\, the slide talks about process for how we will submit and approve these plans. we want you to think about how might this process play out in the real world. it’s easy to look at it on a timeline\, but how would this actually work. once plans are developed\, counties and jurisdictions should submit the plans at the same time. plans will be reviewed by bcdc separately and together. together to make sure they’re coordinated in a county\, but separately to ensure each plan is reviewed for its own merits\, that each plan meets all the minimum requirements. bcdc will provide conditional approval to plans separately. if one plan does not meet requirements but others do\, they won’t be slowed down by approval. upon conditional approval\, plans should be adopted locally by county boards or local city councils and each participating jurisdiction must adopt their plan separately. once approvals are completed\, they’re submitted to bcdc and final approval occurs when all jurisdictions within a county submit for final approval to bcdc. we also believe it’s fundamental that the plan approved by bcdc to provide resilience for the shoreline of the whole county is codified into all the appropriate local plan and policy documents. we’ll be developing guidelines on where certain key strategies for implementing adaptation should be considered for integration into things like zoning ordinances\, specific plans\, capital improvement plans\, and how considerations for how to update general plan elements like housing elements to reflect resilience policy changes. so\, this is the timeline that will get us to commission approval of the guidelines by december of this year. we’re here on the left in mid-april. we’re preparing to share a first draft of the guidelines that we’re calling the committee draft that will be reviewed by our advisory group and that we’ll be using as a basis for content at our cbo workshops\, which i will talk about in the next slide. after incorporating input from those groups\, we’ll create a second draft after another round of review by our internal stakeholders\, and this will hopefully correspond with public workshops\, and we’ll incorporate any changes from that into a public draft released in early september in alignment with the commission briefing which will kick off our public comment period\, that will close with the commission hearing in early november. the vote is currently anticipated for early december. i also want to note here\, there’s a line for our electeds road show. we’ve already done two of those events and we have several more scheduled. we’ve been meeting with our local — we’ll be meeting with our local electeds task force on may 1st and plan on meeting with them again over the summer. and we met with our rsl commissioner working group a couple weeks ago and plan on meeting with them several more times before commission adoption. the last thing i just want to mention here is our next major outreach\, which is our local workshops in partnership with community-based organizations in may and june. these will be happening at five locations around the bay\, and co-hosted by our community-based partners. the goal of these workshops is threefold. we want to make sure the regional guidelines work for local governments and provide the guidance and direction necessary to plan and implement adaptation effectively. so we want to test out guidelines in specific locations. we want to bring people together\, local community members\, governments\, stakeholders to facilitate and kick start the collaborative conversations that are going to need to continue to happen after the guidelines are done and once planning begins\, and lastly\, we want to continue to build and support cbos to lead adaptation efforts in their own communities. the partnerships we’re offering are paid partnerships\, and our hope is by codeveloping the workshops with our community-based organizations they can be set up to play a larger role in the actual develop of the adaptation plans in the future. all commissioners with a workshop in your community will receive invitations to these workshops in the upcoming weeks. invitations have not begun going out yet. so you haven’t missed anything. our first workshop is planned for may 16th in partnership with sustainable solano. i’ll pause there and turn it back to chair wasserman for discussion. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you very much. with the presentation complete\, do we have comments from the public\, sierra? let’s call them. \n>>Sierra Peterson: carin high\, you have three minutes. you may unmute yourself. \n>>speaker: good afternoon. thank you. this is carin high\, citizens committee to complete the refuge. i would like to begin by expressing my thanks to dana and jackie and the rest of the staff and to the bcdc working group for their efforts they’ve put into this. rsap is definitely an extremely complex process and we recognize that there are many voices that must be considered and in a really short period of time. we deeply appreciate the manner in which staff have incorporated the importance and value of the bay’s ecosystem into the vision statement. we recently expressed to staff our concern regarding a previous version of the outline provided on slide 10\, and our concern was that putting nature first and equity should be conveyed in the higher level headlines as well as in the detailed language that will follow. for example\, headings regarding the need to put nature first and equity could be incorporated into the higher level headings of the outline that discuss the plan element guidelines and the minimum of standards and considerations and dana\, in fact\, just referenced the use of nature-based solutions under a heading of adaptation strategies and pathways. thank you for that. we understand the requirement to put nature first will be incorporated into the details developed for each of the outlined sections\, however\, the only place nature occurs in the draft outline heading currently is under the one bay vision section. our concern is that we totally support the vision that has been stated\, visions are not always reflected on what actually happens on the ground. and as just one recent example of why we think nature and equity need to be more prominent\, cccr recently received and reviewed and submitted comments regarding the redwood city sea level rise vulnerability assessment\, which was a good document. but while the vital of tidal wetlands was mentioned in the document\, discussion of the need to protect these habitats was largely absent as was any discussion of the use of natural infrastructure or nature-based solutions. of course\, we raised these issues in our comment letter. this underscores the need to elevate the issues of putting nature first and equity into every aspect of the draft outline and guidelines as possible. thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments and we look forward to continuing working with staff. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. do we have any other public speakers? \n>>Sierra Peterson: yes\, chair. Arthur Feinstein\, you may now unmute. \n>>speaker: hi\, chair wasserman and commissioners. Arthur Feinstein\, chair of the sierra club of san francisco bay. i second everything that carin said. so i just don’t repeat\, i want to recall to all of you in sb272\, one of these requirements is that the guidelines reflect and implement the principles found in the bay adapt process that you adopted a year or more ago. the second bullet in those principles of bay adapt is put nature first. so\, it’s not just a nice thing\, it’s actually a requirement that put nature first be put first whenever possible as the rest of the language goes. and as carin says\, unless that is emphasized consistently throughout the guidelines\, it’s really quite possible for communities to sort of ignore that because most communities\, most planners i believe\, most people think of the shoreline and sea level rise and flooding as let’s put up a wall because that’s what one does. foster city\, you know\, a wall. so\, it’s an educational process. so\, just putting it down at the bottom of\, oh\, one of the adaptation strategies is put nature first\, yes\, but maybe no. but if it’s right at the top\, more than once in the headings of what you need to do\, then it becomes more clear to the cities and the preparers of these plans that they have to educate themselves\, learn what it means to do nature-based solutions and put them into their planning. we just — we do thank staff very much for being very responsive to all of these thoughts. we just feel we have to keep reminding it because this is the one shot to save san francisco bay’s health. another reminder\, 78% or more of the state’s entire tidal wetlands are found in san francisco bay. a large percentage of them will drowned under sea level rise. i hope you all realize how important tidal marshes are to our aquatic environment and our own environment and our own lives. we don’t want to lose those. one of the only ways we’ll have to make sure that we continue to have tidal marshes and a healthy ecosystem is if when we adapt our shorelines\, we remember to put nature first. thanks very much. i look forward to working with all of you and hope we come to a very happy solution and that the bay survives into 2100 and beyond. thank you very much. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. sierra\, any others? \n>>Sierra Peterson: yes. next we have gita dev. you may now unmute. \n>>speaker: thank you. thank you. is it possible to put up the slide that has the draft guidelines of the key elements? it’s quite — it’s got a lot of information on it. thank you so much. appreciate it. good afternoon\, all\, i’m gita dev with the sierra club\, at the risk of sounding like we’re all saying the same thing\, i want to endorse what carin high and Arthur Feinstein have just said. i would like to put a slightly different slant on it. i want to acknowledge we really appreciated staff having listened to our comments so far. and in this case\, we have this particular request — acknowledge it’s a tough task to codify the vision and to get our goals on paper\, but i work at sierra club\, work very closely with city councils\, speak with developers\, i’m an architect\, i’m accustomed to responding to rfps\, i can tell you how these projects actually work. that’s why the redwood city project came out the way it did. the capital improvement projects staff are public works staff\, and they are mostly engineers. the consultants who they hire\, the rfps are responded by rpr firm — rpr staff. they look only at the outline. they don’t look much further. they are extremely time-constrained. so it’s really important to get it in the — you know\, in the plan element guidelines and particularly in the minimum standards. because if it’s not there\, they may not actually put in a fee for that. they may not have some consultants that respond to that. these are the reasons why we’ve got to understand how projects actually work so that — the redwood city project did have element a\, b\, c\, and d. it went through the very good process of the existing conditions and the vulnerability assessment as carin high pointed out did not include anything offshore from the shoreline except to acknowledge they exist. they did not have a discussion about them. the adaptation strategies unfortunately were purely engineering. they were walls\, levees and storm water pumps and pipe incisors. in talking to them yes\, i did. i met with them yesterday\, they said\, you know\, we’re the engineers — \n>>Sierra Peterson: your time is now complete. \n>>speaker: that’s the reason i would ask you to bring this into the outline. thank you very much. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. \n>>Sierra Peterson: there are no more hands raised\, chair wasserman. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you very much. commissioner eklund? \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much. great presentation. reminds me so much of working for epa where we did this for state agencies. anyway\, question first on the local workshops. i think it would be helpful if staff would contact the bcdc representatives for that particular county and talk with us about our availability because i think that this is going to be really important for — to make sure that those of us who serve on bcdc be there so that we can hear some of the concerns or comments of the folks that are at that workshop. that’s the first one. may 16th in solano\, is that going to be also through zoom as well or is it just going to be in person? \n>>Dana Brechwald: i believe that one will be in person. \n>>Pat Eklund: will it be zoom as well or not? \n>>speaker: i don’t know the answer right now. \n>>Pat Eklund: the other question i have with sb272\, was there any funding designated for local government cities and counties to not only help develop the plans but to codify the local plans that are developed into the zoning and housing elements\, general plans\, all those other documents that we have? is there any funding that is going to be given to each of the cities and the counties to implement 272? \n>>speaker: i think Justine Kimball is online and better answer that question than me about the suitability of funds for that. sorry to put you on the spot\, justine. \n>>Justine Kimball: yeah\, no worries. i may have to get back to you on the specifics. our funding is specifically towards development and the steps along the way including vulnerability assessment\, capacity building\, visioning\, to get to a sea level rise adaptation plan that can be a subregional plan. i don’t know about the piece of\, like\, integrating it — i didn’t quite get that\, integrating it into the other plans. \n>>Pat Eklund: dr. kimball\, in order to make this enforceable\, cities and counties need to put it into their regulatory documents\, i’ll talk — i’ll talk as a state or local — state or federal\, they have to put it into their regulatory requirements in order to be able to enforce it. so\, for example\, some of the adaptation strategies would obviously have to be recorded into the housing element or even in the general plan\, and then we have to develop enforcement mechanisms. so\, that takes funding to do that. cities and counties do not have enough money to implement\, let alone yet another state law and put it into our regulatory requirement. i guess i need to get some feedback as to what funding is going to be available for all. this is statewide\, so all this — i don’t know how many cities there are along coastal zones or waters of the state of california\, but cities and counties i would — would need direct funding from sb272 in order to implement some of the requirements. maybe we can have that discussion a little bit later or if bcdc staff know the answer to that question\, that would be helpful. i have other questions as well\, but — \n>>Justine Kimball: i can check back on the opc side of things. again\, the language for sb1 is very specific\, adaptation and plans. i can see about the inclusion integration into other plans and how that would fit into our funding eligibility and get back to dana with an answer. or directly to you. \n>>Pat Eklund: but dr. kimball\, you don’t have the regulatory authority to change our zoning standards\, for example. the cities and the counties would have to do that. \n>>Justine Kimball: i thought you were asking about funding for the work. \n>>Pat Eklund: funding for cities and counties to do the actual implementation of the standards. absolutely. \n>>Justine Kimball: yeah. our funding goes directly to cities and counties\, those are the eligible grantees\, i just need to check on that question about — yeah\, about how far the funding would go. \n>>Pat Eklund: maybe we can have an off-line discussion\, too\, to get more detail. i have done this at the federal and the state level\, and\, so\, i definitely have a real good understanding of the staff implications. for the city of novato\, there’s no way on this earth we’d ever be able to change our regulatory documents without funding. the other question is is that novato already has — i think san rafael does\, too\, to some degree or other cities around the bay\, we already have existing housing that is over the bay\, that’s — that’s in the regulatory jurisdiction of bcdc and others. and these houses are owned by individuals. they actually own i think the airspace above the water. i’m not sure what their deed looks like. so how is the local jurisdiction expected to develop requirements when we may not have the legal authority to remove some of those homes? i just — you know\, i — we’ll have to have some conversation about how do we deal with some of those that are already on the water or over the water or within the regulatory jurisdiction of bcdc and/or the state or federal agencies. can you help me to understand how that would be approached? \n>>speaker: i can’t say specifically how we would approach that specific situation. we’re trying to address as many situations as possible in the guidelines\, i think as you well know\, the bay area is vast and it’s — the types of manifestations of development along the shoreline and the issues and the priorities of each individual community\, i do anticipate we will be working closely with cities and counties. in fact\, we have an rfp out right now to help us develop a technical assistance program starting in 2025. in most cases\, i believe the guidelines will — we will work with cities and counties to understand how the guidelines apply in their particular situation. if that’s the case\, you know\, in marin or novato or anywhere along the shoreline\, we would welcome a one-on-one conversation about that. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. how do we do that? how do we initiate and say let’s have some discussion\, not only with the staff but also the elected officials\, too\, so we can have a better understanding of what the implications are\, as well as legally. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i think these are important questions\, we’re also getting into a level of process that is beyond the level of this presentation. certainly with our workshops and the local government officials\, we’re doing some of that\, which is not to say enough. so i think we will take those questions and issues into our staff’s planning and into the next presentations to the commission. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you\, chair wasserman. i think it would be helpful if i could have some more discussions with staff on this issue so that i can have a better understanding about it\, so i can better communicate it. probably one of the rare elected officials that has worked for over 40 years for regulatory agencies. involving these issues. anyway\, so\, thank you very much for answering my questions. i look forward to getting more engaged in this process. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner showalter. \n>>Patricia Showalter: well\, i have sort of similar things from the view of somebody who has been involved in flood protection for quite a long time\, too. in santa clara county we’re blessed by being wronged by old salt ponds that we can convert to marshes. we’ve been working on this for quite awhile. and most of us know this as the south bay salt pond project\, which was really started as a habitat project. all the engineers involved knew\, and it was also was just dandy sea level rise protection but that wasn’t something that resounded with our public at the time so we didn’t talk about it very much. as time has evolved\, we continue on the south bay salt pond restoration effort and we talk more about how indeed it’s really good for sea level rise. what i’m getting to is in the south bay\, in santa clara county\, the county in a sense isn’t really the lead in this. i mean\, the lead is really the coastal conservancy and the santa clara valley water district. i’m — it sounds like from\, you know\, when you really talk about this\, dana\, that when you talk about county\, it’s — i don’t know if you actually mean the formal county or what’s appropriate in that general area. i wanted to bring up that it may vary who are the really appropriate stakeholders from place to place. we just want to make sure that those — you know\, whoever they are are the ones who are brought to the table. i — i don’t honestly know what they are\, other localities\, i know in santa clara county\, if we don’t have the coastal conservancy and the santa clara water district taking part in this\, we won’t have\, you know\, all the stakeholders that we need to. i hope i’ll be able to set up a meeting with you and larry in the not too distant future about this. i do want to say i think it’s very important to give credence to the plans that exist. and that are moving forward. and to kind of fill the holes that haven’t been made in them. for instance\, mountain view has a plan. we passed it in 2012\, we’ve updated it a couple times. we’re actually — it includes 14 projects. we’re actually implementing it as we speak. but one of the things that wasn’t a part of it was an explicit conversation about equity. so that would be something that we’d need to include. i’m sure that if you look around at many of the other plans that were put together\, there are pieces that are just not there that we need to bring up. so\, i think that in lots of cases\, this is going to be a bit of putting together a beautiful patchwork quilt. we all have different patches finished and we have new ones we need to construct before we put it altogether. i think we want to be really cognizant of using good\, existing work that we have and using the good will that’s been built up to develop these and just kind of moving — particularly since we have to move quickly. we don’t want to be reinventing the wheel in things we’ve already done. that’s all i want to say. i’m just delighted to see this. i hope that i can serve as a resource for santa clara county. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner — \n>>i wanted to clarify a point for the commissioners. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: sure. go ahead\, steve. \n>>speaker: which is the law is clear on who has to prepare a plan\, and it’s the local governments that are on the bay shoreline. it’s the cities and counties. it does not include special districts. that being said\, everything you said is very important in terms of special districts like the valley water and other land holders\, and state agencies like caltrans should be involved\, but the folks who have to submit the plans are the counties and cities. \n>>Patricia Showalter: steve\, along those lines\, is it the shoreline cities or — it’s the shoreline cities\, right? it’s not necessarily the counties. \n>>speaker: correct. it is — the counties are on the shoreline. it’s the counties and the cities. they all have to prepare and submit a plan. they can do them collaboratively — i’m sorry\, i didn’t mean to interrupt. \n>>Patricia Showalter: i was saying the same thing you are. very good. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner pemberton? \n>>Sheri Pemberton: thank you\, chair wasserman. i just wanted to thank staff for the presentation and really excited to have the information and see this progress. i think the timeline looks great. i think the guiding principles look really good. one question is whether there will be collaboration with the state lands commission to factor in or address the public trust. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: larry\, you want to take that one or — \n>>speaker: i can take that one. the yes\, absolutely. we love working with the state lands commission. we work together through the — there’s a statewide body that opc convenes\, a statewide coordination group that we’ve already been presenting to\, which the land commission particiaptes in. and i think another exciting way that we will hopefully be coordinating even more is through a study that we’re just starting to develop around public trust needs for the bay and sea level rise that we’re scoping out right now. i think that’s another level in which our agencies can work together even more. \n>>Sheri Pemberton: thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: first\, i’m really excited that we’re at this point in the process. it’s really encouraging. i really like the outline of the guidelines. but i do have a question to follow up the testimony we heard from the citizens committee and others. i’m hoping staff can help me. i’m trying to figure out if there’s a disagreement between the citizens committee and staff in terms of what’s in these documents or if that’s just input on the merits? the commission is very supportive of nature-based solutions. i think we absolutely want to encourage them. we heard this input a number of times. i’m hoping staff can help me understand if there’s a disagreement here or if that’s input the commission staff is planning to incorporate in the documents as they move forward and how you think about that. \n>>speaker: i hope that they will — Carin\, Arthur and Gita will agree that there’s not a necessarily a disagreement. we’ve incorporated nature-based solutions in an approachh to putting nature first throughout every component of the plan. the point they’ve been communicating to us recently is that it needs to be elevated to the level of being visible in an outline. and we are not ignoring that information. we’re simply — for version control issues\, we’re keeping versions consistent until we incorporate a lot of feedback at once. we’re also working with all three of those individuals on our advisory groups and various leadership groups. so\, there are plenty of opportunities for us to work together to come up with a solution that’s mutually acceptable. \n>>Barry Nelson: thank you. we obviously want to highlight those nature-based solutions\,. so — but i won’t offer my ill-informed thoughts about how best to do that. let staff keep working with those members of the public. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner john-baptiste? \n>>Alicia John-baptiste: thanks\, and kudos to the staff for their work on this. i share the enthusiasm of my fellow commissioners. i did have a question around how you’re planning to incorporate olus into the subregional plans. it seems like you had a potential fork in the road around organizing subregional plans according to jurisdictional lines or organizing them around olus. i can understand given the way we’re set up as a region why you might go to the jurisdictional direction. going in that direction then requires some kind of backstop in my estimation to ensure we’re not missing the lens of olu\, i think it creates some missed opportunity to connect yours dictions that share olu space but may not be connected either through county or through other forms of relationship. so to. me — my interpretation is there’s more responsibility placed on bcdc as the ones holding the point of view of the big picture. i don’t know if this is consistent with how you thought about it\, i’m wondering if there’s another level of detail below what you’re speaking about today that incorporates that. if you can share what you can at this point\, i would appreciate it. \n>>speaker: yeah. we certainly thought about looking at operational landscape unit as a form of analysis for developing solutions. and that’s why we’re offering a multi-jurisdictional plan option. we’ll provide some basic analysis that shows where operational landscape units can bring together multiple jurisdictions that might be particularly suited to doing a multi-jurisdictional plan. those plans can cross county boundaries as well. we did choose city and county boundaries because that’s where land use planning takes place and it can get a little bit messy when you’re going outside of those jurisdictional boundaries. the other place where we’re really going to be incorporating the concept of operational landscape units is in the guidelines themselves. there will be a guideline telling people to look at the operational landscape unit they’re in and look at all of their neighbors that share a similar set of suitability for adaptation strategies and incorporate them — if they’re not doing a multi-jurisdictional plan with them to incorporate those stakeholders into their planning process. we’re hoping to encourage it as much as we can without mandating it. \n>>Alicia John-baptiste: sorry. just a quick follow-up on this\, though. so\, part of what i think we’re trying to avoid is for one jurisdiction to put in place strategies that have either negative or suboptimal consequences to their neighbors. and if jurisdictions are not required to consider what — how nature will actually behave relative to what they are planning\, i don’t know that we will achieve that goal. so\, there’s a balance\, i’m sure\, between what we require up front and what we solve for on the back end. i do encourage — i encourage us to think about what the right balance is. because the point of having a regional agency in my view holding responsibility for setting these guidelines is so that we can ensure the whole is actually taken care of in the best possible manner. it’s really hard to do that from a more fractured perspective that we otherwise fall into as a region. i hope that makes sense. \n>>speaker: just to clarify\, we will be requiring people to work across jurisdictional boundaries as they develop their strategies. what we’re not requiring is that people submit a multi jurisdictional plan with their neighbors if they don’t want to. so\, that’s — in all other cases\, we are requiring people to work with their neighbors to look at the shared characteristics and operational landscape unit and to consider adaptation strategies impacts on neighboring jurisdictions. \n>>Alicia John-baptiste: thanks. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner vasquez? \n>>John Vasquez: first\, i want to thank dana and larry for the presentation. we have and organization call “for seas\,” and these kinds of things are made available to all the cities and the counties to talk about these regional concerns\, no matter what they are. and as larry indicated there is\, i think\, a willingness on the part of the cities and the county to work together with one plan. the other thing was\, we had a brief conversation afterwards about looking across to our neighbors\, contra costa and napa. so\, we fully plan to at least engage them so we’re not doing something that might impact them or influence water to go one way or the other. we can all be — as some of the other commissioners have said\, we can be concerned about our own area and not think about our neighbor. i’m glad dana said that. it encourages me to do more work then. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. i don’t see any other commissioners. i certainly want to join in my thanks and praise to larry and dana and the full staff for the work that has led up to this and is ongoing. there have been times in this process — i suspect there will be times in the future when i become a little bit concerned about how much progress we’re making and how long it’s taking. but i think this indicates that we’re making very good progress\, at least at this moment in time. that brings me to item 11\, a certainly relevant follow-up\, a briefing from nasa on science underpinning of the new state of california guidance on rising sea levels. dr. Ben Hamlington of nasa who led the state and california’s science panel that formulated the basis underpinning the new state of california guidance on rising sea levels will make the presentation. we have heard from dr. hamlington before and his briefings have been interesting and especially tuned for those of us who are not scientists. Cory Copeland\, bcdc’s lead scientist will introduce the topic. \n>>Cory Copeland: thank you\, commissioner. my name is Cory Copeland\, i’m the bcdc adapting to rising tide state and science manager. i’m excited to introduce the latest on sea level rise science that informs new statewide guidance. as a reminder for the commissioners on february 1st\, you received a briefing from dr. Justine Kimball on sea level rise guidance. the public comment period for that draft has closed. bcdc staff are actively working with the opc to support the final draft. we’ve been told that opc anticipates adopting the guidance in june. at that point\, us — bcdc will be updating their own climate policy guidance with respect to the latest science and guidance from opc. that document will be used to inform bcdc permits and planning activities as it relates to our policies. if you look closely at the authorship of the draft guidelines\, you’ll see sections are written by opc staff\, which dr. kimball spoke to you about already\, and others are written about external scientists. today’s briefing is by dr. Ben Hamlington\, one of the external scientists\, author of the draft california state sea level rise guidance. he will specifically offer information on the scientific basis for projections. Ben Hamlington is a research scientist at the sea level rise and ice group at the nasa jpl. dr. hamlington is a preeminent expert on sea level rise science. he authored more that 50 scientific publications on sea level rise and related topics. i personally read and cited some of his work. within the guidance\, dr. hamlington is the lead author of the section on the report on the selection and creation of the california sea level rise scenarios. and so without further ado\, i’d like to pass it over to him to present some of the scientific updates that went into our new california sea level rise scenarios. \n>>Ben Hamlington: thank you\, cory. thank you for the invite to present. i hope i make this as accessible as i was given credit for in past presentations. but let me share my screen here. so\, i have a few slides going over the framing of the report. some of you may have seen a presentation. so\, justine and i did a roadshow of going around and sharing some of the findings in a brief overview of the report. so\, i’m going to go through some of those same elements\, maybe a little bit quickly. i have a couple new items here that are responsive to the public comments we received. so\, i do want to hit those as well. a goal of mine is to leave time for questions\, which i know based on the public comment just in this process\, that there are potentially many of those questions. hopefully we can address some of those here. let me share my screen. if i can confirm you guys can see that okay? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Ben Hamlington: cool. okay. as i said\, and as cory nicely updated on\, i’m really focusing just on chapter 2 of the report. this is the science update. there is a chapter 4. so\, chapter 3\, for those of you who have not seen the report\, that’s the guidance. that’s the section led by opc and justine. there is a section 4 of the report that talks more about impacts. i know those impacts in section 4 is tremendously important to all of you and the discussions you’re having here talking about the prevalence and the potential expansion and increased frequency of flooding as we go forward\, as well as other impacts of saltwater intrusion\, erosion\, things like that. this is my way of saying i’m focused on chapter 2. it’s not at all to diminish the important work in chapter 4. it exists. it’s well-described in the report. and it’s being responsive to the public comment. again\, i’m just trying to set the framing for what i’m covering here. this is not the entirety of what’s in the report. okay. so\, what’s included in the report? there’s five sea level scenarios. that sea level scenario\, term\, phrase is based on some of the changes that occurred. i want to spend some time today explaining what those sea level scenarios are and how they’re different than what we’ve seen in past guidance. these span the range from 2020 to 2150. they span the range of plausible sea level rise. we do define what plausible means within the report. i’ll touch on that briefly here in the coming slides. these have been localized to california. one thing to note is the source material for this is the ipcc sixth assessment report and this federal technical report which came out in 2021 and 2022. billy sweete and i were authors of the federal report. wehat we’re doing is we’re using that scientific basis\, that consensus as the starting point to then build something that is let’s say both specific to california but also responsive to some of the gaps that existed coming out of that federal report. we did the same kind of thing after that\, we briefed it to other agencies\, states\, localities\, we got feedback that made it clear there are things we could be doing to make that information more accessible and easier to adopt into guidance. so within this update we’re trying to take some of those lessons learned and provide this update. so\, in that respect\, the california update i’m talking about here is certainly reflected and consistent with those documents\, but hopefully is continuing to advance our state of knowledge and how we’re describing that state of knowledge. and a couple of ways it does this is that within this report\, we evaluate the most likely scenario. so\, based on multiple lines of evidence\, we can actually start to weigh in a little bit more heavily based on our scientific understanding about not just here as a range of scenarios\, pick the one you want\, but here is a range of scenarios and here is what we can consider most likely and here’s why. so we’re trying to describe that in more detail to support the implementation and use of these scenarios. one way we do this is increased use of observations. we have good tide gage observations. obviously\, i’m biased\, we have satellite observations here at nasa\, but we have these increasingly long records from satellites that we can use alongside the models to say something more certain and definitive than ever before. then one last thing to note here\, we do a lot to provide story lines and context for each of our scenarios. i will get into that in a second. i’m not going to dwell on that in this slide. an important thing here is that there have been meaningful changes since the 2017 rising seas report. these are driven by the science. this is not some additional research i did while preparing this report\, this is the consensus in the ar6\, the state of publications here in california and how we can translate that into a consensus document that meets — hopefully checks the box of what we need here. the sea level scenarios. there’s five of them. there’s the low\, intermediate-low\, intermediate\, intermediate-high\, and high scenario. the ways these are defined — and this is the only point i’ll meters on this slide\, but it’s just because — meters instead of feet\, it’s just because these are nice round numbers. these scenarios are defined by amount of global sea level rise by 2100. and the reason for that\, the way we build the model-based projections that lead into the scenarios is from a global value and we regionalize off of that. if we go back to the starting point with the regional — with the global projections of sea level\, we look across the available model results in the scientific literature\, and we can come up with a plausible range of sea level rise. in this case\, in 2100\, that’s 30 centimeters to two meters. certainly beyond 2100\, that number can go far beyond that. before 2100\, that plausible range will be narrower to that. this is how we start out our scenario formation. then from there\, you can start to build in story lines. we do that in detail in this report. i think we’re doubling down on that within our revisions associated to the public comment. we can interpret exactly what the future looks like under these different scenarios. under the low scenario\, the global communities really got its act together\, really driven emissions lower\, basically got to net zero as quickly as possible. that’s the most optimistic future. on the other hand\, if we talk about the high scenario\, that’s kind of the worst case. emissions have gotten out of control. not only that\, we triggered some of the rapid ice-sheet processes\, ice-sheet instabilities that we think could be a factor and they’re contributing heavily to sea level rise. then you have the other three scenarios in between. i do want to point out two important ones. intermediate-low at 50 centermeters by 2100 and intermediate a 1 meter by 2100\, those bound what we’re calling the most likely range by 2100. those are important scenarios if we consider the future sea level rise and where we might be headed. there’s one last point i want to make in terms of the — some of the terminology used in the report. we talk about medium confidence and low confidence. this is mapping directly from the ar6 and the technical report. the key here is the level of scientific agreement or consensus. that’s what’s being described here. medium confidence\, and maybe you would like to say there’s high confidence among scientists on what’s going to happen in the future\, medium confidence is as far as we’ll go based on our current modeling and our understanding of the physical processes\, but we talked about medium confidence which collects a series of physical processes that we can model as part of these large ensemble efforts. the low confidence processes start to bring in physical processes that are of less agreement and more uncertain about what’s going to happen in the future. those are your rapid ice-sheet loss processes. those instabilities\, okay. so\, we denote between those two and those are built into the scenarios we’re using here. i’ll talk more — a key question is the difference between probalistic projections and sea level scenarios. i have a slide i’ll go through theses — these others quickly so i can answer some questions there. just looking at some of the numbers\, i’ll go through this briefly. you all can read the report and get these numbers\, but in terms of the sea level scenarios themselves and the numbers\, here on the right\, those color bars are the five — colored lines are the five sea level scenarios\, then the dashed line is showing the 2018 h plus plus scenario. i’m just showing one of these for comparison to tell you something about that high-end process — or the high end scenario. so\, again\, the low to intermediate scenarios kind of span. the medium confidence scanriros are those processes that we have a good understanding of. the intermediate to high scenarios explore that upper range\, where we have less confidence in what’s going to happen but want to capture those higher-end possibilities. the one thing to note here\, that dashed line\, you can see at every point in time it’s higher than the high scenario. so we have had the high-end scenario come down as a result of the science — again\, i have a slide on that in a couple minutes here. i’ll get into that in a second. one other important thing to note as you go through the report is that vertical land motion is the primary driver of local variations. if we think about the ice sheets\, the ocean and what’s happening there\, it’s a fairly similar signal whether you’re talking about san diego or crescent city. so\, the contribution from the antarctic ice sheet\, you’re so far away\, this should make sense\, it doesn’t change that much across the california coastline\, same thing with greenland. however\, if we think about what does drive differences locally\, it’s subsidence or uplift that may be occurring in different parts of california. we can represent a lot of the ocean-driven contributors to future sea level rise by one consistent scenario as we look out across california\, and then we can bring in the vertical land motion piece. there’s almost a separation between the two. here are some of the numbers that are — i’m showing from the report. this is to note we do have numbers of each decade going out to 2150 for each of these scenarios. within the report\, we also do kind of hone in on this near-term sea level rise. these next three decades\, 2020 to 2050. an important thing here is the range in 2050 is much smaller than it has ever been before in any of these consensus reports. in 2050\, the range is less than 8 inches between the low and the high scenario. it’s much lower than in past reports\, as i said. the primary reason for that is actually connected to the high-end possibilities and the rapid ice sheet loss processes. i’ll talk about why that’s the case in a minute. and it’s important to note that our observations are consistent with intermediate scenarios. it’s a little bit hard to see\, but this red line here is actually trajectory based on observations around california. it tracks extremely closely to the intermediate scenario. this allows us to say the intermediate scenario\, which is about 0.8 feet in 2050\, plus or minus a couple inches should be considered the most likely sea level rise in 2050. for california we’re almost collapsing future sea level rise down to a single scenario if we look out the next three decades. all right. so\, one last slide here before i get into some of those points that are responsive to the public comments we received. if we’re interpreting the sea level scenarios\, one thing we’re trying to do in this report\, because we’re building the scenarios\, we’re trying to add context to them with probablistic projections. the scenarios are formed using the probablistic projections\, we set these targets and find the probablistic projections to get to those targets. and then from there we can start to say something about what is your likelihood of reaching different scenarios. so\, if i look at this middle row here\, what’s the probability of passing roughly one meter of sea level rise in 2100 in a three degree sea warming future? my probability is 5% of exceeding that. on the other hand\, i have 82% chance of exceeding the intermediate-low\, 50 centimeters by 2100. the reason that’s important is that we can make an evaluation of different warming levels and the path we’re on and the likelihood of getting there. right? three degrees c is our current trajectory of warming as evaluated by ipcc\, working group 3. so you can look down here\, that’s part of the reason we make this evaluation of a most likely scenario. so 50% is between intermediate-low and intermediate. this is our most likely trajectory. this table becomes very informative to interpret those scenarios. that’s what i said in the first bullet. one other thing to note without rapid ice sheet loss — so that’s these low confidences\, the last two columns — the chance of reaching two meters by 2100 is effectively zero at warming levels below 5 degrees c. so we have in here less than 1%\,but these are again effectively zero. they’re extremely small given the number of actual projections that get us to that value. so\, in order to get to the high-end estimates of sea level rise\, like 2 meter by 2100\, you really need to have triggered the ice sheet instabilities and the rapid ice sheet loss. one thing we tried to hammer home in this report is that there’s no scientific consensus on rapid ice sheet loss and the associated processes. that’s why they’re called low confidence\, but it’s important when we consider the interpretation of the scenarios and ultimately the application of the scenarios. that’s the work opc is trying to do to understand what these scenarios mean and then how to interpret them going forward. okay. i have a couple slides left\, then i’ll stop for questions here. one thing that’s come up\, in the 2017/2018 guidance\, the starting point was these probalistic sea level projections. i’m using the term here implicit versus explicit construction of scenarios. the whole goal of these activities is to go from what is a very large number of projections — these probablistic projections\, even though there’s seven scenarios in the ar6\, encompass tens of thousands of sea level projections. right? because you have different percentiles and you have these different ranges. ultimately\, you need to get down to a discrete set of sea level scenarios. right? you need to have that down to a set of three\, five\, whatever the case may be. the way that was done in 2017 and 2018 was to start with the probablistic projections and then to go to the right to form the scenarios. right? here\, what i say is the advantages of doing that\, you can attach probabilities directly to the sea level scenarios\, which i think you’re all familiar with. you would pick a scenario\, you would see the liklihood or the different range of probabilities associated with that scenario and then you’re off and running. however\, based on the previous report\, how it was interpreted as well as other examples throughout the landscape of planning\, there are a lot of downsides to doing this. so\, the underlying assumptions you make in doing this kind of get lost. if i’m looking at a probability\, it’s important to consider that there is a probability associated with the scenario or the ssp or the warming level that you have selected. right? so\, if i go and just use my probability as is\, my probablistc projection\, and you’re making scientific decisions. the process of getting here to here\, you’re saying something about what you think the science is saying about the likelihood of different scenarios and projections. it’s blurring that gap between chapter 2 in this report and chapter 3 in this report. right? we’re not providing the clear scientific evidence that allows guidance to be built. and the last point here\, there are possible big shifts that can occur from one update to the next. we see that with the h plus plus. if we work back the other way\, and i’ll just go over this quickly\, here what we’re doing is defining the discrete sea level scenarios on the right and providing the context with the probablistic projections on the left. the pros of this\, the underlying sea level assumptions are explicit\, they’re very clear\, they’re directly attached. the likelihood of assumptions themselves can be factored in. that type of statement i said about the 3 degree c future\, i can say something about the most likely scenario as a result. they are intended to be more robust to scientific updates\, which is important. and i think an important thing here is they’ll be in line with the federal guidance and national climate assessment going forward. that will make the process of updating — of writing a report like this easier in the future. there are certainly some downsides to this. one\, you have to start and define the plausible range in the scenario definitions of the starting point. i say that’s a con\, but it’s not that difficult to do because we can look at the projections in advance\, look at the scientific literature\, the ar6 provides the guide for coming up with that plausible range. the last thing is the exceedance probabilities come at the end. it’s not an either/or. these thiings are directly related to each other and very important to consider. this is why we’re adopting the sea level framing as opposed to the probablistic projections. okay. so\, what happened to the h plus plus? nothing\, it’s being updated. i kind of hit on this already. the exact same modeling group using a similar but updated model that was used to support the formation of the h plus plus scenario in 2017/2018 has been used here in these low-confidence scenarios that help build the high estimate. so\, we have not changed anything. there’s not a new model that we said\, now we need to consider this. it’s the same line of evidence that’s been updated. a simple way to put it. if you want to call that same line of evidence h plus plus in the past\, you can call the same line of evidence that leads to our high scenario similar to h plus plus or interpret it in that here. the key finding there is more warming is needed to trigger instabilities that would lead to significant sea level rise. so in order to get to more warming\, that’s further out in the future\, and it just pushes the high level sea level rise further out into the future. it’s the when\, not if. we’ve pushed those possibilities futher out. one of the things to note is that the ar6 only generated two low confidence scenarios looking at one high warming\, one low warming. you could generate these low confidence scenarios for any level of warming. just because they’re not in the report\, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. it just means they weren’t computed. if you are trying to interpret one of those versus the other\, you have to be careful how you interpret those probablistic projections. there were methodological choices made to generate that suite of scenarios and then those then impact your guidance. one last note\, we have gotten a lot of feedback about not considering these low-confidence scenarios. and example of this is a report came out of new zealand and also one came out of maryland. they largely — they acknowledge the existence of the low-confidence scenarios and largely say they will not consider them in the production of guidance. so\, based on scientific understanding and our level of consensus within the ar6\, there’s very little scientific justification for doing this\, for disregarding them entirely. they are plausible\, to use that word. they are still being evaluated from a research perspective. one thing to note is that we can really do a good job of explaining these processes\, these scenarios\, in a way that helps support the formation of guidance like that in chapter 3. i don’t think they should be disregarded but they should be communicated clearly and then that should impact how they’re used in guidance. last slide. the vertical land motion is another one. in particular for the bay area\, there were questions about the alameda tide gauge versus the san francisco tide gauge. the reason i bring those up\, the alameda tide gauge had a positive rate of vertical land motion. it was evaluated to be uplifting slightly. the san francisco gauge was identified to be stable or slightly subsiding. so\, i’m showing — this is a very complicated figure. we’ve gone into more detail within the past couple months here looking at satellite observations\, looking at gps\, looking at tide gauges\, looking at the difference between satellite altemetry and tide gauges\, and we’re able to provide much better context for the vertical land motion we see. as an example\, for alameda\, two of our methods indicate uplift. two of our methods more directly tied to the observations indicate a similar level to what you see in san francisco. i think this is information we can help communicate and then allow people understand how to implement that. that really goes back to the point that a lot of the drivers of sea level rise are consistent across the california coastline and then we can make adjustments based on the vertical land motion that you choose to adopt and implement. i think in particular\, the — there’s an example in san rafael\, very high rates of subsidence present there that we see in the satellite observations but are just not captured\, there’s no gps station there\, they’re not captured in the projections. that kind of analysis and additional information that we need to try to support the implementation of these scenarios. so\, i have key takeaways\, i will leave those up because i’ve said them four different ways by now and i’ll be happy to take any questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner eklund. i’m sorry. i apologize. any comment or questions from the public\, sierra? \n>>Sierra Peterson: no public comment. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner eklund. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much\, chair wasserman. great presentation. very interesting. to what extent is your report going to be looking at the extrapolation of sea level rise at different points throughout the san francisco bay? so\, for example\, when we get the report am i going to be able to look at it to see what the potential sea level rise is for\, like\, bahia or some others as you go up towards the bay? obviously there’s a lot of different ramifications that could influence your projections. curious on that. and i’ll probably have a follow-up. \n>>Ben Hamlington: quick answer to that. so\, the projections themselves\, the scenarios\, are on a one-degree grid. we provide greater levels on the vertical land motion. if we do choose to include that map\, it’s like 50-meter resolution. extremely high resolution information. but i think the important point here is that the processes that we’re modeling and representing within the scenarios are known to vary only on large spatial scales. they vary on a regional level. now\, when you start to think about the impacts that that background sea level rise can drive in the bay area\, these areas\, that’s where you need more local information and more detailed study. this is just providing the foundation. it’s a starting point upon which\, yeah\, more detailed information is needed to be brought in to understand the impacts of specific locations. \n>>Pat Eklund: so\, how would we be doing the next step so that if we needed to do that additional level in order to project whether bahia will be completely under water\, the houses\, for example\, because they have wetlands underneath them. so how is that going to do be done? how is that going to be paid for? \n>>Ben Hamlington: so\, i should separate things here. we’re looking at the mean sea level. i could easily take — this work is done in a lot of areas. you could take a digital elevation model and i could couple that background sea level rise\, and look at areas that could be at a threat of being under water. so\, i can bring in higher resolution. i think the way i was answering that is a nod to what’s in chapter 4 where you think more about the flooding\, the frequency of flooding\, the severity and more detailed information. so\, from like a screening level assessment\, you could use that mean sea level i’m talking about here relevant to elevations and say something\, but to do something more comprehensive that gets into a subsection of the report and there’s expertise to do that work and support that transition from this foundational sea level rise into something more meaningful at a local level. \n>>Pat Eklund: would you be amenable to working with the cities and the counties specifically to get down to that level of detail to help us in development of these plans? \n>>Ben Hamlington: my rule is to support the projections. at — so\, just my role to be clear at nasa\, it’s pretty large-scale. we look at global scales and how that relates to the local level. that being said\, our other authors in the report are experts in these topics. we have members from usgs\, from academia\, people who have worked in detail and i know who support the state and local communities a number of ways\, in addition to opc and other areas who support the rollout of this and implementation of it\, i guess i should say. \n>>speaker: if i could jump in for a second. i see cory nodding his head\, i wanted to give cory a chance to talk about the locality that he’s working on\, meaning the bay shoreline. \n>>Cory Copeland: yeah. thank you so much. i just wanted to highlight some of the work that — thanks to the close coordination that opc has done with us\, we have been able to see some of these numbers and start to integrate it into how we’re approaching developing the hazard scenarios for the regional shoreline adaptation planning. so\, we have taken these scenarios for timelines 2050/2100 and used existing regional hydrological models that do a better job expressing some of those local variances\, both baseline sea level rise scenarios\, scenarios with storm surge as well as ground water rise. so\, we’re doing the work to try to translate this guidance into really meaningful information that will hopefully support local governments as they’re preparing the plans and also ourselves as we do our own planning work and regulatory reviews and things like that. \n>>Pat Eklund: cory\, at what point would that information be available? i think that the sooner we become aware of implications for current land uses\, the better we are able to help make sure that this is going to be a smooth transition. \n>>Cory Copeland: yeah. well\, i guess there are two sides of it. one side is on the opc side\, the other is on our side. on the opc side\, which probably would wait until it’s officially adopted hopefully in june to just make sure it’s the official state guidance. and then\, you know\, additionally on our side\, we’ve been going through a rigorous process with a data and mapping subcommittee under the rsap to review all this and to make sure that our regional experts on these things are in agreement that our approach is reasonable to translating this data. once we’re confident in that\, that’s when it would become available. minimally before the guidance is complete\, you know\, we definitely are going to have this available for people as a form of technical assistance to anyone developing the plans. \n>>Pat Eklund: great. i think it’s important that\, you know\, that at least the elected officials and the staff in each of the counties have an opportunity to get sort of a heads up on that information. don’t forget to involve the elected officials in that. because if we’re not kept informed what the implications are and we could get blind-sided. i think that based on the potential implications and ramifications in different areas\, it could be problematic. the sooner we can start sitting down and having some discussions\, i think the better. \n>>speaker: thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: can you hear me now? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Andrew Gunther: great. just a couple of things i want to make sure i understand and a couple questions. if i understand this correctly\, no matter what the scenario that we’re considering\, the rate of sea level rise that we’re considering going up will be higher at the end of the century than it is right now. is that correct? \n>>Ben Hamlington: except for the low scenario. so it is a correct statement. the low scenario — an underlying assumption of the low scenario is that the current rate continues. every other scenario\, your statement is correct. the rate will accellerate and it will be higher at the end of the century. yet. \n>>Andrew Gunther: and no matter the scenario — i guess we’re defining the low scenario as this. but sea level will continue to rise into the 23rd century. \n>>Ben Hamlington: that’s correct. \n>>Andrew Gunther: okay. and. for — the fact that h plus plus is gone\, that’s lovely news. you don’t get to hear that kind of thing too much\, is that because we’re projecting less warming than we were ten years ago or because we have a different understanding of ice sheet dynamics. \n>>Ben Hamlington: yeah. so\, i wish it was gone. it’s more updated. it’s the latter. we’ve updated our understanding of those potential processes\, at least that one modeling group has. when i say that there’s more warming needed to trigger those processes\, that’s the evaluation. it’s basically having the same underlining assumptions about how we get to different warming levels in the future. it’s just instead of — i’ll throw out only numbers. instead of using 3 degrees celsius of additional warming by 2100 to potentially trigger those ice sheet processes\, now it’s maybe 4 degrees celsius. the h plus plus\, i use that when not if framing. instead of two meters being possible by 2100. if i were to look out 2120\, 2130\, it comes back on the table. so we have pushed things out a couple decades. \n>>Andrew Gunther: great. my last question is about vertical land motions. so\, are — have you considered or — i don’t — in terms of what might happen here in the bay area\, vertical land motions are gradual processes as opposed to\, say\, vertical land motions in places where you get subduction earthquakes where the land can move a foot or two in a minute. so\, we’re not considering those kinds of land motions in california when we talk about the future relative to sea level rise. \n>>Ben Hamlington: that’s correct. we’re assuming certain processes and ones that we think we can reasonably predict or project on to the future. that’s the slower scale processes. it’s largely driven by the current rate we see in vertical land motion. \n>>Andrew Gunther: if we were actually in seattle or we were in prince william sound or somewhere where those kind of subduction earthquakes are more common\, there could be vertical land motions that could happen very quickly that would change sea level. \n>>Ben Hamlington: yep. american samoa is kind of the poster child for that. there was an earthquake in 2010 that caused a shift\, and then the rate of subsidence increased by almost an order of a magnitude as a result of that. they have an extremely high rate of relative sea level rise as a result. those things can happen. \n>>Andrew Gunther: there are parts of prince william sound where old intertidal habitat is way above current sea levels because of the great alaska earthquake. that happened in a matter of minutes. great. thank you very much. great presentation. \n>>Ben Hamlington: thanks. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner showalter. \n>>Patricia Showalter: sorry\, i was having trouble with my mute button. to respond quickly to andy gunther’s comment about land motion. in the south bay we’ve had land motion due to ground water extraction. san jose has dropped over 12 feet in the early 1900s. and that ground water — that land subsidence has been stopped because of really aggressive ground water motion. but there is quite a bit of subsidence occurring in the central valley due to ground water extraction. i wanted to mention it’s not just earthquakes\, it’s ground water extraction. at the moment\, that’s not one of our problems. thank you. \n>>Ben Hamlington: that’s a good point. that’s part of the satellite we’ve done. it’s for the entirety of california\, not just the coastal areas. you can see a lot of those signals pop out. katie hageman in san rafael has been looking at this in detail. there’s an extremely high rate of subsidence on the order of almost a centimeter per year. it’s an order of magnitude greater than the sea level rise we see in a lot of locations. so\, with satellite observations\, we’re able to identify that. with that understanding allows her to better plan for her community and provide better projections. i do think these other types of data analysis that are very available here in california should be relied on to really start to constrain some of those additional factors. it’s a very good point. there are a lot of drivers of vertical land motion that we need to consider. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i don’t see any other hands up for questions or comments. \n>>Larry Goldzband: can i make one comment? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: of course. \n>>Lawrence Goldzband: cory and i had a conversation this morning knowing ben would be presenting what he’s presenting. we talked through how do we talk about this to the commission ultimately? so\, after the opc approves whatever it is going to approve\, cory and the team will be analyzing it — not that they haven’t already started\, and we will schedule a presentation for the commission about how we will use that guidance in the future. as i think we did in 2018 or 2019. but we’re looking that up just to make sure. because your permit staff uses this kind of information on a daily basis. and we want to make sure that you understand how our staff will be using it and we’re going to — this is news to ben\, but we’ll invite him back for that. just so he can take a look at it and — and give his analysis\, which he will do certainly through the system. you’ll see him again soon. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. all right. \n>>Ben Hamlington: i appreciate the opportunity to present. thank you for your questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you very much for the presentation. we look forward to the next one as larry indicated. that brings us to adjournment. who wishes to take the honor of moving adjournment? nobody wants to move — \n>>Pat Eklund: i’ll move it. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner eklund moves. commissioner nelson seconds. seeing no objections. we are adjourned. thank you as always. \n>>Pat Eklund: see you may 3rd. \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/april-18-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240411T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240411T120000
DTSTAMP:20260630T071711
CREATED:20240130T044748Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240425T170723Z
UID:10000131-1712827800-1712836800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA  94105(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/82268432336?pwd=vWmRaUTxRaJPMZif1FrXbYrkJfPJ8G.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID822 6843 2336 \nPasscode425623 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the March 27\, 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]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2017.004.The Committee will consider a Recommended Enforcement Decision including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order CCD2024.002.00 issued to Joe and Heidi Shekou for failing to seek and obtain commission authorization to install and operate a commercial solar power plant at Freethy Blvd.\, Richmond\, Contra Costa County in the Commission’s jurisdiction.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov] Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\nApril 11\, 2024 meeting minutes \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/april-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR