BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.17.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Los_Angeles
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20230312T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20231105T090000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20240310T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20241103T090000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20250309T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20251102T090000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20230101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240501T140000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240501T153000
DTSTAMP:20240628T213323Z
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:20240502T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240502T170000
DTSTAMP:20240910T225726Z
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=UTC:20240506T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240506T183000
DTSTAMP:20240424T211721Z
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:20240507T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240507T120000
DTSTAMP:20240424T212319Z
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:20240515T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240515T170000
DTSTAMP:20240528T210225Z
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=America/Los_Angeles:20240516T080000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240516T170000
DTSTAMP:20240628T211943Z
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:20240516T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240516T170000
DTSTAMP:20250321T215637Z
CREATED:20240118T081327Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250321T215637Z
UID:10000097-1715864400-1715878800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 16\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, Temazcal Conference RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88105137697?pwd=vbbiJ6slOT960Wiv4z9juBdKuZbMvZ.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID872 1472 7080 \nPasscode506054 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period(Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for May 2\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.002.00 The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program for existing gas and electrical transmission structures throughout the Commission’s jurisdiction\, excluding the Suisun MarshApplication Summary Staff PresentationApplicant Presentation  (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.003.00mdThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program of existing gas and electrical transmission structures in the Suisun Marsh.Application Summary (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on 505 East Bayshore Road Permit Application The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Regis Homes Bay Area\, LLC\, to redevelop an approximately 2.54-acre industrial parcel with a new residential project consisting of 56 for-sale townhouses\, as well as shoreline public access and open space areas\, within the Bay and 100-foot shoreline band at 505 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County.Application SummaryLetter of Support Letter of SupportStaff PresentationApplicant Presentation (Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Authorization of an Interagency Flooding and Sea Level Rise Memorandum of Understanding The Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BCDC and the member agencies of the Bay Area Regional Collaborative (BARC). The purpose of the MOU is to coordinate efforts to address the threats of flooding and sea level rise the San Francisco Bay Area. Attachment APresentation (Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				\nThis report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nJ&M Paradise Properties LLCP.O. Box 2099Mill Valley\, CA 94941 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.029.0\n \n\n\nFiled\nApril 25\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 24\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Shoreline Band jurisdiction\, at 2088 Paradise Dr.\, Tiburon\, in Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRenovate and remodel a single-family home through the following activities: \n\nInstall a new 600-square-foot parking deck and driveway;\nConstruct a new\, approximately 1\,000 square-foot ADU residence with an approximately 410-square-foot deck;\nExpand the second-floor residence from 650 square feet to approximately 1\,047 square feet\, and replace a 162 square-foot deck in-kind;\nExpand the first-floor residence from 639 square feet to approximately 786 square feet\, and replace a 162 square-foot deck in-kind;\nReduce the size of the crawl space area from 584 square feet to 575 square feet;\nExpand the basement floor patio from 145 square feet to 220 square feet; and\nReplacing the existing outdoor staircases and landings\, reducing the footprint from 512 square feet to 305 square feet. The project will take place entirely within the Shoreline Band and will not result in any Bay fill. The applicant will submit an amendment request at a later date for a proposed overwater deck and boat dock. There are no existing public access requirements in the vicinity\, and no new improvements are proposed as part of this project.\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Sausalito420 Litho StreetSausalito CA 94965 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.004.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 4\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 3\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdictions\, at 466 Bridgeway\, in the City of Sausalito\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReinstall a historic sea lion sculpture\, which was originally installed in 1958\, and damaged by a storm in 2023. This project would reinstall the statue on a new concrete pedestal. The project will result in approximately 1.2 cubic yards of new fill over an approximately25-square-foot area of the Bay. Construction of the project will require a temporary detour of a sidewalk for fewer than five days. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nNational Park ServiceLower Fort Mason Center – Building ESan Francisco\, CA 94123 \n\n\nBCDC Consistency Determination No. C2024.003.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 23\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJun3 22\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Bay and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, at the Sea Scout Base of San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair the existing deteriorated system of walkways\, docks\, and piers at the Sea Scout base\, through the following activities. Remove the existing: \n\n20-foot-long walkway between the concrete platform and elevated wooden pier;\n12-foot-long by 8-foot-wide portion of the existing elevated wooden pier;\n21-foot-long by 8-foot-wide metal gangway; and\nfloating 40-foot-long by 8.75-foot-wide dock. Install a new 40-foot-long by 10-foot-wide floating dock\, consisting of wood planking on floats; and a new 42-foot-long by 4-foot-wide metal gangway with metal guardrail.\n\nNo existing pilings will be removed\, and new pilings will not be installed. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay Resources and public access in the vicinity during construction. The project will result in no solid fill in the Bay. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\nThe Commission has received the following minor amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program for certification since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSuisun Resource Conservation District2516 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \n\n\nMinor Amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (BPA 1-23) \n\n\n\nDescription\nOn March 11\, 2022\, the Commission certified a major amendment to the Suisun Resource Conservation District (SRCD) Component of the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (LPP). The amendment included 121 updated Individual Ownership Adaptive Habitat Management Plans (IOAHMPs) for each privately-owned managed wetland within the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. To ensure these plans remain current\, SRCD tracks modifications to operations and updates plans on an ongoing basis. Annually\, SRCD will submit these minor amendments to the LPP for Commission certification. This listing is to notify the Commission that the Executive Director intends to certify a minor amendment to the SRCD component to the LPP\, submitted on April 19\, 2024. The amendment submitted by SRCD includes updates to facilities and operations on 10 privately-owned managed wetlands. Examples of activities described in the minor amendment include\, but are not limited to\, repairs\, replacements\, or upgrades to water control structures\, such as flaps and pipes. The activities described in the minor amendment consist of minor repairs and improvements to privately-owned managed wetland facilities and meet the requirements of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 11210-11215.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Certification. Erik Buehmann; erik.buehmannbcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94111 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.019.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 5\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 5\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdictions\, at Wharf J9\, Pier 47\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove and replace the existing dilapidated Wharf J9 mooring piles and construct a temporary floating dock\, through the following actions: \n\nRemove fifteen existing timber piles;\nInstall twelve steel piles;\nInstall a 12-foot by 270-foot floating dock;\nInstall an 8-foot by 16-foot aluminum access platform; and\nInstall an 8-foot by 12-foot steel platform with a 4-foot by 80-foot aluminum gangway connecting to the floating dock.\n\nThe dock will accommodate up to six vessels\, and allow public access to off-boat fish and crab sales. The Project is an interim action\, and is part of the Port’s longer-term Waterfront Resiliency Program redevelopment project of Wharf J9. The new floating dock would remain in place for approximately two to five years until the Wharf J9 Redevelopment project is permitted and implemented. The project will result in a net total of 3\,479 square feet of overwater fill and 5.22 cubic yards of solid fill. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay resources and to public access in the area during construction. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \nChina Basin revealed: How a ‘complicated land-use deal’ yielded a new gem by the bay \n Will Travis Obituary \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio recording \n \n\nTranscript\n\nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nLET’S CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? AHN HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>SPEAKER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nECKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nGILLMOR? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nGUNTHER? \nGUN HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KIM \nBAIL? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? RAN. \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HAVE WE \nMISSED ANYONE? \n>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER \nJOHN-BAPTISTE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK \nYOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN\, YOU HAVE \nA QUORUM. THANK YOU FOR THOSE \nOF YOU WHO ARE HERE VIRTUALLY \nWHO ARE MEETING OUR STATUTORY \nREQUIREMENT TO HAVE SOMEBODY IN \nTHE BUILDING. WE ARE NOW AT \nITEM THREE PUBLIC COMMENT SIERRA \nDO WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nSIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nTHIS IS TO ADDRESS MATTERS THAT \nARE NOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY FOR \nWHICH WE DO NOT HAVE A HEARING. \nYOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THERE ARE \nNO COMMENTS IN-PERSON AND NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO MY \n— OH I’M SORRY. THAT BRINGS US \nTO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF \nMAY 2ND\, 2024. WE HAVE BEEN ED \nDRAFTS OF THOSE MINUTES DO I \nHAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO \nAPPROVE? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I MOVE \nAPPROVAL\, PAT EKLUND. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I’LL \nSECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMOVED BY COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, \nSECOND BY COMMISSIONER \nKISHIMOTO. ARE THERE ANY \nOBJECTIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE \nMINUTES? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GILLMOR ABSTAINS. \n>>SPEAKER: I WILL WILL BE AB \nSTAINING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: TWO \nABSTENTIONS. THE MINUTES ARE \nAPPROVED. THAT BRINGS US TO MY \nREPORT I WANT TO START BY \nTHANKING THE GOVERNOR\, LARRY \nWILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILIS \nWANT TO RECOGNIZE ON BEHALF OF \nTHE COMMISSION THAT THE \nGOVERNOR’S MAY BUDGET DOES \nINCLUDE FUNDING TO START \nIMPLEMENTING SB272. AND IN THIS \nVERY DIMPLE BUDGET YEAR\, WE NEED \nTO THANK HIM FOR DOING THAT AND \nHIS COMMITMENT TO SHORELINE \nRESILIENCE AND OUR — AND THIS \nIS A VERY BROAD OUR\, \nA VERY BIG TENT — ABILITY TO \nSTART DISSEMINATING THESE \nGUIDELINES AND START \nIMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY WE THEM \nAND PROJECTS TO SAVE US ALL FROM \nTHE INUNDATION THAT IS COMING. \nI WAS PLEASED IN A NUMBER OF \nWAYS ON TUESDAY BAY \nPLANNING COALITION HOSTED THEIR \nSPRING SUMMIT FOCUSED ON \nFINANCING ADAPTATION TO RISING \nSEA LEVEL. \nTHEY HAD A FULL ARRAY OF \nSPEAKERS AND PANELISTS TALKING \nABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING HAPPEN \nAND THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS. WE \nWERE KICKED OFF WITH A KEYNOTE \nBY FORMER MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF OF \nOAKLAND\, WHOSE THEME WAS HOPE\, \nCHANGE\, ACTION. AND SOME OF THE \nTHEMES THAT WE’RE STATED \nTHROUGHOUT THE VARIOUS SPEAKERS \nWERE\, WE DO NEED TO WORK \nTOGETHER. WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE \nTHAT WE CAN ONLY ADDRESS THIS AS \nA REGION\, THAT IT’S GOING TAKE\, \nAS WE WELL KNOW\, SOURCES\, FUNDS \nFROM MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES TO \nMEET THE COST\, THE ESTIMATED \n$110 BILLION COST\, AND WE ALL \nTHAN’S A LOW FIGURE\, A SCARY \nFIGURE\, BUT LOW FIGURE. THERE \nWAS ALSO SOME EMPHASIS ON THE \nIMPORTANCE OF STORY TELLING\, \nBOTH FOR OURSELVES AND AS WE \nCOMMUNICATE OUR ISSUES TO \nELECTED LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS \nAND TO THE PUBLIC THAT\, WE NEED \nTO KEEP IN MIND STORY THAT \nCONVEY BOTH WHAT MAY HAPPEN\, AND \nTHE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN\, IN \nFACT\, ADAPT AND FUND \nADAPTATION. \nI HAD THE CHALLENGE OF \nSUMMARIZING SOME FIVE HOURS OF \nPRESENTATIONS IN TEN MINUTES. \nAND I THINK I ROSE TO THE \nCHALLENGE. BUT IT WAS A VERY \nGOOD CONFERENCE. I WANT TO \nTHANK EVERYBODY WHO WAS AT THE \nMETRO CENTER TWO WEEKS AGO. OUR \nABILITY TO MEET TOGETHER\, I \nTHINK\, DOES ENHANCE OUR ACTIONS \nAS A COMMISSION. RECOGNIZING \nTHAT FOR MANY\, THE CONVENIENCE \nOF BEING ABLE TO ATTEND BY ZOOM \nIS IMPORTANT\, AND \nENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL. \nNONETHELESS N DOING THIS WORK\, \nWHICH IS NOT EASY\, HAVING PEOPLE \nMEET TOGETHER AND BE ABLE TO SEE \nEACH OTHER AND TALK OFFLINE A \nBIT\, IS ALWAYS VERY HELPFUL. \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER HAS ASKED \nFOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO \nCOMMENT ON THE SEA LEVEL RISE \nPRESENTATION THAT WE HEARD AND \nHE NOW HAS THE FLOOR. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU MR. \nCHAIRMAN. JUST VERY BRIEFLY\, I \nWANT TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY \nTHAT IN THINKING ABOUT BEN \nHAMILTON’S PRESENTATION\, AND THE \nFACT THAT THE HIGH SCENARIO FOR \nSEA LEVEL RISE IS NOW LOWER\, AND \nTHAT WE WON’T SEE — WE REALLY \nDON’T HAVE A CHANCE\, ACCORDING \nTO THEIR NEW PROJECTIONS OF \nSEEING THREE METERS OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE \n22nd CENTURY\, THAT MEANS \nEVERYTHING THAT WE’RE DOING NOW\, \nPARTICULARLY THE WETLANDS \nRESTORATION IS GOING TO RESULT \nIN ANOTHER HALF OR MAYBE A FULL \nCENTURY OF BENEFITS TO THE \nREGION BEFORE THEY’RE FINALLY \nINUNDATED. AND THE SAME THING \nGOES THROUGH FOR ANY HARD \nSTRUCTURES WE PUT IN THERE. SO\, \nI THINK IT AD ADDS TREMENDOUS \nFRAME OF THE VALUE OF WHAT WE DO \nIN THE PRESENT DAY. THAT BEING \nSAID\, I ALSO WANT TO SHARE THAT \nTHE WHOLE PROCESS OF ICE SHEET \nCOLLAPSE\, WHICH IS THE MECHANISM \nTHAT’S DRIVING THAT HIGH \nSCENARIO\, IS STILL VERY\, VERY \nUNCERTAIN. AND I HAVE A \nCOLLEAGUE LOOKING AT THESE \nISSUES FROM A CONCERNED \nSCIENTIST BOARD AND SHE SHARED \nWITH ME THAT HE THINKS IT’S A \nLITTLE TOO EARLY TO PUT THE IDEA \nIN OUR POCKET THAT WE’RE NOT \nGOING TO SEE ONE OF THESE REALLY \nEXTREME SCENARIOS. SO\, WITH \nTHAT PROVISO\, I THINK THE \nINFORMATION THAT WE GOT INFORMS \nTHE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING \nTODAY PARTICULARLY TO \nRESTORATION BECAUSE IT’S GOING \nTO PAY OFF FOR THE FUTURE OF THE \nREGION THAN WE THOUGHT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. IT’S AN IMPORTANT \nREMINDER THAT AS WE FOCUS OUR \nEFFORTS ON THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE \nIN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR A FUTURE \nTHAT IS MODERATELY FAR OFF\, THE \nTHINGS WE DO WILL BENEFIT US IN \nBETWEEN\, AS WELL. OUR NEXT \nMEETING WILL OCCUR IN TWO WEEKS\, \nON JUNE 6TH\, THE MEETING WILL BE \nHELD IN THE METRO CENTER\, AND \n— \nSORRY\, I’M PAUSING BECAUSE I \nNEED TO SWITCH BETWEEN \nDOCUMENTS. WE EXPECT THAT WE \nWILL HAVE PRESENTATIONS ON — \nSORRY. THE AGENDA WILL INCLUDE \nA PRESENTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT \nOF FINANCE DESCRIBING THE \nMISSION BASED REVIEW OF BCDC’S \nPERMITTING PROCESS AND SYSTEMS \nCONTRACT TO DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND \nTHIRD UPDATE ON PROGRESS ON THE \nCOMMISSION’S STRATEGIC PLAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO EX \nPARTE MATTERS. IF THERE IS ANY \nCOMMISSIONER WHO WISHES TO \nREPORT ON A COMMUNICATION \nCONCERNING A COMMISSION MATTER\, \nTHAT THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY PUT \nON THE RECORD\, NOW IS THE TIME \nTO SHARE THAT.   THIS IS ON \nADJUDICATORY MATTERS\, NOT \nMISCELLANEOUSLY MATTERS OF \nPOLICY\, AND YOU DO NEED TO FILE \nSOMETHING IN WRITING. BUT NOW \nIS THE TIME TO SPEAK\, AND I SEE \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND HAS HER \nHAND UP. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: NOT EX \nPARTE I WANTED TO QUESTION YOU \nSAID IT WAS AT THE METRO CENTER \nWE CAN COME INTO THE OFFICE OR \nINTO THE MEETING ROOMS THAT WAS \nYOUR POINT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU FOR HELPING ME \nEMPHASIZE PARTICULARLY AS WE \nTALK ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN I \nTHINK HAVING AS MANY THERE AS \nPOSSIBLE MAKES IT A PRODUCTIVE \nMEETING. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANKS \nFOR CLARIFYING THAT. WASN’T \nQUITE SURE WHAT THAT MEANT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO \nTHE REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, JUST TO LET \nPEOPLE KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER \nGILMORE IS HAVING SOME TECHNICAL \nISSUES SO SHE’LL BE TRYING TO \nGET BACK IN IF SHE’S NOT HERE \nNOW. FIRST I WANT TO APOLOGIZE \nTO THE COMMISSION\, AND AGAIN TO \nSTEVE GOLDBECK FOR HAVING TO \nVACATE THIS BUILDING TWO WEEKS \nAGO 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE \nCOMMISSION MEETING\, WHICH MEANS \nTHAT STEVE HAD TO SIT IN MY \nCHAIR UNEXPECTEDLY AND I MISSED \nHIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS \nRETIREMENT. I HAD ALREADY JUST \nA FEW MINUTES EARLIER THAT MY \nWIFE HAD TESTED FOR COVID SO I \nFIGURED YOU ALL WOULD BE MUCH \nHAPPIER IF I LEFT THE OFFICE AND \nBEGAN TO ISOLATE. THAT I DID\, \nALTHOUGH I HAD TO TAKE BART TO \nGET HOME SO I WE’RE A MASK. \nWHILE LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW AT \nBART I SMILED AT HOW FAST I \nCOULD GET TO OUR HOME OVER 20 \nMILES AWAY. NOT ALWAYS THE CASE \nOF COURSE LINOLEATE HAS IT ON \nTHIS DAY MAY 18th FIRST \nREGULARLY SCHEDULED MISSISSIPPI \nSTEAMBOAT HEADED SOUTH LIKELY AT \nFOUR MILES PER HOUR. A GREAT \nCOINCIDENCE 134 YEARS LATER ON \nTHIS DATE THE FIRST REGULARLY \nSCHEDULED AIRPLANE SERVICE \nBETWEEN NEW YORK AND LONDON \nBEGAN JUST AS TRAVEL TIMES \nCONTINUE TO GET SHORT YOU CAN \nGET STUCK IN A 90 MINUTE TRAFFIC \nJAM JUST TO GET TO THE BAY \nBRIDGE AS WE DID ON SUNDAY AFTER \nTHE GIANTS GAME. WITH REGARD TO \nBUDGET AND STAFFING BCDC HAS \nSELECTED ALYSSA PLEASE TO JOIN \nKATHARINE PAN SHORELINE \nDEVELOPMENT PERMITTING TEAM AS A \nCOASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST ALYSSA \nIS A GOLDEN BEAR HAVING EARNED \nHER UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM \nCAL LANDSCAPE TECHNICAL \nENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING JOINS \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND \nGENERAL PLAN POLICY DEVELOPMENT \nRELATED TO COASTAL PLANNING \nCLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY. \nGREATER NEWS CHAIR WASSERMAN \nGOVERNOR NEWSOME’S MAY REVISE \nBUDGET PLAN INCLUDES FULL \nFUNDING FOR BCDC AND THE COASTAL \nCOMMISSION TO HIRE STAFF TO \nIMPLEMENT SB272 LEGISLATION \nAUTHORED BY SENATOR JOHN LAIRD \nREQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO \nCREATE RISING SEA LEVEL \nADAPTATION PLANS THAT EITHER WE \nOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL \nNEED TO APPROVE. YESTERDAY I \nSPENT THE DAY IN SACRAMENTO \nWATCHING ASSEMBLY AND SENATE \nBUDGET HEARINGS\, AND I THINK \nTHAT I’M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT \nNONE OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE \nMEMBERS DEALT AT ALL WITH RISING \nSEA LEVEL FUNDING\, LEADING US\, \nPERHAPS TO HOPE THAT NOBODY WILL \nQUESTION ITS IMPORTANCE. \nLEADERSHIP OF THE RESOURCES \nAGENCY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE \nOF THE SMALL AMOUNT OF FUNDING \nIN THE GOVERNOR’S PLAN AND I \nKNOW THEY WILL BE WORKING ON OUR \nBEHALF. MORE INFORMATION TO \nCOME WHEN WE RECEIVE IT. \nNOW FOR SOME NOT SO GREAT BUDGET \nNEWS\, AS PART OF THE BUDGET PLAN \nBCDC AND ALL OTHER STATE \nORGANIZATIONS WILL FAIRS FACE A \nGENERAL FUND CUT OF SOMETHING \nLIKE 8% NEXT YEAR WE HAVE \nSTARTED TO PLAN FOR IT AND WILL \nKEEP YOU UPDATED ON \nRAMIFICATIONS. GOOD NEWS\, MANY \nOF OUR STAFF ALONG WITH \nCOMMISSIONER AHN TO MY RIGHT \nPARTICIPATED IN A WORKSHOP WITH \nOUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nADVISERS LAST WEEK AS PART OF \nTHE ORGANIZATIONALITY \nDEVELOPMENT CONSULTING CONTRACT \nTHAT AIMS TO INCREASE \nCOMMUNICATION AND ALIGNMENT \nBETWEEN BCDC AND OUR ADVISERS. \nEACH OF US WHO ATTENDED HAVE \nREALTY POSITIVE THOUGHTS ABOUT \nTIME SPENT TOGETHER AND WE HAVE \nTALKED AT LENGTH HOW TO BEST \nWORK AS COLLAB RURALITYS I AM \nSURE WE’LL HAVE MORE TO REPORT \nIN THE FUTURE. I’M RELATIONSHIP \nTO REPORT THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN \nYOU APPROVED LAST NOVEMBER HAS \nBEEN APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA’S \nOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW \nTHIS PAST TUESDAY THEREFORE THE \nNEW SEAPORT PLAN IS NOW IN \nEFFECT. GREAT NEWS GOVERN ALL \nTHE WORK THAT CORY AND THE TEAM \nPUT INTO IT STARTING\, REMEMBER\, \nWITH THE HOWARD TERMINAL ISSUE. \nFULL OF GOOD NEWS TODAY \nESPECIALLY TO MY LEFT AS \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH WATCHES. \nTHIS WEEK THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS 2024 WORKPLAN WAS \nRELEASED AND WE’RE EXCITED TO \nNOTE THAT THE CORP HAS RECEIVED \nFUNDING TO INCLUDE THE BEL MARIN \nKEYS UNIT INTO THE HAMILTON \nWETLANDS PROJECT WHICH WILL \nBRING THE TOTAL HABITAT \nRESTORATION TO 26\,000 ACRES AS A \nRESULT OF OUR 2016 COALITION \nTHAT SPURRED CHANGES TO THE \nAUTHORIZING LEGISLATION THE CORP \nWILL SPEND ANOTHER $7 MILLION TO \nINCREASE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY DURING THE \nNEXT YEAR. TWO FINAL NOTES\, \nFIRST PERHAPS SOMETHING OF AN \nANTIDOTE TO THE GIANT’S \nDISAPPOINTING FIRST QUARTER OF \nBASEBALL\, I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY \nVISIT — I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY \nVISIT THE NEW CHINA BASIN PARK \nACROSS McCOVEY COVE FROM THE \nBALLPARK I WAS POSITIVELY \nTHRILLED TO ASK TO SPEAK AT THE \nGRAND OPENING LATE LAST MONTH \nAND IT’S TREMENDOUS. AT THE \nBCDC PERMIT THERE IS AN AUDIO \nTOUR OF THE SHORELINE FROM THE \nFERRY BUILDING DOWN TO MISSION \nROCK NOW KNOWN AS CHINA BASIN \nPARK THAT IS NOW LIVE IT’S A FEW \nYEARS LATE\, A DIFFERENT FORM OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS THAN WHAT BCDC \nNORMALLY REQUIRES FOR SURE AND \nWE’RE WORKING WITH GIANTS TO \nMAKE SURE IT’S PUBLICIZED WELL. \nFINALLY ANOTHER NOTICE FOR THE \nBCDC BOOK CLUB. COMMISSIONER \nAHN’S NEW BOOK ENTITLED \nADVOCATE\, A GRAPHIC MEME WHAT OF \nFAMILY\, COMMUNITY\, AND THE FIGHT \nFOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS NOW \nAVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE. IT’S \nABSOLUTELY SUPERB AND IF YOU \nFOLLOW COMMISSIONER AHN ON \nSOCIAL MEDIA\, YOU WILL KNOW WHY\, \nAND WE ALL RECOMMEND IT HIGHLY. \nIN ADDITION THE COMMISSIONER HAS \nASSURED US THAT HE IS MORE THAN \nHAPPY TO SIGN ALL AVAILABLE \nCOPIES AT A SMALL PRICE. WITH \nTHAT\, CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I’M HAPPY \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR LARRY? \n>>EDDIE AHN: A QUICK COMMENT \nFROM COMMISSIONER AHN. THERE IS \nNO PRICE. IT WILL BE DONE \nABSOLUTELY FREE OF CHARGE \n[LAUGHTER] \nTHANK YOU\, THOUGH. VERY MUCH \nAPPRECIATE YOUR PRAISE FOR THE \nBOOK. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWELL\, THERE IS A PRICE\, YOU NEED \nTO BUY THE BOOK\, AND YOU \nSHOULD. \nBUT NO PRICE FOR THE SIGNATURE. \nI WAS ACTUALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT \nWE ARE NOT ALL TOGETHER\, BECAUSE \nI HAVE MY BOOK AND HOPE TO GET \nHIM TO SIGN T BUT I WILL \nHOPEFULLY DO THAT AT OUR NEXT \nMEETING. \nONE OF THE THINGS SAID REMINDS \nME OF ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE\, \nTHERE WAS A REPORT IN THE SAN \nJOSE MERCURY LAST WEEK ABOUT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL SETTLEMENT\, THE \nSETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM BY \nPACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION AND \nOTHERS AGAINST BCDC REGARDING \nOUR ACTIONS\, AND THERE WAS A \nSTATEMENT IN THAT ARTICLE THAT \nWE HAD IN THAT SETTLEMENT\, MADE \nA DEAL AND CHANGED THE TERMS OF \nWHAT WAS GOING ON TO PUT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. THAT IS NOT \nACCURATE. WE MADE NO CHANGE IN \nTHE DEAL. WE SIMPLY DISMISSED \n— AGREED TO DISMISS THE \nLAWSUIT. STATE LAW WHICH \nAUTHORIZED THE USE BY THE AS OF \nHOWARD TERMINAL\, HAD AN \nEXPIRATION DATE IN IT WHEREBY IF \nTHE PORT AND THE A DESERT NOT \nREACH A BINDING AGREEMENT\, BY A \nDATE\, WHICH I THINK WAS SOMETIME \nTHIS YEAR\, SOMEBODY MAY CORRECT \nME ON THAT — IT — THE \nEXCLUSION OF THE PROJECT\, FROM \nTHE TIDE LANDS TRUST\, OR THE \nDETERMINATION THAT THAT USE WAS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE TIDE LANDS \nTRUST WOULD EXPIRE\, WE DID NOT \nMAKE ANY CHANGE IN IT WE WILL \nCONVEY THIS TO THE MERCURY. I \nKNOW THE PORT OF OAKLAND KNOWS \nTHAT\, BUT WE WILL MAKE THAT \nCLEAR\, AS WELL. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, \nCONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE HAVE RECEIVED THE \nADMINISTRATIVE — THE DRAFT OF \nADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. \nARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS \nON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIST? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. I SEE \nNOTHING FROM COMMISSIONERS. SO\, \nONCE AGAIN\, DIRECTOR ROSS GETS \nOFF WITHOUT BEING GRILLED. \nONE OF THESE DAYS\, YOU MAY FIND \nYOU’RE GETTING GRILLED. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEMS 8 AND 9\, \nWHICH WE ARE GOING TO COMBINE \nAND HEAR AS ONE ITEM. THEY ARE \nVERY SIMILAR. THEY INVOLVE TWO \nDIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS\, BUT \nTHE ISSUES ARE ESSENTIALLY \nSUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. THESE \nARE HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE VOTES \nON PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC \nAPPLICATION FOR NEW FIVE-YEAR \nPROGRAMMATIC OPERATIONS \nMAINTENANCE PERMIT EXISTING \nELECTRIC TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES \nTHROUGHOUT THE COMMISSION’S \nJURISDICTION OUTSIDE SUISUN \nMARSH AND INSIDE SUISUN MARSH \nWHERE WE DO HAVE SOME \nJURISDICTION. THE PRESENTATION \nWILL BE — SO\, WE’RE HAVING ONE \nPUBLIC HEARING TO COVER BOTH OF \nTHESE ISSUES. ROWAN YELTON OF \nOUR STAFF WILL MAKE THE STAFF’S \nINTRODUCTION AND THEN INTRODUCE \nSPEAKERS FROM PG&E. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. IS THAT SHOWING UP? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nIT’S SHOWING UP WITH YOUR NOTES \nWHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOT \nIT. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: MY NAME IS \nROWAN YELTON\, I AM A COASTAL \nPROGRAM ANALYST ON THE BAY \nRESOURCES TEAM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: FOR YOU ALL \nWHO ARE ONLINE THERE IS \nCONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE METRO \nCENTER THAT’S MAKING IT HARD FOR \nUS TO HEAR. I’M LOOKING AT YOU \nALL SO I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU CAN \nHEAR\, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. \nIF YOU CAN’T HEAR — ALL RIGHT\, \nROWAN\, YOU’RE GOING TO NEED TO \nYELL INTO THAT MICROPHONE. USE \nYOUR OUTSIDE VOICE. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: OKAY I’LL USE \nMY OUTSIDE VOICE. I’M \nPRESENTING TWO PERMIT \nAPPLICATIONS FOR OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE PROGRAM PROPOSED BY \nTHE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC \nCOMPANY. APPLICATIONS ARE FOR \nFIVE YEARS PROGRAMS OF \nMAINTENANCE REPAIR REPLACEMENT \nREMOVAL RETIREMENT AND \nMODIFICATION OF PG&E FACILITIES \nACTIVITIES WOULD BE LIMITED TO \nEXISTING FACILITIES AND \nSTRUCTURES AND WOULD NOT RESULT \nIN PERMANENT NET BAY FILL THOUGH \nSOME TEMPORARY FILL WOULD BE \nINSTALLED FOR SITE ACCESS. \nTHERE WOULD NOT BE PERMANENT \nADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC \nACCESS. \nBASED ON THE APPLICATION\, WE \nEXPECT THAT HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS \nWILL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THIS \nPERMIT EACH YEAR. MOST PROJECTS \nINVOLVE REPAIRS TO ELECTRICAL \nTOWERS AND POLES SUCH AS \nREPAIRING CRACKS AND TOWER \nFOUNDATIONS TRIMMING VEGETATION \nNEAR TOWERS AND LINES AND \nREPLACING DAMAGED HARDWARE \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND \nSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF TOWERS \nAND POLES. LESS FREQUENT \nACTIVITIES INCLUDE REPLACEMENT \nOF ENTIRE STRUCTURES SUCH AS \nTOWERS AND PIPELINES. THE \nPROGRAM WOULD INCLUDE ACTIVITIES \nIN ALL NINE COUNTY BAY AREAS\, \nBCDC’S BAY SHORELINE BAND\, WATER \nWAYS SALT PONDS AND MANAGED \nWETLANDS JURISDICTIONS THE \nPROGRAM SPLIT INTO TWO \nAPPLICATIONS ONE FOR ACTIVITIES \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF THE \nSUISUN MARSH AND FOR ALL OTHER \nLOCATIONS THE TWO PERMITS WOULD \nHAVE IDENTICAL AUTHORIZATIONS \nAND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ONLY \nDIFFER IN FINDINGS. BCDC \nPREVIOUSLY ISSUED TWO PERMITS \nFOR SIMILAR OPERATION AND \nMAINTENANCE PROGRAMS IN 1987 AND \n1989. THESE PERMITS WERE \nREPEATEDLY AMENDED AND EXTENDED \nAND WILL BOTH EXPIRE ON MAY \n30TH\, 2024. IN 2021\, PG&E \nAPPLIED FOR FIVE-YEAR EXTENSIONS \nTO BOTH PERMITS. WHEN \nAPPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED BCDC \nSTAFF REVIEWED THE EXISTING \nPERMITS AND DETERMINED THAT THEY \nWERE OUTDATED FOR THE FOLLOWING \nREASONS: AUTHORIZATIONS WERE NO \nLONGER SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL \nOF PG&E’S ACTIVITIES AND SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS NEEDED SIGNIFICANT \nCHANGES TO BRING THEM UP-TO-DATE \nWITH CURRENT BCDC LAWS AND \nPOLICIES\, ENGINEERING CODES AND \nSTANDARDS\, CURRENT STATE OF THE \nBAY ENVIRONMENT\, AND OUR \nSCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE \nBAY ENVIRONMENT. \nSO\, THE PREVIOUS PERMITS WERE \nPERMITTED ADMINISTRATIVELY\, BUT \nAT THIS TIME WE ARE LOOKING TO \nISSUE MAJOR PERMITS \nFOR THEM BECAUSE ALTHOUGH EACH \nINDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY QUALIFIES AS \nMINOR REPAIRS OR IMPROVEMENTS \nTHE PERMITS WOULD COVER A LARGE \nNUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE \nENTIRE BAY AREA OVER FIVE YEARS \nTHEY CANNOT BE REASONABLY \nCONSTRUED AS A SINGLE ACTIVITY \nAND SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED \nADMINISTRATIVELY. WHEN WRITING \nTHE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OUR \nCONCERN WAS ENSURING THAT THE \nPROJECTS WOULD NOT HAVE \nSIGNIFICANT PERMIT IMPACTS OR \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS ADDRESSING CONCERNS TO \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS INCLUDED \nREQUIRE PERMITTEE TO RESTORE \nCONSTRUCTION SITES TO ORIGINAL \nCONDITION OR BETTER WHERE \nAPPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK \nAVOID MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS BEST MANAGEMENT OF \nPRACTICES IN MARSHES IN THE BAY \nAND SENSITIVE HABITATS COMPLY \nWITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS BY \nTHE RESOURCE AGENCIES SPECIAL \nCONDITION LIMIT TO ALLOW \nACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT RESULT IN \nINCREASE TO BAY FILL DURATION OF \nTEMPORARY FILL LESS THAN 180 \nDAYS PER PROJECT LIMIT \nRELOCATION AND REDECISION OF \nSTRUCTURES AND DISALLOW \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS. PROPOSAL REVIEW \nPROCESS ALL ACTIVITIES REQUIRE \nBCDC STAFF APPROVAL BEFORE THEY \nCAN BE CONDUCTED EXCEPT FOR \nLIMITED CATEGORY ACTIVITIES THAT \nWOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RESULT \nIN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nDO NOT INVOLVE ANY WATERWORKS. \nSOME EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES \nINCLUDE REPLACING MINOR \nSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND \nEQUIPMENT\, PAINTING AND \nVEGETATION TRIMMING. FOR ALL \nACTIVITY WHICH IS COULD RESULT \nIN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE BAY OR \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS OR \nWOULD INVOLVE WATERWORKS THE \nPERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO \nSUBMIT ACTIVITY PROPOSAL BASED \nON FORM INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT TO \nTHE PERMIT BCDC STAFF WOULD THEN \nREVIEW ACTIVITY FOR CONSISTENCY \nWITH THE PERMIT YOU \nAUTHORIZATION AND CONDITIONS IF \nSTAFF FIND THE PROJECT IS NOT \nCONSISTENT WITH PERMITS AND PG&E \nWILL HAVE TO SUBMIT AN \nINDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS ALSO INCLUDED \nTO REQUIRE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT \nANNUAL REPORTS ON THE ACTIVITIES \nCONDUCTED OVER THE PAST YEAR \nCUMULATIVELY SINCE PERMIT WAS \nISSUED AND IF THE ACTIVITY IS \nPROJECTED FOR UPCOMING YEAR \nFIVE-YEAR PROJECTED WORKPLAN FOR \nREPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF \nELECTRICAL TOWERS IN BCDC \nJURISDICTION. AS YOU LEARN MORE \nABOUT THIS PROGRAM FROM THE PG&E \nSTAFF PRESENTATION\, \nTO KEEP IN MIND TIDAL \nFLATS\, FISH\, AQUATIC ORGANISMS\, \nWILDLIFE MITIGATION PUBLIC \nACCESS AND SHORELINE BAND \nAND MARSH PLANS LAND USE AND \nMARSH MANAGEMENT POLICY THE \nCOMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER \nWHETHER THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT APPLICABLE TO \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN POLICIES \nSPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE FILL \nRESULTS IN RESULTING PROJECTS \nUPON CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS \nSECTION 66605 AND THAT FILL IS \nMINIMUM NECESSARY AND DESIGNED \nTO MINIMIZE HARM RECALL EFFECTS \nOF THE FILL. AND WHETHER \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PERMIT ARE \nAPPROPRIATE TO AVOID MINIMIZE \nADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC \nACCESS AND BAY ENVIRONMENT. \nTHAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION AND I’LL NOW \nINTRODUCE KYLE STAPLE MAN\, TIM \nANDREWS\, JOHN WILCOX FROM PG&E F \nTHEIR PRESENTATION OF THE \nPROGRAM. \n>>SPEAKER: THANKS ROWAN. \n>>SPEAKER: GO AHEAD JOHN. \n>>JON WILCOX: ARE YOU ABLE TO \nRUN THE PRESENTATION? WE DIDN’T \nWORK OUT THE LOGISTICS WITH \nBCDC. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M PULLING UP THE \nPRESENTATION NOW\, IF YOU CAN \nCONFIRM YOU SEE IT? \n>>JOHN WILCOX: I SEE T I’LL \nKICK US OFF. THANK YOU\, FIRST \nOF ALL\, CHAIR WASSERMAN AND THE \nCOMMISSIONERS\, TO LOOK AT OUR \nPERMIT APPLICATION. AS ROWAN \nSAID\, AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE \nHAVE BEEN WORKING ON FROM THE \n’80s OFF A PREVIOUS PERMIT THIS\, \nIS SOLELY FOR OUR OWN ACTIVITIES \nIN AND AROUND THE BAY SO WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO GETTING THIS NEW \nPERMIT PUT IN PLACE\, GETTING \nPROCESSES IN PLACE AND WORKING \nTO\, YOU KNOW\, A GOOD FUTURE WITH \nUS\, WITH BCDC AS WE HAVE THIS \nPERMIT ACTIVE IN THE FUTURE. \nWITH THAT\, I’LL INTRODUCE TIM \nANDREWS WHO IS THE MANAGER OF \nOUR WATER PROGRAM. TIM\, ARE YOU \nABLE TO PRESENT? SORRY. WE \nHAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE ON \nOUR SIDE. PG&E DOESN’T \nNECESSARY HE ALLOW US TO USE \nZOOM SO WE’RE TRYING TO DO IT \nVIA PHONES FOR SOME FOLKS. \n>>SPEAKER: TIM SAID SAID HE MAY \nNOT — HE’S RUNNING INTO \nTECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. I CAN \nTAKE IT OVER FOR HIM. GOOD \nAFTERNOON COMMISSION STAFF AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TYLER \nSTAPLE MAN. \n>>JON WILCOX: TYLER YOU’RE A \nLITTLE QUIET. CUYLER YOU’RE A \nLITTLE QUIET. CUYLER \n. \n>> CUYLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? MY \nNAME IS CUYLER STAPLE MAN\, \nPLANNER AT PG&E I HAVE BEEN \nWORKING WITH BCDC STAFF AND PG&E \nSTAKE R STAKEHOLDERS ON THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PERMIT FOR \nTHE PAST COUPLE OF YEAR OR SO \nTODAY IS THE BIDAY AND LOOKING \nFORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION AFTER \nTHE PRESENTATION. I WANT TO DO \nA QUICK OVERVIEW OF OUR AGENDA \nTOPICS HERE IN THIS \nPRESENTATION. I’M GOING TO GO \nOVER PROGRAM NEED AND PURPOSE \nBACKGROUND OF OUR WORK\, \nACTIVITIES WE’RE SEEKING TO GET \nAUTHORIZED BY THESE PERMITS\, \nEXAMPLES OF WHAT THOSE \nACTIVITIES ARE\, AND THE ACTIVITY \nCLASSES THAT HAVE BEEN \nINCORPORATED INTO THIS PERMIT\, \nAND OVERVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL \nIMPACTS AND THE SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS THAT WE WILL BE \nIMPLEMENTING DURING OUR \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPROGRAM. I REALIZE SOME OF THIS \nIS — MAY BE REPETITIVE FROM THE \nINFORMATION THAT WAS JUST \nPRESENTED\, SO\, I’LL TRY TO \nSTREAMLINE WHERE POSSIBLE. \nPG&E’S MISSION IS TO DELIVER \nCLEAN SAFE RELIABLE AFFORDABLE \nENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS\, THIS \nMEANS WE MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT \nMAINTAIN AND OPERATE OUR \nFACILITIES TO ACHIEVE THAT \nGOAL. \nWE FEEL THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS \nO&M PLAN IS TO MAINTAIN THE \nENERGY TRANSMISSION AND \nDISTRIBUTION FACILITIES TO \nDELIVER THAT ENERGY TO OUR \nCUSTOMERS. AND IN DOING SO\, AND \nMAINTAINING SAFE AND RELIABLE \nFACILITIES\, WE’LL BE DOING OUR \nPART IN BEING GOOD STEWARDS TO \nTHE BAY ENVIRONMENT AND THE \nRESOURCES UNDER BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION. \nPG&E HAS BEEN CONDUCTING ROUTINE \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WORK \nWITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION UNDER \nPERMITS THAT WERE INITIALLY \nEFFECTIVE IN 1987. THEY HAVE \nBEEN EXTENDED NUMEROUS TIMES IN \nTHE CURRENT EXTENSIONS EXPIRE \nMAY 31ST OF THIS YEAR. UNDER \nTHESE NEW PERMITS WE PROPOSE TO \nCONTINUE THAT OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE PLAN WITH NEW \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS AND \nNOTIFICATION AND REPORTING \nPROCEDURES WITH BCDC. \nSO\, AGAIN THIS\, PERMIT WOULD \nAUTHORIZE PG&E TO PERFORM THIS \nROUTINE WORK FOR A PERIOD OF \nFIVE YEARS WITH AN OPTION TO \nRENEW AT THE END OF THE TERM. \nAND THIS O&M WORK WILL BE \nCONDUCT THE UNDER TWO SEPARATE \nPERMITS\, ONE FOR SUISUN MARSH \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA\, AND THE \nOTHER PERMIT FOR ALL OTHER \nPORTIONS OF BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, \nALONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nAGAIN\, THE ACTIVITIES WE’LL BE \nPERFORMING WILL BE SIMILAR TO \nACTIVITIES WE HAVE BEEN \nPERFORMING UNDER EXISTING \nPERMITS WITH NEW SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS. \nSO\, THE FOLLOWING MAPS SHOW THE \nLOCATIONS OF PG&E WORK THAT WE \nCONDUCTED UNDER THE EXISTING \nPERMITS IN 2022 AND 2023\, AS \nWELL AS WORK WE’RE PLANNING FOR \n2024 AND 2025. I WANT TO \nBRIEFLY POINT OUT SOME ITEMS ON \nTHIS LEGEND IN THE FOLLOWING \nMAPS BCDC’S JURISDICTION IS \nSHADED IN A PURPLE COLOR\, AND \nTHE PROJECTS FROM 2022 TO 2025 \nARE SHOWN AS POINTS. ONE THING \nTO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE \nDISTINCTION BETWEEN TRANSMISSION \nAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. \nSO\, WHEN PG&E TALKS ABOUT OUR \nFACILITIES THERE\, IS TWO MAJOR \nCATEGORIES THAT THINK WE OF\, \nTRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION. \nAND TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE \nIT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN \nMIND THAT ENERGY ISN’T ALWAYS \nCONSUMED WHERE IT’S PRODUCED. \nSO\, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT \nTRANSMISSION FACILITIES\, THESE \nFACILITIES TRANSMIT ENERGY \nRESOURCES OVER LONG DISTANCES\, \nBETWEEN THE LOCATIONS ITS \nPRODUCED AND WHERE IT’S \nCONSUMED. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION \nSYSTEM MAY BE HIGHER VOLTAGE \nWITH LARGER POLES\, AND A GAS \nTRANSMISSION SYSTEM HAS A LARGER \nDIAMETER PIPELINE. FOR \nDISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS\, THESE \nSYSTEMS DELIVER ENERGY DIRECTLY \nTO THE END USER\, OUR \nCUSTOMERS. \nDISTRIBUTION POLE\, ELECTRIC \nDISTRIBUTION POLE ARE THOSE \nYOU’RE LIKELY TO SEE IN YOUR \nCOMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD\, AND A \nGAS DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE IS \nGENERALLY SMALLER. \nTO GIVE PG&E STAFF AND \nCOMMISSIONERS A SENSE OF THE \nAMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE HAVE \nIN THE JURISDICTION\, I \nRAN SOME NUMBERS WITH OUR GIS \nDEPARTMENT AND WANT TO SHARE \nTHOSE WITH YOU TODAY. WE HAVE \nOVER 520 MILES OF ENERGIZED \nELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR WITHIN YOUR \nJURISDICTION AND THOSE \nCONDUCTORS ARE SUPPORTED BY 829 \nTOWERS\, AND OVER 4\,900 POLES AND \nSIMILAR SUPPORT STRUCTURES. \nTHOSE 829 TOWERS MAY BE ACCESSED \nBY OVER 180 MILES OF BOARDWALK \nIN THE BAY AND WE ALSO HAVE OVER \n65 MILES OF NATURAL BAS \nPIPELINE. ALL OF THESE ASSETS \nMUST BE INSPECTED\, MAINTAINS AND \nOPERATED TO ENSURE FAY OUR \nFACILITIES PROVIDE SAFE RELIABLE \nENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS. \nTHE ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY \nTHESE PERMITS ARE THOSE THAT WE \nROUTINELY PERFORM TO MEET OUR \nGOALS. UNDER THIS PERMIT\, THESE \nACTIVITIES WILL BE LIMITED TO \nTHE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING \nFACILITIES RATHER THAN THE \nCONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES. \nTHE PERMIT WILL CATEGORIZE OUR \nOPERATION AND MAINTENANCE \nACTIVITIES INTO FOUR CLASSES\, \nWHICH WE’LL DISCUSS IN A FEW \nMORE SLIDES. BUT I WANTED TO \nNOTE THAT THE PERMIT WAS WRITTEN \nWITH BROAD LANGUAGE INTENDED TO \nCOVER MOST OF OUR ROUTINE \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nWORK. \nHOWEVER ANY ACTIVITY THAT \nDOESN’T FALL WITHIN THESE \nACTIVITY CLASSES OR WITHIN THE \nAUTHORIZED ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS\, \nPG&E WILL SEEK SEPARATE \nAUTHORIZATION FROM BCDC. EXCUSE \nME\, SO\, THE MAJORITY OF \nACTIVITIES WE EXPECT TO PERFORM \nUNDER THIS PERMIT ARE WHAT WE \nREFER TO AS OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES \nWHICH CONSIST OF REPLACING \nOR REPAIRING OR REPLACING OF \nEQUIPMENT AT TOP OF UTILITY \nPOLES AND TOWERS ACTIVITIES \nDON’T REQUIRE ANY GROUND \nDISTURBANCE OR EXCAVATION ON THE \nGROUND\, ACTIVITIES OVERHEAD MAY \nINCLUDE REPLACING \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND HANGING \nPLATES THAT SUSPEND ELECTRIFIED \nCONDUCTORS FROM TOWERS AND POLES \nAS WELL AS REPAIRING HIGH WIRES\, \nVOLTAGE SIGNS AND REPLACING \nBOLTS THESE ARE DEMON MOUSE \nCLASS ACTIVITIES MENTIONED ON \nTHE SLIDE EXPECTING TO PERFORM \n500 OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES DURING \nTHE FIVE-YEAR PERMIT TERM. IN \nADDITION TO OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES \nWE’RE EXPECTING TO REPLACE 25 \nMILES OF BOARDWALK REPLACE 50 \nPOLES\, TOWERS\, AND TOWER \nFOUNDATIONS AND REPLACE SECTIONS \nOF FIVE GAS PIPELINES OVER THE \nNEXT FIVE YEARS. \nSO PERMITS INCLUDE FOUR ACTIVITY \nCLASSES WITHIN WHICH PG&E WILL \nHAVE SPECIFIC REVIEW\, \nNOTIFICATION\, AND REPORTING \nREQUIREMENTS TO FOLLOW. IN \nGENERAL\, ACTIVITIES WITH LESS \nENVIRONMENTAL RISK WILL BE \nREVIEWED AND AUTHORIZED MORE \nQUICKLY THAN ACTIVITIES THAT \nHAVE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PUBLIC \nACCESS OF BAY RESOURCES. CLASS \nONE ACTIVITIES DO NOT INVOLVE \nANY IMPACTS TO PUBLIC ACCESS OR \nTHE BAY\, AND DO NOT INVOLVE ANY \nIN WATERWORKS. THESE ARE THOSE \nOVERHEAD ACTIVITIES I PREVIOUSLY \nREFERRED TO. \nPG&E WILL BE PROCEEDING WITH \nTHIS WORK AT OUR DISCRETIONARY \nDURING — UNDER — DURING THIS \nPERMIT\, HOWEVER WE’LL BE \nREPORTING TO BCDC ANNUALLY\, A \nSUMMARY OF CLASS ONE ACTIVITIES \nPERFORMED. \nTHE SECOND ACTIVITY CLASS IS \nCLASS TWO AND WITHIN CLASS TWO\, \nTHERE ARE TWO SUBTYPES. CLASS \nTWO. A AND 2B. CLASS TWO \nACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR IN THE \nSHORELINE BAND\, THEY MAY INVOLVE \nSMALL AMOUNTS OF FILL AND \nEXTRACTION. THEY DO NOT INVOLVE \nANY WATERWORKS. NOW\, THE \nDIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2A AND 2B IS \nCLASS 2A IS LIMITED TO WORK THAT \nDOES NOT IMPACT PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nWHEREAS CLASS 2B MAY INCLUDE \nTEMPORARY PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS. \nCLASS THREE ACTIVITIES ARE THE \nROUTINE OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE ACTIONS THAT HAVE \nPOTENTIAL TO RESULT IN IMPACTS \nTO BAY RESOURCES INCLUDING FISH \nAND WILDLIFE AND TIDAL MARSHES \nHOWEVER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT AND PG&E \nPROGRAMMATIC MAINTENANCE PERMITS \nWITH RESOURCES AGENCIES \nSIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO \nRESOURCES WILL NOT OCCUR FROM \nIMPLEMENTATION OF CLASS THREE \nACTIVITIES. CLASS THREE \nACTIVITY MAY INCLUDE REPLACING \nOF CONCRETE FOOTING OF AN \nEXISTING STEEL TRANSMISSION \nTOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH THAT \nMAY INVOLVE EXCAVATION OR GROUND \nDISTURBANCE WITHIN THE TIDAL \nMARSH. \nTHIS SLIDE IS BRIEFLY \nSUMMARIZING THE IMPACTS THAT MAY \nRESULT FROM PG&E’S OPERATIONS \nAND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES UNDER \nTHIS PERMIT. AS ROWAN \nPREVIOUSLY MENTIONED\, WE DO NOT \nEXPECT ANY SIGNIFICANT NET \nINCREASE IN BAY FILL. WHILE \nPG&E EXPECTS TO REPLACE OVER 100 \nCUBIC YARDS PLACE OVER \n140 CUBIC QUARTERS OF FILL \nWITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION THIS \nFILL WILL BE OFFSET BY REMOVAL \nOF EXISTING FILL OF ROUGHLY \nEQUAL AMOUNTS\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IF \nWE REPLACE A POLE WE’LL INSTALL \nAND REPLACE POLE NEW POLE AND \nBASE STAYS AT ROUGHLY ZERO. \nPERMIT ALSO LIMITS PUBLIC ACCESS \nSCENIC VIEW IMPACTS FROM PG&E \nFACILITIES PROJECTS WITH \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO BAY \nRESOURCES  PUBLIC ACCESS WILL \nNOT BE AUTHORIZED BY THIS \nPERMIT. \nTO BRIEFLY MENTION PREVIOUSLY\, \nTHESE PERMITS WILL REQUIRE PG&E \nTO EMPLOY A STANDARD OF BEST \nMANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHILE \nPERFORMING ALL AUTHORIZED \nACTIVITIES. ADDITIONALLY THE \nPERMIT HAS A NUMBER OF \nCONDITIONS THAT PG&E MUST FOLLOW \nTO AVOID OR MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO \nRESOURCES REGULATED BY BCDC. \nSUCH AS FISH\, WILDLIFE\, AND \nTIDAL MARSH. \nFURTHERMORE\, PG&E’S BIOLOGISTS \nWILL BE REVIEWING MAINTENANCE \nWORK WITH POTENTIAL TO IMPACT \nBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TO IDENTIFY \nSPECIFIC RESOURCES PROTECTION \nMEASURES NEEDED TO AVOID IMPACTS \nTO RESOURCES DURING WORK \nEXECUTION THESE PROJECTS \nSPECIFIC MEASURES WILL BE \nDOCUMENTED IN A BIOLOGICAL \nREPORT SENT TO BCDC’S WITH THE \nWORK NOTIFICATION PACKAGE. \nTHE LAST ITEM I WANTED TO POINT \nOUT IS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT ARE \nCONSISTENT WITH THE RESOURCE \nAGENCY PERMITS PG&E HAS FOR \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPLANNING INCLUDING THE BAY AREA \nHABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN \nAUTHORIZED BY THE OFFICIAL \nWILDLIFE SERVICE\, THE BAY AREA \nINCIDENTAL PERMIT BY DEPARTMENT \nOF FISH AND WILDLIFE AS WELL AS \nOUR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPERMIT PERFORM FROM REGIONAL \nWATER QUALITY BOARD AND U.S. \nARMY CORP. WITH THAT SAID \nTHAT’S THE END OF THE \nPRESENTATION. I’LL TURN IT BACK \nTO BCDC F QUESTIONS AND \nDISCUSSION. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nWE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE \nPUBLIC OR COMMENTS FROM THE \nPUBLIC. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS \nRAISED IN-PERSON OR ON ZOOM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nJUST TO BE VERY CLEAR\, BECAUSE I \nSHOULD HAVE DONE IS THAT BEFORE\, \nWHAT I JUST DID\, WE STILL HAVE \nNOBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING \nTO COMMENT\, IS THAT CORRECT \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THAT’S \nCORRECT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nDO HAVE TWO COMMISSIONER HANDS \nRAISED\, COMMISSIONER ECKLUND. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH\, CHAIR. \nMY QUESTION IS THAT YOU \nINDICATED THAT THERE WOULDN’T BE \nANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC \nVIEWS OR WHATEVER. BUT IS THERE \nANY OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE CAN \nIMPROVE THE PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nVIEWS BY MAKING SOME CHANGES? \nTHAT’S MY FIRST QUESTION. MY \nSECOND QUESTION IS — \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]\n \nTHAT’S WHY I GOT FEEDBACK. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: PARDON \nME? OVERDOES AND THE \n— THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE \nIS YOU SHOWED THE BIG TOWERS ARE \nTHERE ANY TOWERS THAT ARE GOING \nTO BE REPLACED? IF YOU COULD \nCLARIFY THAT? \n>>JON WILCOX: YES WE ARE GOING \nTO REPLACE TOWERS AND WILL \nPROVIDE A PLAN OVER THE NEXT \nFIVE YEARS TO BCDC OF THOSE \nTOWERS THAT WILL BE REPLACED \nWE’RE GOING THROUGH THAT\, THAT’S \nTHE BIG DRIVER FOR RENEWING THIS \nPERMIT. BECAUSE THOSE TOWERS \nARE SITTING IN SALT WATER\, THEY \nGET BEAT UP PRETTY BAD\, AND THEY \nNEED TO BE REPLACED EVERY NOW \nAND THEN. WITH REGARDS TO THE \nOTHER ONE ABOUT IMPROVEMENT\, SO\, \nWE ARE DOING THINGS OF APPROVING \nOR LINING SOME BOARDWALKS TO \nBETTER LOCATIONS THAT MAKE LESS \nIMPACTS THAT’S OUT THERE\, THIS \nIS REALLY AT THE HEART OF \nO&M TO HANDLE THE EQUIPMENT AND \nFACILITIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN \nPLACE THAT WOULD TRIGGER OTHER \nTHINGS LIKE RIGHT OF WAY\, \nACCESS\, AND OTHER PERMITS THAT \nWOULD BE NEEDED ABOVE AND BEYOND \nOF JUST FIXING THE ASSETS THAT \nARE CURRENTLY IN THAT LOCATION. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. \nAND THEN\, I GUESS THAT \nCLARIFICATION ON THOSE METAL \nTOWERS\, YOU SAID THAT THEY WOULD \nBE REPLACED\, BUT ARE — YOU SAID \nTHAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE A \nSEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATION TO \nBCDC? WAS THAT CORRECT? \n>>JON WILCOX: NOT A SEPARATE \nPERMIT IT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN \nTHE REPORT WE’RE PROVIDING TO \nBCDC THAT’S WHAT’S CREATED UNDER \nTHIS NEW PERMIT. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: SO ARE \nYOU GOING TO BE COORDINATING \nWITH CITIES AND COUNTIES ON \nGETTING A PERMIT? BECAUSE I \nJUST HAD AN SPECIALTY RECENTLY \nTHAT PG&E WAS GOING TO BE \nWORKING ON A PARTICULAR \nTELECONFERENCE POLE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: APPARENTLY THEY \nFORGOT TO GET A PERMIT. DO YOU \nHAVE A DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT PERMITS ARE APPLIED FOR AND \nRECEIVED BEFORE WORK IS ACTUALLY \nIN THE SHADED\, OR LETTERS GO OUT \nTO FOLKS? \n>>JON WILCOX: YES THAT’S ALL OF \nOUR PERMIT PLANNING PROCESS IT’S \nNOT JUST CITIES AND COUNTIES WE \nHAVE STATE AGENCIES AND THERE IS \nOVERLAY. WE HAVE A PROCESS\, \nPRESIDENT MATTICS\, WITH THE FEDS \nAND STATE THAT REQUIRE \nREPORTING\, BEST MANAGEMENT \nPRACTICES\, OR AVOIDANCE MEASURES \nTHAT WE PUT IN PLACE\, AS WELL. \nSO\, THAT’S IN THERE AND THERE IS \nA CHECK PROCESS THAT GOES \nTHROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nPLANNING GROUP TO TAKE CARE OF \nTHINGS AS FAR AS CITIES AND \nCOUNTIES THAT’S A DIFFERENT \nGROUP CALLED EPWC BUT THEY \nHANDLE THE — IN THIS CASE\, IF \nYOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO SHUT \nDOWN A ROADWAY FROM THE CITY AND \nCOUNTY ENCROACHMENT TYPE PERMITS \nTHEY WORK ON THAT AS WELL. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I UNDERSTAND I \nWORKED FOR THE ARM I CORP OF \nENGINEERS AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL \nPROTECTION AGENCY FOR 43 YEARS \nSO I UNDERSTANDS ALL OF THAT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR \nANSWERING MY QUESTION. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: TO ANSWER THE \nQUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELECTRICAL \nTOWERS\, THE PERMIT IS — \nRESTRICTS THE ACTIVITIES TO \nPROJECTS THAT WOULDN’T REQUIRE \nANY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATORY \nMITIGATION. SO\, WHEN PG&E WOULD \nPROPOSE SOMETHING LARGE AND \nIMPACTFUL LIKE A TOWER \nREPLACEMENT\, OUR STAFF WOULD USE \nTHE ACTIVITY REVIEW PROCESS\, \nWHICH IS SPECIAL CONDITION OF \nTHE PERMIT TO ASSESS WHETHER \nTHAT ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH \nTHE PERMIT AUTHORIZATION \nAND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND \nWHETHER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nARE SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT \nWOULD REQUIRE COMP PENS TORE \nMITIGATION. SO THERE MIGHT BE \nSOME CASE WHERE IS A SPECIFIC \nTOWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT WOULD \nREQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT. \nHOWEVER\, THERE ARE SOME CASES \nWHERE PG&E\, I BELIEVE\, IS \nPLANNING ON REPLACING TOWERS IN \nDIFFERENT LOCATIONS\, AND THIS \nWOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS \nPERMIT WHEN THE RELOCATION OF \nTHE TOWER WOULD MOVE THE TOWER \nOUT OF BCDC JURISDICTION\, \nENTIRELY\, WILL MOVE THE TOWER \nFROM THE BAY JURISDICTION INTO \nTHE SHORELINE BAND\, OR THE \nMOVEMENT WOULD RESULT IN \nSIGNIFICANTLY LESS BAY FILL OR \nSIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED PUBLIC \nACCESS OR VIEWS. AND THE \nRELOCATION WOULD NOT HAVE \nSIGNIFICANTLY GREATER ADVERSE \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARED \nTO REPLACING THE TOWER IN THE \nSAME PLACE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT. THAT \nWAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT I \nHAD. SO\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? YOU’RE \nMUTED\, BARRY. \n>>BARRY NELSON: I’M GETTING AN \nECHO\, I’M NOT SURE WHY. \nCAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: TWO \nQUESTIONS. THE FIRST IS\, IT \nSOUNDS AS THOUGH THERE ARE A \nCOUPLE OF WAYS IN WHICH THIS \nPERMIT COULD PRODUCE PUBLIC OR \nENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS \nRELOCATING THE TOWERS AS ROWAN \nJUST MENTIONED\, POTENTIALLY\, \nOUTSIDE OF OUR BAY JURISDICTION\, \nAND EVEN TO OUR SHORELINE BANNER \nUPLAND JURISDICTIONS\, AND \nREDUCTION IN BAY FILL FROM \nCONSOLIDATED OR REMOVING BOARD \nWALKS\, GIVEN THERE ARE 25 MILES \nOF BOARD WALKS TO REPLACE\, \nTHAT’S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT \nNUMBER. SO I’M ASKING IF THE \nREPORTING PROCESS IN THIS PERMIT \nWILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THOSE \nBENEFITS OVER TIME\, IF THERE ARE \nINDEED THOSE KINDS OF \nSIGNIFICANT BENEFITS GIVEN THE \nSCALE OF OPERATIONS OVER THE \nLENGTH OF THIS PERMIT\, IS THE \nREPORTING GOING TO ALLOW US TO \nDETECT THOSE BENEFITS? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. FOR ALL OF \nTHE LARGER PROJECTS THAT ARE \nREQUIRED\, THE REVIEWS IN THE \nCLASS TWO OR CLASS THREE\, SUCH \nAS THE REPLACEMENT OF \nSTRUCTURES\, REMOVAL\, REPLACEMENT \nOF BOARD WALKS\, THAT KIND OF \nTHING\, THE ANNUAL REPORTS WOULD \nBE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THOSE \nPROJECTS BOTH THAT ARETIVELY\, \nAND WITH THE RAW DATA OF THINGS \nLIKE\, HOW — WHAT THE NET FILL \nDIFFERENCE WAS. SO THAT OUR \nSTAFF CAN REVIEW HOW THIS \nPROGRAM IS GOING AND SEE IF \nTHERE ARE UNEXPECTED BENEFITS OR \nTHINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO \nCHANGE THE NEXT TIME THE PERMIT \nCOMES UP FOR RENEWAL. \n>>BARRY NELSON: SECOND \nQUESTION. GIVEN — IF THIS WAS \nA LAND PERMIT F THIS WERE A \nCAPITAL PERMIT OF THIS SIZE AND \nSCALE AND SCOPE\, I AM CERTAIN \nTHAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRING \nSIGNIFICANT PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN \nOUR REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE \nMAXIMUM PUBLIC ACCESS CONSISTENT \nWITH A PROJECT. BUT THIS IS AN \nO&M PERMIT\, NOT A CAPITAL \nPERMIT. SO\, CAN YOU HELP US \nUNDERSTAND\, GIVEN THE SIZE OF \nTHIS PERMIT\, HOW STAFF HAS \nTHOUGHT ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nJUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE’RE — \nWE DON’T WANT TO DOUBLE DIP\, IF \nTHERE WERE CAPITAL — IF THERE \nWERE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS REGARDING FOR SOME OF \nTHESE PROJECTS WHEN THEY WERE \nORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED WE DON’T \nWANT TO DOUBLE DIP BUT AT THE \nSAME TIME WE WANT TO MAKE SURE \nWE’RE APPROPRIATELY THINKING \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS \nFOR BIG LONG-TERM O&M PROJECTS. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, AS WE \nWERE GOING THROUGH THE \nAPPLICATION PROCESS\, WE \nSERIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHETHER WE \nWOULD BE — WHATEVER THIS \nPROGRAM WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC \nACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. AND THE \nFACT IS THAT THE PROGRAM WOULD \nONLY INVOLVE ACTIVITIES ON \nEXISTING STRUCTURES. IT \nWOULDN’T INVOLVE ANY INCREASES \nIN USE OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN \nUSES. AND THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY \nPERMIT PUBLIC ACCESS IMPACTS. \nSO STAFF DETERMINED THAT THERE \nWASN’T AN APPROPRIATE NEXUS TO \nREQUIRE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS. \n>>BARRY NELSON: ARE THERE OTHER \nEXAMPLES OF LONG-TERM \nPERMITS LIKE THIS THAT DON’T \nHAVE PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. WE HAVE \nSEVERAL LONG-TERM O&M PERMITS \nWITH  DIFFERENT PUBLIC \nAGENCIES\, CALTRANS\, SANTA CLARA \nVALLEY WATER\, EAST BAY \nPARK DISTRICT\, CARGILL. THERE \nARE A LOT OF THEM. AND I DON’T \nBELIEVE THAT ANY OF THEM HAVE \nPUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS \nREQUIRED. \n>>BARRY NELSON: THAT’S ALL. IF \nI COULD — \n>>SPEAKER: — [INDISCERNIBLE]\n \n>>SPEAKER: APP UP AGAIN. \n>>BARRY NELSON: CAN YOU HEAR \nME? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>SPEAKER: THE PERM FOCUS IN \nPUBLIC ACCESS A LOT OF FOCUS IS \nACTUALLY AVOIDING IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS DURING THESE KINDS \nOF WORK THAT PG&E NEEDS TO KEEP \nELECTRICITY AND THE GAS \nFLOWING. \nTHAT’S REALLY WHAT THE PERMIT \nPROVIDES FOR IS MAKING SURE \nTHERE AREN’T SIGNIFICANT \nLONG-TERM IMPACTS TO THE \nEXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS WITH THE \nPROJECT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT \nPUBLIC ACCESS BUT IT WAS MORE IN \nTHAT LIGHT\, WE REALIZE THE \n99\, I DON’T KNOW THE NUMBER BUT \nMOST OF THESE THINGS ARE VERY \nSMALL LIKE REPLACING RESISTORS \nOR THINGS LIKE THAT\, THAT AREN’T \nPHENOMENAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: MY QUESTION \nIS ABOUT MAYBE THE LARGER \nPROBLEMS. YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE \nBIT ABOUT THE STAGING AREAS THAT \nMIGHT BE REQUIRED? I GUESS \nTHERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT \nTHAT THERE. BUT YOU TALK ABOUT \nBOARDWALKS\, BUT — WHAT KIND OF \nHEAVY EQUIPMENT DO YOU \nPOTENTIALLY NEED FOR\, LIKE\, THE \nWORK ON THE LARGER TOWERS? AND \nHOW MANY LARGE STAGING AREAS DO \nYOU ANTICIPATE HAVING TO BUILD \nAND POTENTIALLY MITIGATE FOR? \n>>CUYLER STAPLEMANN: THANK YOU \nFOR YOUR QUESTION. I CAN JUMP IN \nHERE. A LOT OF OUR ELECTRIC \nTRANSMISSION TOWERS ARE IN THE \nBAY. THEY DO HAVE BOARDWALK \nACCESS. BUT WE PERFORM A LOT OF \nWORK ON THOSE TOWERS\, ESPECIALLY \nAT THE TOPS OF THOSE TOWERS\, BY \nHELICOPTER. SO IMPORTANT — \nTHERE IS LOTS OF RESTRICTION \nWHERE IS WE CAN SAFELY FLY \nSPECIFIC DISTANCES WE CAN’T \nCROSS PUBLIC ROADS WITHOUT \nTRAFFIC CONTROL WE TRY TO \nLOCATION THOSE HELICOPTER \nLANDING ZONES AS CLOSE TO THE \nWORK LOCATIONS AS POSSIBLE IT’S \nA SAFETY ISSUE FOR OUR WORKERS \nAS WELL AS THE PUBLIC I CAN’T \nREALLY SPEAK TO THE VOLUME OF \nLANDING ZONES\, ZONES MAY BE \nREQUIRED PER YEAR BUT GENERALLY \nTHEY ARE LOCATED ON EXISTING \nPAVED SURFACES \nLOTS\, DISTURBED AREAS THEY’RE \nSTAGE A COUPLE OF POLES AND \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND SLIDE \nTHEM OUT TO THE WORK LOCATIONS\, \nIN THE CASE OF LARGER TOWER \nPROJECT THERE WOULD BE \nADDITIONAL TEMPORARY \nCONSTRUCTION EASTMENT OR WORK \nAREAS OUTSIDE OF OUR RIGHT OF \nWAY THAT WOULD NEED\, SORT OF\, A \nTEMPORARY RIGHT FROM THE \nPROPERTY OWNER\, AND THOSE WOULD \nGENERALLY BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY \nIN THE VICINITY OF THE TOWER DUE \nTO A TOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH\, \nTHOSE WORK AREAS YOU WOULD\, \nAS SMALL AS POSSIBLE TO REDUCE \nIMPACTS AND WE CAN’T ACCESS BY \nBARGE OFTENTIMES WE’LL HAVE \nEQUIPMENT ON BARGES AND THROW \nTHEM RIGHT UP TO THE TOWERS. \nBUT IN RARE OCCASIONS WE WILL \nNEED TO PLACE MATTING SOME REVE \nEQUIPMENT. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH THAT \nHELPS EITHER HELICOPTER OR BARGE \nBECAUSE YOU COULDN’T BRING HEAVY \nEQUIPMENT ALONG THE BOARDWALK. \nTHAT’S IT. \n>>SPEAKER: THE PERMITS WOULD \nALSO INCLUDE SPECIAL CONDITION \nREQUIRING RESTORATION OF \nTEMPORARY IMPACTS TO TIDAL MARSH \nIF THEY’RE EXPECTED IN A \nPROJECT. AND THESE ACTIVITIES \nTHAT ARE AUTHORIZED BY THIS \nPERMIT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE \nTHAT PG&E EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO \nBE PASSIVELY RESTORED WITHIN TWO \nYEARS. SO\, SOME OF THE LARGER \nTOWER REPLACEMENTS THAT WOULD \nREQUIRE MORE VEGETATION \nCLEARING\, MORE MATTING\, THOSE \nMIGHT BE KICKED OUT OF THIS \nPERMIT AND REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL \nPERMIT IF THE RESTORATION WOULD \nBE EXPECTED TO TAKE LONGER\, OR \nTHERE WOULD BE PERMIT IMPACTS. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN GUYS \nHEAR ME? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>SPEAKER: SPEAK UP A LITTLE \nBIT. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: CAN YOU HEAR \nME NOW? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: IT’S THE \nSETTINGS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: WE’RE GETTING \nSOME FEEDBACK HERE. QUICK \nQUESTION. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF \nTHE DETAIL IN YOUR \nPRESENTATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nCAN BARELY HEAR YOU ANDY. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN \nDESCRIBE HOW YOU ARE \nCONSIDERING\, AS YOU PREPARE AND \nUPGRADE FACILITIES\, I ASSUME YOU \nARE THINKING ALSO ABOUT THE \nFUTURE CLIMATE IN WHICH THESE \nFACILITIES WILL NEED TO BE \nOPERATED. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE \nBIT ABOUT THAT? AND WHETHER AS \nWE’RE WORKING TO IN THE AREA \nAROUND THE BAY WHETHER THERE ARE \nPOSSIBILITIES OF\, SORT OF\, \nMULTI-BENEFIT KIND OF WORK THAT \nYOU CAN DO — BECAUSE I KNOW YOU \nDON’T GO OUT TO THESE SITES \nREALLY THAT OFTEN. \n>>JON WILCOX: WE HAVE TEAMS \nLOOKING AT SEA LEVEL RISE AND \nIMPACT. WE HAVE SUBSTATIONS \nTHAT ARE CLOSE\, RAVENSWOOD IN \nPARTICULAR\, THINGS THAT ARE \nTRIGGERED FOR SEA LEVEL RISE WE \nSPEND A LOT OF TIME IF TOWERS \nNEED TO BE RAISED\, TO ADDRESS \nTHAT\, AND THOSE ISSUES OCCUR. \nWE HAVE A BIG TEAM AND THEY’RE \nDEFINITELY SPENDING TIME \nREVIEWING THAT. AND SOME OF THE \nPROJECT WORK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE \nIS PROTECTING SEA LEVEL RISE \nTHOSE ARE PROJECTS COMING \nTHROUGH RIGHT NOW\, TO YOUR \nQUESTION ABOUT MULTI-BENEFIT\, I \nTHINK THAT’S GOING TO GO TO EACH \nPROJECT WHAT WE CAN DO. WE WORK \nCLOSELY WITH THE JOINT VENTURE \nAND A LOT OF GROUPS SEEING WHAT \nWE CAN DO TO WORK TOGETHER. WE \nDIDN’T — WE HAVE THESE OTHER \nPROGRAMMATICS AS I MENTIONED \nBEFORE AND THOSE TRIGGER A LOT \nOF MITIGATION OUT THERE\, LIKE \nFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND \nCFW AND WE’RE WORKING WITH THEM \nTO CREATE LARGE-SCALE MITIGATION \nPROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO POSTAGE \nSTAMP STUFF DONE BEFORE \nHISTORICALLY THOSE ARE THINGS WE \nCAN DO TO WORK WITH JOINT \nVENTURE AND BOTH FEDS AND STATE \nAGENCIES AND LAND AGENCIESES TO \nCREATE BENEFITS RESTORATION \nOPPORTUNITIES. THERE ARE AREAS\, \nWE’RE WORKING WITH A MITIGATION \nBANK DEVELOPER WHERE WE’RE \nSWITCHING AN EASEMENT TO AN \nARIEL EASEMENT THAT WOULD NEVER \nPUT ANYTHING DOWN\, DON EDWARDS \nREFUGE RIGHT NOW THOSE ARE THE \nTHINGS COMING UP\, BUT BENEFICIAL \nASPECTS SEA LEVEL RISE ARE HIGH \nIN OUR MIND WE HAVE ASSETS THAT \nARE IN THE MIDST OF BEING \nIMPACTED. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THAT’S KIND \nOF WHAT I FIGURED AND I WANT TO \nMAKE SURE ONCE YOU’RE OUT THERE \nTOUCHING THESE FACILITIES THAT \nEVERYTHING — ALL THE CAPITAL WE \nINVEST IN THIS COMMUNITY NOW \nNEEDS TO BE DONE IN THAT \nMANNER. \nTHAT’S GREAT. THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I HAD A QUICK \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR JON\, YOU \nREFERRED TO SOMETHING CALLED A \nJOINT VENTURE\, JON\, AND I WAS \nCURIOUS WHAT THAT WAS WITH \nREGARD TO THE MITIGATION \nPROJECTS THAT YOU DO. \n>>JON WILCOX: IT’S THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE\, WE \nSIT ON THAT BOARD AS WELL — I’M \nSORRY\, THE BAY AREA JOINT \nVENTURE PROGRAM\, THAT WE SIT ON\, \nWE’RE EXPLORING WITH THEM \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR RESTORATION \nTHAT EXIST OUT THERE CURRENTLY \nRIGHT. WE CAN LEVERAGE\, FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WE HAVE PROPERTY CALLED \nANTIOCH DUNES THAT WAS PART OF \nTHE REFUGE\, WE DONATED THAT BACK \nTO THE REFUGE TWO YEARS AGO IT’S \nA BIG EXPANSION. WEIGH DO WHAT \nWE CAN AS FAR AS WORKING \nTOGETHER\, THE BENEFITS ON \nMITIGATION SIDE\, BUT ALSO \nBENEFITS WHAT WE’RE CAN DO AND \nPUT INTO A REFUGE TYPE SITUATION \nOR RESTORATION\, RIGHT THOSE ARE \nTHE THINGS WE’RE LOOKING AT. \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nGREAT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nDON’T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS \nRAISED. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nAPPROVE TO CLOSE — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCLOSE THE HEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PARDON ME. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I MOVE \nTO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND I HAVE A SECOND \nFROM COMMISSIONER \nMOULTON-PETERS. THANK YOU. IS \nTHERE ANY OPPOSITION TO CLOSING \nTHE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING \nNONE. IT IS CLOSED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO TO BEGIN THE \nDISCUSSION\, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT’S WHAT’S COMING UP \nNEXT. \nGO AHEAD\, RON. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO\, I MOVED IT. \nIS THERE A SECOND? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nNO. \nWE NEED TO HAVE IT BEFORE \nYOU GO AHEAD \nROWAN. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: STAFF \nRECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF \nCONDITIONS OF PROPOSED PERMANENT \nAPPLICATION NUMBER 202300200 FOR \nFIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR OPERATIONS \nAND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL \nGAS TRANSMISSION AND \nDISTRIBUTION FACILITIES \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA \nINCLUDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRING ACTIVITY PROPOSAL FOR \nSTAFF REVIEW INCLUDING ANNUAL \nREPORTING SPECIES PROTECTION \nINCLUDING RESTORATION TEMPORARY \nDISTURBANCES COMPLIANCE WITH \nAPPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK \nWINDOWS AND COMPLIANCE WITH \nAGENCY PROGRAMMATIC PERMITS AND \nINDIVIDUAL PERMITS CONDITIONS \nREGARDING AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION \nMITIGATION TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS. THE STAFF \nBELIEVE THAT THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS \nOF THE MCATEER-PETRIS AND THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MAY I ADD \nSOMETHING ROWAN\, WHICH IS THIS \nRECOMMENDATION IS FOR ITEM \nEIGHT\, NOT ITEM NINE. SIMPLY \nFOR ITEM EIGHT\, WHICH IS — IS \nTHAT CORRECT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. NUMBER \nNINE IS DIFFERENT. I WOULD LIKE \nTO MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nFOR THIS PERMIT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IS \nTHERE A SECOND? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS. \nAND I ASSUME THE APPLICANT \nACCEPTS THE CONDITIONS. BUT I \nWOULD LIKE TO HEAR AFFIRMATION. \n>>ION WILCOX: WE DO. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND\, ZACK\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK FOR THEIR \nTHOROUGHNESS\, IN DEVELOPING \nTHOSE CONDITIONS\, AS SOMEONE WHO \nWAS IN CHARGE OF THE NPDS \nPERMITTING PROGRAM FOR EPA MANY \nYEARS AGO\, I KNOW WRITING THESE \nPERMITS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT’S \nEASY\, AND I ALSO WANTED TO THANK \nPG&E FOR AGREEING TO NOT ONLY \nMAINTAIN WHAT YOU HAVE GOT BUT \nTRY TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND VISUAL ASPECT \nOF IT\, AS WELL. THIS IS THE \nTIME WHEN WE SHOULD BE DOING \nTHAT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE \nTWO COMMENTS VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nCAN TAKE THE SLIDE DOWN SO THAT \nI CAN SEE THE \nPLEASE? THANK YOU. I WOULD \nASK FOR A MOTION ON THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I MOVED IT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. TECHNICALLY WE NEED \nTO MAKE THE MOTION AFTER IT \nCOMES IN. IS THERE A SECOND FOR \nTHE MOTION? COMMISSIONER GORIN \nSECONDS. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE \nIS NO FURTHER COMMENTS\, SIERRA\, \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THIS \nQUESTION ON ITEM EIGHT. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSION PER HASZ? \nCOMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPATA? CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF \n14 YESES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. I \nWOULD NOW ASK \nFOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON \nITEM NINE. \n>>SPEAKER: THE STAFF RECOMMENDS \nAPPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OF THE \nPROPOSED PERMIT APPLICATION \nNUMBER 202300300MD FOR THE \nFIVE-YEAR PROGRAM OF OPERATION \nAND MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL AND \nGAS TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION \nFACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF \nSUISUN MARSH THE PERMIT WOULD \nINCLUDE THE SAME SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS AS 2023002. THE \nSTAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROJECT \nIS CONSISTENT WITH THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT. SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY PLAN\, SUISUN MARSH \nPROTECTION ACT\, AND SUISUN MARSH \nPRESERVATION ACT\, AND THE SUISUN \nMARSH PROTECTION PLAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nTHEN WILL YOU TAKE DOWN THE \nSLIDE\, PLEASE? IS THERE A \nMOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NINE? \nCOMMISSIONER PINE\, I BELIEVE \nYOUR HAND IS US. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND I’LL SECOND \nTHE MOTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND SECONDS. \nIF THERE ARE NO FURTHER \nCOMMENTS\, SIERRA\, PLEASE CALL \nTHE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSION ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: HASZ? \nCOMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBALL? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON \nPETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER. \n>>DAVE PINE: PINE YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZAPATA? \nWASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF \n15 YESES ZERO NOS AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU ALL AS FOR ALL YOUR \nWORK. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS \nGOING FORWARD. ITEM TEN PUBLIC \nHEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON \nAPPLICATION FROM REGIS HOMES \nBAY AREA LLC TO REDEVELOP \nAPPROXIMATELY 2.54 ACRE NEW \nRESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING \nOF 56 FOR SALE TOWNHOUSES AS \nWELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS \nOPEN SPACE AREAS WITHIN THE BAY \nAND 100 FEET OF SHORELINE BAND \nAT 505 EAST BAY SHORELINE ROAD \nREDWOOD CITY\, BCDC SHORELINE \nDEVELOPMENT PERMITS MANAGER WILL \nMAKE THE PRESENTATION AND \nINTRODUCE THE APPLICANT \nSPEAKERS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: BE RIGHT \nTHERE WE’RE DOING A \nTECHNOLOGICAL FIX. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: WE’RE \nWORKING ON SOME SOUND IN THE \nROOM. GIVE US ONE MINUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS I’M KATHARINE PAN \nSHORELINE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM \nMANAGER AT BEA R BCDC I’LL BE \nPROVIDING A BRIEF SUMMARY OF \nTHIS NEXT APPLICATION NUMBER \n2023005 FOR RESIDENTIAL \nDEVELOPMENT AT 505 EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD IN REDWOOD CITY SAN \nMATEO COUNTY I’LL INTRODUCE \nREGIS HOMES WHO WILL SHARE THE \nDETAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THEIR PROJECT WITH \nYOU. SUMMARY FOR THIS PROJECT \nWAS MAILED ON APRIL 5TH\, 2024 \nAND STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nFOLLOWED ON MAY 10TH\, 2024. \nALL RIGHT.   TO ORIENT YOU\, \nTHE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN \nREDWOOD CITY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY \nNEARBY LANDMARKS INCLUDE BEAR \nISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE AND \nSMITH SLEW TO THE NORTH AND PORT \nOF REDWOOD CITY CARGILLS REDWOOD \nCITY SALT PLANT NEAR THE EAST \nBEAR ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE \nPART OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN \nDESIGNATED WILDLIFE PRIORITY \nUSED R USE AREA BUT ITSELF IS \nNOT PART OF PRIORITY AREAS. THE \nHALF ACRE SITUATED JUST OFF \nWHIPPLE AVENUE OVERPASS \nOFF-HIGHWAY 101 PREVIOUS USE OF \nTHE SITE WAS FOR METAL RECYCLING \nSUPPLY OPERATION DATING BACK TO \n1963 THERE ARE NO EXISTING BCDC \nPERMITS ON THE SITE. TO THE \nSOUTH IS FORMER TOYOTA 101 \nDEARLISHIP AND EAST 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE ROAD CURRENTLY VACANT \nMOVIE THEATRE COMPLEX IN THE \nPROCESS OF REDEVELOPMENT. THE \nPROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORING \nDEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE \nCOMMISSION IN JUNE OF LAST \nYEAR. \nNOTABLE FEATURES TO THE NORTH OF \nTHE SITE WE FREQUENTLY REFERENCE \nIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nIMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IS A \nTIDALING INFLUENCE DITCH WITH \nMUTED TIDAL MARSH HABITAT PART \nOF THE JURISDICTION’S NORTHED \nOF THAT IS PAVED TRAIL THE LEVY \nTRAIL RECOMMENDATION AND NORTHS \nOF THAT IS WHAT WE REFER TO AS \nTHE UNNAMED SLEW WHICH IS A \nTRANSCRIBETARY OF SMITH SLEW AND \nNORTH OF THAT IS THE BAY AREA \nISLANDS TRAIL SEGMENT THE TIDAL \nDITCH IS CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING \nMUTED TIDESAL MARSH HABITAT \nLIMITED DUE TO SIZE AND \nISOLATION PROVIDING SUITABLE \nHABITAT FOR MARSH HARVEST MOUSE \nAND SHOE\, BEAR \nISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE \nNORTH ARE BOTH BIOLOGICAL \nHABITAT FOR A VARIETY OF SPECIAL \nSTATUS SPECIES\, IMAGINES OF THE \nSITE TAKEN AT HIGH AND LOW TIDE. \nREGIS HOMES BAY AREA LLC IS \nPROPOSING TO REMEDIATE AND \nREDEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE ROAD WITH \nRESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME PROJECT \nCONSISTING OF 56 TOTAL UNITS \nINCLUDING EIGHT AFFORDABLE UNITS \nAS WELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC \nACCESS OPEN SPACE AREAS 1.39 \nACRES OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE \nWITHIN THE COMMISSION’S BAY \nSHORELINE BAN JURISDICTION \nINCLUDING THREE TOWNHOME \nBUILDINGS IN A PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREA IN SHORELINE TRAIL. DUE TO \nTHE PRESENCE OF TIDAL MARSH IN A \nDITCH THE BAY SHORELINE IN THIS \nAREA IS CONSIDERED THE UPLAND \nEDGE OF MARSH VEGETATION UP TO \nFIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA LEVEL \nTHE DIAGRAM YOU CAN SEE IT IN \nRED. THE PROJECT WILL INVOLVE \n600 FRIEFR FEET OF NEW BAY FILL \nCAN I HAVING OF SMALL PORTIONS \nOF NEW SHORELINE TRAIL OVERLOOKS \nCAN’T LEVERED OVER THE DITCH \nFROM A RETAINING WALL SITUATED \nIN THE SHORELINE BAND MAYBE HARD \nTO SEE HERE THE PARTS CAN’T \nLEVERING CROSS OVER THE BAY \nJURISDICTION. DEDICATED OPEN \nSPACE TO MAINTAIN A VISUAL \nCONNECTION TO BEAR ISLANDS \nWITHIN THE SHORELINE BAND THE \nSITE WILL INCLUDE SITE \nPREPARATION REMOVING ALL \nEXISTING SITE FEATURES \nREMEDIATING PCB CONTAMINATED \nSOILS RAISING ELEVATIONS \nAPPROXIMATELY 5 TO 7 FEET THE \nPROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FEW 550 \nFOOT RETAINING WALL ALONG THE \nDITCH 3\, 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL \nBUILDINGS WITH 20 TOWNHOME UNITS \nASSOCIATED CIRCULATION AREAS AND \nAPPROXIMATELY 16\,560 FEET OF \nPROJECT PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS TAKING PLACE \nOFF-SITE ON PUBLICLY OWNED \nPROPERTY. THE PROJECT WILL \nPROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 18\,800 \nSQUARE FEET OF DEDICATED \nPUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC ACCESS IN \nAN AREA WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS \nDOESN’T CURRENTLY EXIST THIS \nINCLUDES 14\,250 SQUARE FEET OF \nDEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE \nBAY AND SHORELINE BAND AND 180 \nFOOT OF DEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS \nOUTSIDE OF COMMISSION’S \nJURISDICTION. IMPROVEMENTS IN \nTHE PUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL \nINCLUDE A TEN FOOT WIDE CONCRETE \nPATH WITH 210 FOOT SHOULDERS ON \nEACH SIDE THAT WILL CONNECT \nROADWAY TO PLAN IMPROVEMENTS AT \n557 EAST BAY SHORE OVERLOOKS \nOBSERVATION DECK DELIVERED OVER \nTHE TIDAL DITCH WITH VIEWS \nTOWARD THE BEAR ISLANDS AND \nPLAZA AT THE TRAIL ENTRANCE\, \nPERMIT IS FIVE FEVEN EAST BAY \nSHORE SITES TIDESAL TO \nFACILITIES ON THE SIDE. IN \nADDITION PROJECT WILL PROVIDE \n4\,550 TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS\, INCLUDING NEW \nTRAIL PLAZA SIDEWALK CONNECTION \nTO THE BEAR ISLAND TRAIL HEAD \nAND SIDEWALK ALONG THE EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD LEADING TO FIVE NEW \nPUBLIC SHORE PARKING SPACES IN \nTHE RIGHT OF WAY S CONTAMINATION \nIN THE SOIL AND SEDIMENT ON THE \nSITE IN THE TIDAL DITCH THE \nWATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IS \nCONDUCTED THROUGH SEPARATE \nRELATED REMEDIATION PROJECTS \nINCLUDING RENEEDIATION OF THE \nON-SITE AREA SHOWN HERE IN \nPURPLE OR BLUE THIS WORK BASED \nON-SITE CLEAN UP PLAN DEVELOPED \nUNDER OVERSIGHT ASSIST WATER \nBOARD INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION OF \nTHE RETAINING WALL EXCAVATING \nCONTAMINATED SOIL AROUND THE \nPLAN UTILITY LINES AND GRADING \nAND CAPPING CONTAMINATED SOIL \nUNDER GEO TEXTILE AND IMPORTING \nCLEAN SOIL. IN ADDITION ANOTHER \nPROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED BY A \nDIFFERENCE APPLICANT TO \nREMEDIATE THE SITE BANK IN \nYELLOW AND ORANGE SITES IN AREAS \nBELOW THE RETAINING WALL AND \nDITCH MEETING REMEDIATION \nPROJECTS COMPLETED TO THE \nCONSTRUCTION OF ANY HOUSING OR \nPUBLIC ACCESS COMPONENTS THE \nPROJECT SITE BANK AREA WILL \nBECOME DEDICATED OPEN SPACE. \nTHE PROJECT WILL ELEVATE THE \nENTIRE SITE TO 5 TO 7 FEET ABOVE \nEXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE OF \n13 FEET AND VD88 EXCEPT FOR THE \nNORTHWEST CORNER PORTION OF THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS ELEVATIONS \nDECREASE TO AROUND 11 FEET TO \nCONFORM WITH EXISTING GRADES IN \nTHE CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY. \nSTORM TIDAL LEVEL PROJECTS AND \nCONTRACTS WITH PROPOSED GRANT \nAWARDS OVERED TO RISE 12.SKWIEN \nFEET 88 FROM CURRENT LEVELS OF \n10.69 FEET ON HIGH EMISSIONS \nSCENARIO PROVIDED BY THE \nOCEANARY PROTECTION COUNCIL \nUNDER 2018 SEA LEVEL RISE \nGUIDANCE. AT THE PROPOSED \nELEVATIONS MOST PROJECT AND \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL BE \nRESILIENT TO FLOODING FROM THE \n100 YEAR STORM TIED IN 2050 \nUNDER MEDIUM HIGH RISK HIGH \nEMISSION SCENARIO WITH EXCEPTION \nOF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTHWEST \nPART OF THE SITE. \nHOWEVER THE 100 YEAR STORM TIME \nIS PROJECTED TO REACH 13.6 FEET \nBY 2060 AND 14.5 FEET BY 2070 \nMEANING PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS \nWOULD BE AT RISK OF FLOODING \nBEFORE THE END OF THE CENTURY. \nGROUNDS WATER LEVELS POTENTIAL \nTO COMPROMISE PROJECT STORM \nDRAINS BY 2050 AND PROJECTED TO \nBE AT OUR ABOVE GROUNDS LEVEL BY \n2100. THIS SLIDE SHOWS WHAT \nTHAT WILL LOOK LIKE BASED ON \nCURRENT CONDITIONS NEARLY ALL OF \nTHE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD BE \nFACING IMPACTS BY THIS TIME. \nTHE APPLICANTS CONTEMPLATED \nADAPTATION STRATEGIES DURING THE \nDESIGN PHASE INCLUDING RAISING \nTHE EDGE CHATTY RETAINING WALL \nAND ELEVATES THE MULTI-USE TRAIL \nBUT HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO A \nSINGLE ADAPTATION STRATEGY AT \nTHIS TIME STAFF HAS AGREED TO \nMONITOR THE SITE AND ENGAGE IN \nAN ADAPTATION PLANNING PROCESS \nTHAT WILL BEGIN BY 2050 OR AT \nANY EARLY STAGES OR ANY SIGNS \nMUCH FLOODING TO REASSESS SITE \nCONDITIONS USING BEST AVAILABLE \nSCIENCE AT THE AND DEVELOP AND \nIMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE ADAPTATION \nMEASURES TO AVOID IMPACT ON THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA BECAUSE THE \nPROJECT INVOLVES SALE OF TOWN \nHOMES AND EXPECT PERMIT TO BE \nTAKEN OVER BY HOMEOWNERS \nASSOCIATION REQUIRES NOTICE TO \nBUYERS THAT CLEARLY INDICATES \nRESPONSIBILITIES OF THE \nPERMITTEE TO MAINTAIN AND ADAPT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA FOR THE LIFE \nOF THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION \nFOR CONTENTS OF THAT NOTICE IS \nINCLUDED IN APPENDIX C OF THE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. ACCORDING \nTO THE COMMISSION’S VULNERABLE \nMAPPING TOOL THE PROJECT SITE IS \nLOCATED WITHIN A BLOCK \nIDENTIFIED AS HAVING LOW SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY GIVEN INDUSTRIAL \nCOMMERCIAL NATURE OF SURROUNDING \nDEVELOPMENT MUCH OF THE AREA \nSHOWS HAVING LOW SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY ALSO IDENTIFIED IS \nHIGHEST CONTAMINATION VULNERABLE \nWHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH NEARBY \nHAZARDOUS CLEAN UP ACTIVITIES \nGROUNDS WATER THREATS HAZARDOUS \nWASTE FACILITIES AND SOLID WASTE \nFACILITIES. PROJECT DESIGN \nAPPLICANT CONDUCTED OUTREACH TO \nCOMMUNITY GROUPS TO IDENTIFY \nENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL EQUITY \nCONCERNS\, DESIRES FOR AFFORDABLE \nHOUSING AND COMMUNITIES IMPROVED \nSHORELINE ACCESS TO TRAIL \nCONNECTIONS AND PARKING ISSUES \nAPPLICANTS PROPOSING TO MAKE \nOFFSITE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SEGMENTS \nALONG EAST BAY SHORE ROAD AND \nFIVE DESIGNATED PUBLIC SHORE \nPARKING SPACES. THE PROJECT HAS \nBEEN DESIGNED TO INCLUDE EIGHT \nBELOW MARKET RATE UNITS THAT \nWILL BE AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS \nMAKING UP TO ONE HUNDREDS 20% OF \nTHE AREA MEDIAN INCOME WHICH IS \nAPPROXIMATELY 21\,000 FOR A \nFAMILY OF FOUR. RELEVANT POLICY \nISSUES RAISED BY PROJECT INCLUDE \nWEATHER PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS \nIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE CONSISTENT \nWITH THE PROJECT OTHERWISE \nCANNOT WITH MCATEER-PETRIS\, BAY \nPLAN IN TERMS OF BAY FILL \nAPPEARANCE AND DESIGN SCENIC \nVIEWS WATER QUALITY MITIGATION \nFISH AND WILDLIFE AND CLIMATE \nCHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAND SOCIAL EQUITY. WITH THAT I \nWOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE KRYSTA \nHEINS VICE PRESIDENT FOR \nDEVELOPMENT AT SEARS REGIS HOMES \nBAY AREA TO PRESENT THE \nPROPOSAL IN GREATER DETAIL \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I WANT TO \nREMIND FOLKS THAT WE ARE CLOSE \nTO A QUORUM. SO\, PLEASE WE NEED \nYOU TO STAY. THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>SPEAKER: THANKS \nKATHARINE. \nAPPRECIATE THAT. I’M CHRIS \nDEHAN WITH REGIS HOMES JOINED BY \nJEFF SMITH ALSO WITH REGIS HOMES \nAND OUR DESIGN TEAM. REGIS \nHOMES IS A LOCAL HOME BUILDER \nAND DEVELOPER BASED IN SAN \nMATEO. GREAT. THANK YOU. \nREGIS HOME BUILDER BASED IN SAN \nMATEO WE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS \nFOR 30 YEARS WE HAVE A LONG \nTRACK RECORD DELIVERING HOUSING \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AND HERE \nIN REDWOOD CITY INCLUDING THE \nTHREE PROJECTS YOU SEE ON THE \nSCREEN BEFORE YOU. WE’RE REALLY \nEXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. \nHERE TO TELL YOU MORE ABOUT OUR \nHOUSING PROPOSAL AT 505 EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD. I WOULD LIKE TO \nSTART BY THANKING BCDC STAFF WHO \nHELPED US GET HERE TODAY\, \nINCLUDING KATHARINE\, YURIE\, \nJESSICA\, TONY\, ANDREA\, ETHAN\, \nAND SO MANY MORE. IT’S BEEN A \nHUGE TEAM. THANK YOU\, ALL. 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE IS A SMALL BUT \nIMPORTANT HOUSING PROPOSAL \nTHAT’S A BROADER TRANSFORMATION \nOF THE BEAR ISLAND NEIGHBORHOOD \nTHAT STARTED WITH CITIES GENERAL \nPLAN UPDATE BACK IN 2010 THE \nVISION IS MIXED USE WATERFRONT \nNEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTING OF \nHOUSING OF MIXED USES\, \nDEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES LIKE \nBLUE HARBOR VILLE AS MARINA AND \nOF COURSE THE APPROVAL OF 480 \nUNIT PROJECT NEXT DOOR AT 557 \nEAST BAY SHORE WE’RE PART OF \nTHAT TRANSFORMATION. OUR \nPROJECT SITE IS THE GATEWAY TO \nTHAT NEIGHBORHOOD\, YOU GET OFF \nAT WHIPPLE AND COME ON TO \nBAYSHORE ROAD THE SITE IS \nWALKABLE TO DOWNTOWN\, AND \nINCLUDES RESOURCES TO BEAR \nISLANDS AND WILDLIFE REFUGE. \nTHIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY \nTHERE ARE NO TREES NO \nAPPEAL\, THE BUILDINGS ARE AGING. \nIT’S LACKING BASIC PUBLIC \nACCESS AND SAFETY MEASURES LIKE \nA SIDEWALK STREET TREES\, \nPARKING\, NOTHING CHATTY KIND. \nSO TODAY WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO \nTRANSFORM THIS SITE. NOT ONLY \nCAN WE BUILD NEW HOUSING\, WE CAN \nALSO BEAUTIFY THE ENTRANCE TO \nTHE NEIGHBORHOODS\, WE CAN CREATE \nNEW PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BAY \nFRONT\, AND ADD MUCH NEEDED \nSAFETY FEATURES TO THE GATEWAY \nSITE. I WANT TO FILL IN A FEW \nGAPS HERE. \nJUST OVER TWO AND A HALF ACRES \nTHIS\, IS A SMALL SITE IN THE \nGRAND SCHEME OF THINGS WE’RE \nEXCITED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nTURN IT INTO 56 NEW HOMES \nINCLUDING THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE \nHOMES THAT KATHARINE MENTIONED. \nLET’S SEE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE \nDITCH AND LEVY TRAILS. SO\, I \nWON’T GO THROUGH THAT. I WANT \nTO MENTION FEATURES OF THE SITE \nDESIGN. WE HAVE BROKEN UP THE \nHOMES INTO NINE BUILDINGS ACROSS \nTHE STATE TO AVOID CREATING TOO \nMUCH MASS. WE HAVE PASEOS \nRUNNING THROUGH THE SITE TO \nENHANCE VIEWS TO CREATE VIEW \nCORRIDORS AND ENHANCE CONNECTION \nTHROUGH TO THE BAY. WE MAXIMIZE \nLANDSCAPING ACROSS THE SITE YOU \nCAN SEE THAT HERE AND INCLUDED A \nMODEST PRIVATE OUTDOOR AMENITY \nSPACE FOR RESIDENTS IN THE LOWER \nRIGHT HAND CORNER BUT TRIED TO \nMAKE MOST OF THIS AS PUBLIC AS \nPOSSIBLE. I’LL SHARE \nARCHITECTURE NEXT. HOMES ARE \nTHREE STORY TALL\, ARCHITECTURE \nIS CONTEMPORARY WITH MIX OF \nMATERIALS PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE\, \nTHREE LEVELS\, ABOVE GRADE THAT \nWAS EXCEPTIONAL BECAUSE WE \nWANTED THE PUBLIC SPACE ALONG \nTHE TRAIL TO FEEL PUBLIC SO WE \nELEVATED THE PRIVATE OUTDOOR \nSPACES. HERE IS A VIEW OF THE \nTRAIL WITH THE DITCH IN THE \nFOREGROUND AND THE BAY AND \nWILDLIFE REFUGE IN THE \nBACKGROUND WE’RE PROUD TO OFFER \nA FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH BAY TRAIL \nSECTION HERE THAT CONSISTS OF \nTEN FOOT CENTER WALKWAY WITH TWO \nFOOT SHOULDERS ON EITHER SIDE \nFOR MULTI-MODAL USE\, WE HAVE \nCAN’T LEVERED OVERLOOKS WE CALL \nNODES WITH INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE \nAND PERFORMINGS TO ENHANCE THE \nPUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND USE OF THE \nTRAIL. WE HAVE PASEOS RUNNING \nTHROUGH AND EMPHASIS AND \nCONNECTION THROUGH THE BAY\, \nPRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES \nDELINEATED WITH LANDSCAPING AND \nNOT FENCES TRYING TO CREATE AN \nOPEN EXPERIENCE. SO IN ADDITION \nTO HELPING ADDRESS THE HOUSING \nSHORTAGE THIS PROJECT OFFERS A \nNUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITY \nBENEFITS INCLUDING THE \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE \nTALKED BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT \nTHAT’S 15% OF THE OVERALL HOMES \nAT THE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL \nTHAT WAS AN INCREASE FROM OUR \nRIM REQUIREMENT OF 10%. THE NEW \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE \nEASEMENTS TOGETHER ARE OVER \n20\,000 SQUARE FEET MORE THAN 18% \nOF OUR SITE AREA NOT INCLUDING \nOFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS I’LL TALK \nABOUT NEXT. WE’RE EXCITED TO \nOFFER SIGNIFICANT BIKE \nPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS \nADAPTATION FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nAND MORE THAT I’LL OUTLINE IN \nACKNOWLEDGE SLIDES AND NEW \nDEVELOPMENT WILL BRING \nSIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND \nINFRASTRUCTURE FEES AND OF \nCOURSE ENHANCED PROPERTY TAX \nREVENUE TO THE CITY TO FURTHER \nSUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE \nAREA. \nI WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THESE ARE \nFOR SALE HOMES WHICH IS GOING TO \nHELP THE CITY MEET ITS GOAL OF \nINCREASING OWNERSHIP HOUSE STOCK \nAS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THERE \nHAS BEEN DEVELOPMENT IN REDWOOD \nCITY LION SHARE OF WHICH IS \nAPARTMENT HOMES THIS IS A BADLY \nNEEDED UNDERSERVED SEGMENT OF \nTHE MARKET THOSE AFFORDABLE \nUNITS WILL ALSO BE OFFERED FOR \nSALE WHICH IS FAIRLY RARE. AT \nTHE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL \nPERFECT FOR FIRST SPONSORED AND \nESSENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMUNITY AT MARKET RATE HOMES \nSIZE AT THIS PRICE POINT TOWN \nHOMES ARE PERFECT FOR FIRST TIME \nHOME BUYERS WHICH ARE\, SORT OF\, \nMOST UNDER SERVED SEGMENT OF THE \nMARKET. I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE \nTRAIL AND HOW WE DESIGNED IT. \nWITH THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING \nPUBLIC ACCESS WHILE MINIMIZING \nANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE BAY \nOLDER IN OUR DESIGN PROCESS WE \nENGAGED BROADLY TO COMPLETE A \nBIOLOGICAL STUDY TO LOOK AT THE \nDITCH AND TIDAL VEGETATION IN IT \nAND COMPLETED A JURISDICTIONAL \nDETERMINATION WITH THE ARMY CORP \nBASED ON THAT JURISDICTIONAL \nDETERMINATION WE RECONFIGURED \nOUR SITE PLAN\, UNDERSTANDING \nWHERE THE DITCH AND BAY IS AND \nDESIGN EVERYTHING AROUND THAT \nRATHER THAN PUSHING INTO IT. \nWORKING WITH BCDC STAFF WE ADDED \nA CAN’T LEVER ALONG THE TRAIL TO \nACHIEVE THE FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH \nBAY TRAIL SECTION WHILE AVOIDING \nPHYSICAL IMPACTS INTO THE \nDITCH. \nWE’RE AWARE OF THE RISK SEA \nLEVEL RISE POSES TO THE \nCOMMUNITY AND WE’RE COMMITTED TO \nDOING OUR PART TO PREPARE THE \nCOMMUNITY FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS \nOUR PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SEA \nWALL ALONG THE DITCH TO HELP US \nBUILD UP THE SITE ENABLING US TO \nADD NEW PUBLIC ACCESS WHILE \nMAINTAINING FEASIBLE UNIT COUNT \nTHE SEA WALL WAS PIVOT ALL TO \nOUR SITE PLAN AND ENABLING US TO \nRAISE THE SITE UP BETWEEN 5 AND \n7 FEET ACROSS THE SITE PROVIDING \nPROTECTION OF 2100 MEDIAN HIGH \nWATER ALIGN AND ADAPTABLE TO 100 \nYEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONS IF NEEDED \nIN THE FUTURE. I WANT TO \nCLARIFY CONTEXT\, BEYOND THE \nDRAINAGE DITCH WE TALKED ABOUT\, \nTHE LEVEE AND SLEW AT BUYER BARE \nISLANDS REFUGE THERE IS AN \nEXISTING BAY TRAIL SEGMENT IN \nGREEN HERE IN BLUE I WANT TO \nPOINT OUT THE OTHER PUBLIC \nACCESS WALK WAYS LIKE THE PG \nLEVEE TRAIL AND WALKWAYS FROM \nOTHER NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE \nAREA AND THEN IN YELLOW YOU CAN \nSEE THE NEW TRAIL SEGMENTS FROM \nOUR PROJECT SITE AND 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE ROAD COMBINED HERE. \nSO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT \nTHEY’RE ADDITIVE TO AN EXISTING \nNETWORK OF PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE \nAREA. SPEAKING OF CONTEXT\, I \nWANTED TO ZOOM IN ON AN EXISTING \nFLAW AND A PRETTY SERIOUS ONE \nABOUT THIS NETWORK OF PUBLIC \nACCESS. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE \nINTERSECTION AT WHIPPLE ROAD AND \nBAYSHORE AT THE FRONT OF OUR \nSITE WHERE THE EXISTING BAY \nTRAIL HEAD IS LOCATED. AS \nTHINGS STAND TODAY YOU CAN SEE \nTHE INTERSECTION IS INCOMPLETE \nAND UNSAFE THERE IS NO SIDEWALK\, \nNO PARKING\, NO SAVE PEDESTRIAN \nACCESS AT ALL TO THE BAY TRAIL\, \nTRAIL HEAD THEN THE CROSSWALK TO \nNOWHERE WHICH DEAD ENDS INTO A \nCHAIN LINK FENCE TODAY IN \nADDITION TO BUILDING MUCH NEEDED \nNEW HOUSING WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY \nTO FIX THIS PROBLEM. OUR \nPROPOSAL INCLUDES ING WHY BEYOND \nOUR PROPERTY LINE WITH \nSIGNIFICANT OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS \nTO CREATE A SAFER CONNECTION TO \nTHE TRAIL SYSTEM INCLUDING A NEW \nSIDEWALK WITH RAISED LANDSCAPE \nPLANTERS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED \nPEDESTRIAN PROTECTION. THIS \nJURISDICTION CREATES OPPORTUNITY \nFOR A NEW TRAIL HEAD WE’RE \nCALLING IT A PLAZA WITH SEATING \nELEMENTS\, A DRINKING FOUNTAIN\, \nSIGNAGE\, AND A MICRO-MOBILITY \nSTATION OR THE CITY’S BIKESHARE \nAND/OR SCOOTER SHARE PROGRAM AND \nOF COURSE WE GET TO COMPLETE THE \nCROSSWALK TO NOWHERE. \nALL RIGHT. AS MANY OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS MAY RECALL THE 557 \nEAST BAY SHORE ROAD SITE WAS \nAPPROVED WITH PACKAGE OF PUBLIC \nACCESS AMENITIES HOWEVER THEY’RE \nCOMPLETELY ORPHANED AND \nINACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC \nWITHOUT TRAVERSING THROUGH THE \nSITE FROM BAYSHORE ROAD WE \nPROVIDE A DIRECT CONNECTION FROM \nTHE SITE THROUGH OURS TO THE \nTRAIL HEAD CREATING A CONTINUOUS \nPATHWAY. WE’RE PROUD OF HOW \nSUSTAINABLE THIS PROJECT WILL BE \nTHESE HOMES WILL BE ALL ELECTRIC \nNO NATURAL GAS PLUMBED TO THE \nPROPERTY NO TAIL PIPES TO THESE \nHOMES THEY WILL HAVE SOLAR PV \nPANELS INSTALLED AS WELL AS EV \nCHARGING OUTLET’S PART OF ALL \nELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES \nHEAT PUMP WATER HEATING WHICH \nINCLUDES TECHNOLOGY YOU’RE GOING \nTO HEAR A LOT ABOUT IN THE FIGHT \nAGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE PURPLE \nPLUMBING FOR IRRIGATED RECYCLED \nWATER AND SO MUCH MORE. AS ALL \nOF US IN THIS INDUSTRY KNOW IT \nCAN BE QUITE A JOURNEY TO GET \nNEW HOUSING APPROVED I WON’T GO \nTHROUGH IN DETAIL BUT WANT TO \nMENTION WE’RE REALLY EXCITED TO \nBE HERE TODAY. WE WERE APPROVED \nBY THE CITY ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND \nPRIOR TO THAT WE WENT THROUGH \nFOUR ROUNDS OF DESIGN REVIEW TWO \nWITH THE CITY AND TWO WITH BCDC \nWE COMPLETED A FULL \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND \nCONDUCTED EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY \nOUTREACH. AND WE ARE ASKING FOR \nYOUR APPROVAL THIS AFTERNOON. \nSPEAKING OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH\, \nPART OF OUR PROCESS OF REGIS \nHOMES IS TO MEET WITH AS MANY \nSTAKEHOLDERS AS POSSIBLE \nINCLUDING STAKEHOLDERS BUT FOLKS \nIN THE CITY MORE BROADLY AND IN \nTHE BAY AREA. NOT ONLY DO WE \nMEET WITH GROUPS THAT SUPPORT \nHOUSING WE TRY TO MEET WITH AS \nMANY GROUPS AS WE CAN THAT MAY \nSEE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY THAN \nWE DO THIS IS A LIST OF GROUPS \nWE HAVE MET WITH THROUGH THE \nYEARS IMPORTANTLY MENTION \nSUPPORT OF THE BEAR ISLAND \nNEIGHBORHOOD\, BOOSTER\, AND WE \nSAT DOWN WITH CITIZENS COMMITTEE \nTO COMPLETE THE REFUGE AND \nSIERRA CLUB TO HEAR ABOUT THEIR \nCONCERNS WE MADE A FEW CHANGES \nIN \nRESPONSE. AND WITH THAT WE’RE \nPROUD TO HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF \nTHESE FINE GROUPS HERE AND THANK \nYOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON \nI’LL \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nI’LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. \nDO WE HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HOW \nMANY? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CURRENTLY \nTHREE HANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY\, \nAND NONE IN-PERSON. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nLET’S CALL THEM. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: LUIS — \nPARDON ME FOR YOUR LAST NAME\, \nMIRANTE\, YOU’RE UP FIRST\, \nFOLLOWED BY GITA \nD. LUIS? \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO MR. CHAIR\, \nMEMBERS\, MY NAME IS \nLUISMIRANTE YOU NAILED MY LAST \nNAME LIKE AN OLYMPIC GYM \nAND-A-HALF CONGRATULATIONS THANK \nYOU I’M HERE TODAY PROUD TO \nSUPPORT THIS PROJECT \nON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA \nCOUNCIL ALL WITH THE GOAL OF \nMAKING THE BAY AREA THE BEST \nPLACE IN THE COUNTRY TO LIVE AND \nWORK. THE HOUSING CRISIS THE \nBAY AREA FACES IS AS YOU KNOW \nOBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE MOST \nIMMENSE CHALLENGES THAT OUR \nEMPLOYERS AND OUR RESIDENTS IN \nTHIS REGION FACE TODAY SO WE’RE \nPROUD TODAY TO BE A PART OF \nHELPING SUPPORT THIS PROJECT \nWHICH IS A SMALL BUT MIGHT \nCONTRIBUTION TO REDUCE YOU THE \nINTENSITY OF THAT CRISIS. OUR \nPROJECT ENDORSEMENT COMMITTEE \nREVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND \nUNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO SUPPORT IT \nIN PART BECAUSE THE PROJECT \nALIGNS WITH OUR GOALS OF \nEXPANDING AFFORDABLE \nHOMEOWNERSHIP OPTIONS IN A JOB \nMARKET THAT SO CLEARLY NEEDS \nTHEM AND BECAUSE THE PUBLIC \nBENEFITS AND RESILIENCY EFFORTS \nTHAT THE PROJECT UNDERTOOK GO \nABOVE AND BEYOND IN OUR OPINION \nIN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTING VALUE \nTO THE PUBLIC. SO\, WHEN LOOKING \nAT THIS PROJECT\, I HOPE THAT YOU \nSEE IT’S NOT JUST A HOUSING \nPROJECT BUT ALSO ONE THAT \nIMPROVES THE REGION’S RESILIENCY \nHOWEVER SLIGHTLY\, AND IS PART OF \nA BIGGER PICTURE THAT WE NEED TO \nMEET TO GET TO OUR CLIMATE GOALS \nAND TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR REGION \nCAN ADAPT TO AND BE RESILIENT TO \nCLIMATE CHANGE W THAT I’M HAPPY \nTO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE \nABOUT OUR SUPPORT LETTER WHICH \nWAS TRANSMITTED TO YOU YESTERDAY \nAND OTHERWISE URGE YOUR SUPPORT \nFOR THIS STERLING PROJECT. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. GITA \nDEV. YOU ARE NEXT. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES WE \nCAN. \n>>SPEAKER: YOU CAN GO TO SLIDE \nNUMBER 14 AND THEN WE COULD \nSTART THE CLOCK? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKATHARINE\, CAN YOU SHARE SLIDE \n14? THANK YOU. WHICH \nPRESENTATION WAS IT? OUR STAFF \nPRESENTATION OR THE APPLICANT’S \nPRESENTATION? \n>>SPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT WAS THE \nAPPLICANT’S PRESENTATION\, THE \nLAST ONE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ONE \nMINUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: 14 OR 17. EITHER \nONE WILL DO. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: IS THIS \nTHE CORRECT SLIDE? \n>>SPEAKER: IT ACTUALLY SHOWED A \nSITE PLAN. MAYBE TRY 17. \nJUST THE PREVIOUS ONE. JUST GO \nBACK TWO. ONE MORE. \nYEAH. I THINK THIS WILL BE \nFINE. THIS WILL BE FINE. THANK \nYOU SO MUCH. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YOUR TIME \nIS NOW RUNNING. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M GITA \nDEFINITELY\, I’M WITH THE SIERRA \nCLUB ALIVE CAMPAIGN. I \nAM APPRECIATIVE THAT REGIS \nHOMES PROJECTS\, HOWEVER I WANT \nTO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SIERRA \nCLUB DID NOT MEET WITH REGIS \nHOMES ON THIS PROJECT THEY DID \nREACH OUT AND WE DECLINED ALSO I \nWOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT \nCITIZEN’S COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE \nTHE REFUGE IS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED \nTO THIS PROJECT THERE WERE ALSO \nCOMMUNITY BENEFITS BUT SOME OF \nTHOSE ARE NOT BENEFITS SOME OF \nTHOSE ARE REQUIRED FEES. SO\, \nGIVEN THAT\, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO \nPOINT OUT IS FOR\, I ASSUME THAT \nALL YOU COMMISSIONERS REALIZE \nTHAT THE FRONT ROW OF TOWN HOMES \nTHAT ARE SHOWN IN THIS SITE PLAN \nARE ALL WITHIN THE BCDC 100 FOOT \nSET BACK BAND. AND WITH GIVEN \nSEA LEVEL RISE\, YOU CAN SEE THAT \nWE REALLY NEED THAT 100 FEET. \nYOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROJECT \nNEXT TO IT IS RESPECTING THAT \n100 FOOT SET BACK WITH ITS \nHOMES. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT \nTHAT THIS SEGMENT OF WHAT \nTHEY’RE CALLING THE BAY TRAIL IS \nREALLY AN ISOLATED SEGMENT THAT \nIS REALLY FOR THE ENJOYMENT \nENJOIMENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO \nLIVE IN THESE HOMES BECAUSE \nTHERE IS NO CONNECTION BACK TO \nTHE BLUE LINE WHICH IS USED AS A \nPUBLIC TRAIL\, AND I AM VERY \nFAMILIAR WITH IT. I DO ACCEPT \nALL OF THE POINTS ABOUT HOW \nDIFFICULT THE CONNECTION IS TO \nBEAR ISLAND\, AT THE WILL LOW\, AT \nTHE WHIPPLE ROAD. HOWEVER\, I \nREALLY THINK THIS WOULD BE THE \nWRONG TIME TO ENCROACH TO ALLOW \nENCROACHMENTS INTO THIS 100 FOOT \nSET BACK BAND. ONE SHORELINE\, \nAS YOU ALL KNOW\, CAME BEFORE US \nAND SAID THAT IT IS THEIR POLICY \nTO TRY TO MAINTAIN A 100 FOOT \nSET BACK IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR \nTHE BAY TO STAY ALIVE. TO NOT \nHAVE SEA WALLS RIGHT UP AGAINST \nTHE BAY. \nAND YOU CAN TELL IF YOU HAD \nANYTHING TO DO WITH \nCONSTRUCTION\, THAT DOING \nCONSTRUCTION INTO THE BAY\, INTO \nTHAT SLOUGH\, INTO THAT DITCH \nWHICH HAS ENDANGERED SPECIES \nYOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO CLOSE \nOFF THAT DITCH IN ORDER TO BE \nABLE TO DRAIN IN ORDER TO BE \nABLE TO PULL THAT STUFF \nUNDERGROUND. I WOULD SAY ONE \nTHING\, AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, THIS \nIS NOT THE PLACE TO PUT \nHOMEOWNER AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, \nTHEY’RE GOING TO GET HIT UP WITH \nA LOT OF COSTS WHEN THE SEA \nLEVELS IN 2050. THE STORM \nDRAINS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE \nREDONE THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO \nLOCATE HOUSING AND PARTICULARLY \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK YOU \nFOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT YOUR \nTIME HAS NOW FINISHED. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOVING ON \nTO KEVIN CHAN. YOU MAY NOW \nUNMUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON \nMEMBERS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT \nCOMMISSION MY NAME IS KEN CHAN \nAND I AM THE SENIOR ORGANIZER \nWITHIN THE HOUSING LEADERSHIP \nCOUNCIL SAN MATEO COUNTY WE WORK \nWITH COMMITTEES AND THEIR \nLEADERS TO PRODUCE AND RESERVE \nQUALITY AFFORDABLE HOMES \nAPPRECIATION TO STAFF FOR THE \nHARD WORK ON TODAY’S \nPRESENTATION\, ON BEHALF OF HCL \nOUR LETTER I WOULD LIKE TO \nEXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR 505 \nBAYSHORE TOWNHOME PROJECT REGIS \nHOMES BAY AREA AS YOU MAY \nALREADY KNOW CREATING OWNERSHIP \nOF AFFORDABLE HOMES IN OUR STATE \nIS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF LACK OF \nAVAILABLE FUNDING. THIS IS WHY \nWE SUPPORT THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE\, \nTWO BEDROOM AND 4 TO 8 MARKET \nRATE HOMES THAT THE CITY \nDISPARATELY NEED\, FAMILIES WILL \nGET STABILITY THEY NEED TO \nTHRIVE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES \nWHERE THEY WILL NO LONGER WORRY \nABOUT QUALITY OF AFFORDABLE \nHOMES AND ALSO BE ABLE TO LIVE \nNEAR THEIR PLACES OF WORK \nREDUCES STRESS ON THE BAY AREA \nINFRASTRUCTURE AND DECREASE BOTH \nTHEIRS AND YOUR TIME ON THE ROAD \nLEAVING TIME FOR HEALTH FAMILY \nAND COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AND WE \nURGE YOU TO APPROVE THE 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE TOWNHOME \nPROPOSAL. \nTHANK YOU SO MUCH. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN THERE IS \nNO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD ENTERTAIN A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES. AND \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON SECONDS. \nTHERE IS NO OBJECTION. THE \nPUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. \nCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND \nCOMMENTS? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: — UH — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES\, THANK \nYOU. LET’S SEE. I WAS GOING TO \nASK IF EITHER STAFF OR THE \nAPPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT \nON THAT — THE COMMENT ABOUT THE \n100 FOOT SET BACK AND — JUST \nGIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE \nCONTEXT ABOUT THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: HAPPY TO. I HOPE \nCAN YOU HEAR ME. KATHARINE\, I \nACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT SLIDE 14 \nWAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR THIS \nSUBJECT. I’M HAPPY TO COMMENT \nON THAT. THE SHORT ANSWER IS \nTHIS IS A SMALL SITE PUTTING A \n100 FOOT SET BACK WOULD MAKE \nTHIS UNDEVELOPABLE THAT’S WHY \nWE’RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE AMOUNT \nOF PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WE CAN \nOFFER TO THE SITE UNDERSTANDING \nWE CAN’T GET TO THE FULL 100 \nFEET ALSO MENTION TO LOOK AT THE \nOTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA \nIF WE CAN GET THE SLIDE UP HERE \nIF YOU LOOK AT THE VILLAS\, BLUE \nHARBOR\, MARIN A NONE HAVE 100 \nFOOT SET BACK SOME HAVE A \nSIMILAR SEA WALL WITH SMALLER \nSIDEWALK. OUR TRAIL SECTION IS \n14 FEET PLUS LANDSCAPING SETI \nWENT OUT TO BLUE HARBOR VILLE AS \nAND MEASURED EIGHT FOOT AND TEN \nFOOT SIDEWALKS SO THIS IS A HUGE \nINCREASE COMPARED TO THE LARGER \nSITES. I HOPE THAT’S HELPFUL. \nTHE 557 EAST BAY SHORE SITE NEXT \nTO US IS LARGER IT HAS 480 \nUNITS APARTMENT COMPLEX A \nDEVELOPMENT THAT’S LARGE THEY’RE \nCAN SUPPORT MORE PUBLIC BENEFITS \nLIKE THIS. \nGREAT. THANK YOU. IF YOU LOOK \nTO THE TOP RIGHT HERE YOU CAN \nSEE THE DEVELOPMENTS I’M TALKING \nABOUT AND IF YOU SQUINT\, ONE \nPARTICULAR MARINA VERY LIMITED \nSET BACK OURS IS MUCH LARGER AND \nWE’RE PROUD OF THAT. \n>>SPEAKER: AND I ALSO WANT TO \nJUST CLARIFY\, SO\, BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION IS THE 100 FOOT \nSHORELINE BAND THAT JUST MEANS \nTHAT WE HAVE PERMITTING \nAUTHORITY WITHIN THAT AREA. \nIT’S NOT A SET BACK. IT \nDOESN’T\, SORT OF\, PRECLUDE THIS \nTYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN IT. SO\, \nI WANT TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE \nBETWEEN OUR PERMITTING \nJURISDICTION AND THE CONCEPT OF \nA SET BACK. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU \nHAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, WELL\, THAT’S \nHELPFUL. BUT\, SO\, ARE THE ONE \nSHORELINE AND THE OTHER POLICIES \nWE HAVE. SO THEY RECOMMEND  . \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: UP TO\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE 100 FOOT SET BACK OR \nMAXIMUM SET BACK\, BUT THEY LEAVE \nIT UP TO BCDC DISCRETION\, IS \nTHAT RIGHT? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \n— CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION \nEITHER FROM KATHARINE OR FROM \nLEGAL ON WHAT OUR JURISDICTIONAL \nAUTHORITY IS WITHIN THE 100 \nSHORELINE BAND? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: AND POLICY \nRECOMMENDATIONS\, YEAH. \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, WE DON’T HAVE \nANY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT \nNOT BUILDING WITHIN THE 100 FOOT \nBAND. OUR AUTHORITY\, BASICALLY\, \nUNDER — SORRY. IT’S HARD UNDER \n— UNDER 66632.4 \nIS BASICALLY PUBLIC ACCESS. IT \nSAYS BASICALLY THE COMMISSION \nMAY DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A \nPERMIT OR FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT \nONLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE \nPROJECT FAILS TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS WITHIN \nTHAT SHORELINE BAND. IN FACT\, \nOUR REGULATIONS ENVISION THAT WE \nWILL BUILD WITHIN THAT SHORELINE \nBAND. THAT’S PRETTY CLEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. GO AHEAD\, \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO. . \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: OKAY. LET \nME THINK ABOUT THAT. AND I \nGUESS THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I \nHAVE IS LIGHTING\, I GUESS THERE \nIS NO LIGHTING\, PLAN FOR THAT \nWALKWAY OR ADDING LIGHTING TO \nTHAT AREA? \n>>SPEAKER: OF COURSE\, YEAH\, \nTHERE IS LOW BALLARD LIGHTING\, \nALL ALONG\, WE HAVE CONDITIONS \nAPPROVAL FROM THE CITY RELATED \nTO DARK SKY ORDINANCE BUT THE \nPATHWAY WILL BE LIT. I THINK \nTHAT’S YOUR QUESTION. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH. \nOKAY. WELL\, I’M SURPRISED\, I \nWOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT \nTO MINIMIZE LIGHTING\, BECAUSE OF \nWILDLIFE ISSUES. BUT THAT’S NOT \nWITHIN OUR SET OF \nRECOMMENDATIONS OR GUIDELINES \nEITHER? \n>>SPEAKER: SO WE DIDN’T INCLUDE \nWITHIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nANY CONDITIONS RELATED TO \nLIGHTING. I MIGHT. \n>>KATHARINE PAN: I DON’T KNOW \nIF OUR BAY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST \nHAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS BUT \nWITH LIGHTING\, I KNOW ESPECIALLY \nWITH PUBLIC ACCESS AS IT GETS \nLATER INTO THE EVENING THAT \nTHERE IS ALSO A SAFETY CONCERN \nRELATED TO LIGHTING\, SO I DON’T \nKNOW IF WITHIN THE EIR\, THAT \nTHERE WAS ANY SPECIFICATION TO \nLIKE THE INTENSITY OF THE \nLIGHTING THAT WAS ALLOWED. BUT \nI’LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO \nTHAT. \n>>SPEAKER: NOT THAT I RECALL \nAND I’LL ADD I THINK LIGHTING \nFOR WALKWAYS MIGHT BE A BUILDING \nCODE ISSUE I’M NOT SURE\, SO I’M \nNOT SURE YOU CAN’T LIGHT A \nPATHWAY IN THIS SITUATION BUT WE \nALSO HAVE LOW LIGHTING TO TRY TO \nMITIGATE T I HOPE THAT’S \nHELPFUL. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: WELL\, LOW \nLIGHTING IS BETTER THAN TOO MUCH \nLIGHTING. BUT\, YES\, I — I \nMEAN\, I WOULDN’T — I WOULD HOPE \nTHAT BCDC LOOKS AT THAT LIGHTING \nISSUE. BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE \nTHAT IT WOULD HAVE SOME IMPACT \nON THE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE. \nSO\, THAT’S — I GUESS THAT’S THE \nCOMMENT I’LL MAKE AT THIS \nPOINT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I DO \nAPPRECIATE ALL THE OTHER \nSUSTAINABILITY FEATURES AND \nSUCH\, BUT THERE’S — BUT IT IS \nAT A SENSITIVE LOCATION. SO\, I \nAPPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPEDA. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU \nCHAIR. WOULD STAFF BE ABLE TO \nPUT UP THE SLIDE AGAIN? ONE OF \nTHOSE INFAMOUS SLIDES THAT HAS \nBEEN PRESENTED. PAGE 14 OR 12 I \nDON’T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT IS \nTHE ONE THIS’S LOOKING AT THE \nNEXT DOOR PROPERTY\, THAT’S \nALREADY BEEN APPROVED. I HAVE A \nQUESTION ON THIS ONE. THANK \nYOU. JUST\, HISTORY\, AND FOR ME \nTO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE — TO BE \nCONSISTENT IN OUR RESPONSES WITH \nANY PROPERTY. SO\, THE PROPERTY \nRIGHT NEXT DOOR\, I SEE THE 100 \nFOOT LINE\, AND I’M IMAGINING \nTHE LINE THERE BASED ON ONE OF \nTHE OTHER SLIDES THAT DREW THE \nLINE IN THERE ON THE YELLOW \nSQUARE. \nSO THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR THAT \nWAS ALREADY APPROVED BY BCDC I’M \nASSUMING\, IN PRIOR MONTHS OR \nYEARS\, I’M NOT SURE WHEN IT WAS \nPROVED\, BUT IF STAFF IS ABLE TO \nTELL US — HOW THEY  THE \nDECISION FOR HAVING THAT GREEN \nAREA BE GREATER THAN WHAT WE’RE \nREQUESTING THIS PROJECT? AND IF \nTHERE IS A RHYME OR REASON WHY \nONE WOULD HAVE IT BUT THE OTHER \nWOULD NOT OTHER THAN THE SPACE \nIS SMALLER AND EVERYTHING IS \nNEEDED TO BUILD MORE HOUSING? \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, FOR THE 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE PROJECT THAT WAS \nAPPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ABOUT \nTHIS TIME LAST YEAR\, IT REALLY \nDOES\, SORT OF\, COME DOWN \nPROBABLY TO SIZE. YOU KNOW\, THE \nQUESTION FOR US — OR THE \nQUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION \nIS THIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT AND SO FOR THAT PROJECT \nIT’S\, AS YOU CAN SEE IT’S \nSIGNIFICANTLY LARGER. WE PUSHED \n— OR WE WORKED WITH THEM TO \nENSURE THAT AS MUCH OF THAT \nSHORELINE BAND BE DEDICATED \nPUBLIC ACCESS AS POSSIBLE. IT \nWAS SOMETHING THEY WERE ABLE TO \nACCOMMODATE BASED ON THEIR \nPROJECT. FOR THIS ONE — AND \nYOU CAN SEE PRETTY MUCH\, LIKE\, \nWHERE THAT GREEN SPACE ENDS. \nPART OF THEIR APARTMENT BUILDING \nDOES CROSS OVER INTO THE SHORE \nLINER BAND\, BUT THAT PRETTY MUCH \nCORRESPONDS TO THE SHORELINE \nBAND. SO IF YOU CONTINUE ACROSS \nON TO THIS SITE YOU CAN SEE THAT \nPRETTY MUCH CUTS THIS SITE IN \nAND A HALF. AND SO\, I THINK\, IN \nTERMS OF FEASIBILITY\, THAT’S \nMORE FOR THE PROJECT PROPONENT \nTO SPEAK TO THE DETAILS OF \nTHAT. \nBUT YOU KNOW\, THE QUESTION IS\, \nLIKE\, FOR A PROJECT TO MOVE \nFORWARD\, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THAT \nTHEY’RE ABLE TO PROVIDE\, AND IN \nTHIS CASE\, YOU KNOW\, WE DID DO A \nCOMPARISON WITH SOME OTHER \nPROJECTS WITHIN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND IT — IT’S IN \nTHE BALLPARK OF PERCENTAGES OF \nTHE SITE\, BUT OF COURSE THAT IS \nTHE QUESTION BEFORE THE \nCOMMISSION. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: DO WE HAVE A \nMINIMUM AMOUNT? I KNOW WE HAVE \n100 FEET BCDC JURISDICTION BUT \nDO WE HAVE A MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT \nHAS TO BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC \nACCESS? BECAUSE HERE\, THE 100 \nLINE\, THERE IS ANOTHER ONE\, I \nTHINK IT WAS THE SECOND TO LAST \nLINE THAT HAS THE BCDC \nJURISDICTION LINE WHICH IS RIGHT \nWHERE — I BELIEVE IS RIGHT \nWHERE THE HOMES\, I THINK THIS IS \nTHE PURPLE LINE IS THE BCDC \nDINE? SO\, IT’S PRETTY — LIKE \nYOU WERE SAYING IT’S PRETTY MUCH \nHALF OF THE PROPERTY. SO\, FOR \nCONSISTENCY PURPOSES\, AND I’M \nSURE THIS WON’T BE THE ONLY \nPROPERTY THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nREVIEWING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF \nYEARS\, BECAUSE WE NEED MORE \nHOUSING\, WHAT IS THE MINIMUM \nREQUIREMENT WITHIN THE 100 \nFEET? \nAND IS IT BASED ON WHAT THEY’RE \nTELLING US THAT THEY CAN GIVE \nUS? OR BASED ON A NUMBER THAT \nWE HAVE THAT SAYS\, IN OUR 100 \nFEET\, WE MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF \nX? \n>>SPEAKER: WE DO NOT HAVE A \nMINIMUM AMOUNT\, WHETHER THAT’S \nIN TOTAL ACREAGE OR SQUARE \nFOOTAGE OR PERCENTAGE OF A SITE \nTHAT’S REQUIRED BY A LAW OR \nPOLICY TO BE DEDICATED OR \nIMPROVED AS PUBLIC ACCESS. IN \nTHE STAFF REPORT\, YOU KNOW\, THIS \nIS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE \nTAKE SUCH GREAT PAINS WITH THAT \nSECTION OF FINDINGS\, TO GO \nTHROUGH WITH COMPARISONS WITH \nPAST COMMISSION DECISIONS AND \nTHEN LOOKING AT OF COURSE THE \nWAY THAT THAT PUBLIC ACCESS AREA \nIS ACTUALLY PRESENTED AND \nIMPROVED\, LIKE HOW USEABLE IS T \nWHAT ACTUAL BENEFITS IS IT \nPROVIDING WHAT’S CONNECTSTIVITY\, \nHOW ACCESSIBLE IS IT\, ALL OF \nTHOSE ASPECTS ARE\, SORT OF\, \nDETAILED IN OUR POLICY. YOU \nKNOW\, WE DO WANT PUBLIC ACCESS \nTO BE USABLE WE WANT IT TO BE \nACCESSIBLE\, WE WANT IT TO SERVE\, \nLIKE\, YOU KNOW\, A WIDE RANGE OF \nPOPULATIONS\, ET CETERA. SO \nTHOSE ARE THE SORTS OF THINGS \nTHAT WE LOOK AT OR THAT WE \nLOOKED AT IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. BUT AS FOR THE \nACTUAL AMOUNT\, THAT’S ONE OF THE \nTHINGS THAT THE POLICIES AND \nLAWS DON’T PROVIDE. THAT’S — \nTHAT IS\, LIKE\, THE DISCRETIONARY \nPART OF THIS APPROVAL. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. AND \nDO WE HAPPEN TO KNOW\, OUT OF ALL \nTHE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE \nAPPROVED IN THE PAST\, WHICH ONE \nIS THE ONE THAT HAS THE LEAST \nAMOUNT OF PUBLIC ACCESS? THIS \nONE HAS A 14 FOOT TRAIL. DO WE \nKNOW IF WE HAVE ANY WITH LESS? \nJUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT \nBECAUSE WITH EVERY VOTE WE SET \nNEW PRECEDENCE AND I WANT TO \nKNOW HOW WE’RE SETTING IT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, WITHOUT TAKING \nTHE SLIDE DOWN AND\, SORT OF\, \nOPENING UP THE STAFF RACK\, I \nCOULDN’T TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY\, \nBUT I — WHAT CHRIS WAS SAYING \nABOUT THE BLUE HARBOR \nDEVELOPMENT\, FOR EXAMPLE\, YOU \nKNOW\, THAT TRAIL IS SMALLER. \nINITIALLY\, I THINK THIS PROJECT \nCAME IN WITH A SIMILARLY\, SORT \nOF\, NARROW TRAIL AREA THAT ENDED \nUP BECOMING EXPANDED AS WE \nTALKED THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH \nTHEM. OR AS THEY MADE THEIR WAY \nTHROUGH THE PROCESS. SO\, THERE \nARE\, CERTAINLY\, PROJECTS WITHIN \nTHE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION \nWITH LESS PUBLIC ACCESS \n[LAUGHTER] \nBUT I WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO \nIMMEDIATELY POINT THOSE OUT TO \nYOU\, AND I WOULDN’T NECESSARILY \n— YOU KNOW\, EVERY PROJECT \nSHOULD BE KIND OF CONSIDERED ON \nITS OWN MERIT\, AND SO THAT’S\, \nSORT OF\, THE OTHER REASON WHY \nTHE COMPARISON IS DIFFICULT. \nBECAUSE YOU DO JUST — JUST \nBECAUSE ANOTHER PROJECT HAS LESS \nDOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT \nTHIS IS BETTER. IT IS LIKE\, A \nPROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS. KIND \nOF ENCOURAGE TO YOU LOOK AT IT \nTHAT WAY. \n>>JEFF SMITH: CAN I ADD ANOTHER \nPIECE OF INFORMATION THIS IS \nJEFF SMITH THE APPLICANT WITH \nREGIS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GO \nAHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: TWO PIECES OF \nINFORMATION IF YOU COULD GO BACK \nTO THE SLIDE THAT KIND OF SHOWS \nTHE GENERAL AREA. AND I KNOW \nTHIS BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY \nCLOSELY WITH 557 ON THEIR \nDESIGN. IN FACT WE HAVE THE \nSAME CIVIL ENGINEER THE SAME \nLANDSCAPE ENGINEER\, WE HAVE THE \nSAME ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS \nAND WE KNOW THE ARCHITECT. THE \n557 PROPERTY\, IF YOU REMEMBER \nBACK\, IT WAS THE OLD THEATRE\, \nAND WHEN THEY BUILT THAT \nTHEATRE\, THEY ACTUALLY GAVE BCDC \nAN EAST EASEMENT\, A 50 \nFOOD EASEMENT BACK IN THE DAY \nIT’S OVER 50 YEARS OLD THAT WAS \nTHE PRIMARY REASON THEY DECIDED \nTO ORIENTED SITE AS THEY DID \nTHAT’S WHY THIS SITE LOOKS \nDIFFERENT IN ADDITION TO THE \nFACT THAT IT’S SEVEN TIMES \nBIGGER. I WANT TO ALSO POINT \nOUT THE BLUE HARBOR PROJECT \nWHICH WAS IN THE UPPER RIGHT \nHAND CORNER WHICH DOES HAVE A \nBCDC PERMIT WITH A SMALL WALK. \nWE DID PUSH OUR BUILDINGS BACK \nTO MAINTAIN THE DESIRED WALKWAY \nAND SET BACK THAT BCDC STAFF \nASKED US TO THAT GIVES CONTEXT \nOF THE THREE PROJECTS IN THE \nAREA. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. MY \nLAST YE IS DO WE REQUIRE SOME \nKIND OF SIGNAGE THAT SAYS THIS \nIS PUBLIC ACCESS? \n>>SPEAKER: WE DO. SO\, THAT IS \nPART OF THE\, YOU KNOW\, MAKING IT \nUSEABLE\, MAKING IT WELCOMING\, SO \nTHERE IS WITHIN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AT LEAST SOME \nREQUIREMENTS AROUND WAYFINDING \nAND SIGNAGE.   AND THERE IS \nKIND OF A STANDARD PUBLIC SHORE \nACCESS SIGN THAT YOU SEE AROUND \nTHE BAY AREA. AND THAT’S\, SORT \nOF\, LIKE I CAN’T BRANDING THAT \nWE REQUIRE. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU SO \nMUCH. NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: CAN \nI HAVE THE FULL SCREEN BACK\, \nPLEASE? THANK YOU. \nI DON’T SEE ANY OTHER \nQUESTIONS. \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. SO\, I UNDERSTAND \nWHERE THE 100 FEET PUTS IT \nWITHIN THE PROJECT\, BUT ARE WE \nSTARTING AT THE SLOUGH\, OR ARE \nWE STARTING AT THE DITCH? WHEN \nWE MEASURE OUT THE 100 FEET? \n248 STARTS AT THE DITCH. SO\, \nTHAT TIDAL DITCH\, IT’S \nTIDALLY INFLUENCED SO THIS IS \nSOMETHING WE DISCUSSED WITH THE \n557 APPLICANT BUT THE BAY TIDAL \nINFLUENCED THE WATER BODY AND \nALSO BECAUSE THERE IS MARSH \nVEGETATION WITHIN THE DITCH \nTHAT\, SORT OF\, CHANGES LIKE HOW \nWE WOULD NORMALLY SAY THE BAY \nSHORELINE IS MEAN HIGH WATER BUT \nIN THE AREAS OF TIDAL MARSH IT \nMAKES IT EDGE EVER TIDAL MARSH \nUP TO FIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA \nLEVEL SO THAT’S THE LINE THAT \nTHEY’RE GOING FROM AS BAY \nSHORELINE THAT’S MARSH \nVEGETATION FIVE FEET ABOVE SEA \nLEVEL MARK. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: IT’S \nINTERESTING IT’S CALLED A DITCH \nI ASSUME AT ONE POINT IT WAS \nCALLED A DRAINAGE DITCH WHEN IT \nWAS ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES \nTHEN IT BECAME PART OF THE MARSH \nOVER TIME BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN’T \nMAINTAIN THE DITCH AND THE FLOW \nOF WATER OFFSITE. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. MY \nUNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS \nONCE WAS A TIDAL GATE IN THAT \nAREA BUT AT SOME POINT IN THE \nPAST IT MALFUNCTIONED AND \nACCORDING TO OUR REGULATIONS\, IT \nTURNED THAT AREA BACK INTO BAY. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: OKAY. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nJEFF\, DID YOU WANT TO SAY \nSOMETHING? \n>>SPEAKER: JEFF SMITH: JUST \nFOR CONTEXT I FEEL LIKE I HAVE \nBEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SO LONG \nAND JUST A BIT OF HISTORY THAT’S \nEXACTLY THE CASE COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO THERE IS ONE SMALL PIPE \n12 INCH PIPE THAT CONNECTS THE \nDITCH TO THE SLOUGH IT WASN’T A \nDRAINAGE DITCH AND ALLOWED WATER \nTO GO OUT IT DID NOT ALLOW WATER \nTO GET BACK IN AND UNFORTUNATELY \nAT SOME POINT SOMEONE FAILED TO \nMAINTAIN THAT AND MADE \nCONNECTION BUT IF YOU HAVE TO GO \nBACK OUT TO THE SLOUGH IT WOULD \nMOVE THE LINE NORTH 60 TO 70 \nFEET THAT WAS INITIAL DISCUSSION \nWE SAID RATHER THAN FIGHT OVER \nTHE LINE LET’S WORK TOGETHER \nTHAT WAS SIX YEARS AGO\, WORKING \nWITH THE CITY AND BCDC STAFF AND \nTHEN THE COMMISSION SO \nAPPRECIATE THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I HAVE ONE \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION\, SINCE THE \nARGUMENT IS IT’S SUCH A \nRELATIVELY NARROW PARCEL OR \nSMALL PARCEL\, SO JUST GOING BACK \nTO — I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE \nHISTORY OF THE PARCEL WAS OR \nWHEN IT WAS SOLD\, BUT I MEAN\, \nWHEN IF IT WAS SUBDIVIDED\, OR \nWHEN IT WAS SOLD\, I MEAN\, IT WAS \nSOLD WITH THAT 100 FOOT \nJURISDICTION LINE IN MIND. IS \nTHAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT \nSOMETHING THAT BCDC HAS\, OR THE \nCITY WOULD HAVE ANY — GIVES ANY \nCONSIDERATION TO? \n>>SPEAKER: WOULD YOU MIND \nREPHRASING THAT QUESTION. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: JUST KIND \nOF LOOKING AT THE VIABILITY OF \nTHAT PARCEL AS COMMERCIAL PARCEL \nFOR EITHER HOUSING OR COMMERCIAL \nUSE AND IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THERE \nIS THAT IMPORTANT 100 FOOT \nJURISDICTIONAL AREA\, WOULD THEY \nHAVE SUBDIVIDED IT WITH — OR \nSOLD IT WITH THAT FULL \nUNDERSTANDING? \nI MEAN\, IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT \nIT IS THAT THE PEARLS IS TOO \nNARROW TO GIVE THE FULL \nCONSIDERATION FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS? \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, THAT HISTORY IS \nNOT SOMETHING THAT I’M AWARE \nOF. \nI WILL SAY OUR JURISDICTION HAS \nHAD THE SAME DESCRIPTION SINCE \nTHE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT WAS \nPASSED\, AND\, SO\, ANYONE DOING \nDUE DILIGENCE ON PROPERTY ALONG \nTHE BAY FRONT SHOULD BECOME \nAWARE THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS \nSUBJECT TO BCDC PERMITTING \nAUTHORITY. WHAT I WILL SAY\, \nTHOUGH\, JUST TO GIVE WHOEVER \nORIGINALLY SUBDIVIDE THAT AREA\, \nTHE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT\, YOU \nKNOW\, AS JEFF WAS SAYING AT SOME \nPOINT\, THAT AREA ACTUALLY WENT \nSUBJECT TO BCDC JURISDICTION THE \nSAME WAY BECAUSE THAT DITCH \nDIDN’T — WASN’T ALWAYS PART OF \nOUR BAY JURISDICTION. \n>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONERS\, I \nTHINK I WANT TO BE REALLY \nCLEAR. \nOUR JURISDICTION HERE IS MAXIMAL \n— MAXIMUM PUBLIC — MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS IN OUR \nSHORELINE BAND. THAT’S WHAT \nWE’RE — \n>>SPEAKER: CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES CONSISTENT WITH \nTHE PROJECT. STAFF DOES A \nPROCESS\, THEY GO LOOK AT THE \nPROJECT AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT \nIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nCALLED UPON TO DO HERE. THERE \nIS NO 100 FOOT SET BACK. THAT \nIS A MISNOMER THAT. IS \nNOTHING. \nIT DOES NOT EXIST. SO WHEN \nPEOPLE BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY \nTHAT IN OUR SHORELINE BAND\, IT’S \nNOT THAT THEY EXPECT TO MOVE THE \nPROPERTY 100 FEET OFF THAT. IS \nNOT — THIS IS NOT AN EASEMENT \nFOR PUBLIC ACCESS. WHAT WE DO \nIS WE DETERMINE WHAT IS MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT THAT \nIS THERE. THAT’S — AND I WANT \nTO BE REAL CLEAR ABOUT THAT \nBECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE’RE \nGETTING OFF ON A TANGENT HERE \nAND MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT THE \nPROCESS IS. THE PROCESS IS \nSIMPLY\, IS THIS THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN \nWITH THIS PROJECT\, GIVEN THE \nCONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. WE’RE \nGIVEN A PARTICULAR SITE\, DECIDE \nWHAT ARE THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE \nSITE HOW DO YOU PROVIDE MAC MUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THERE ARE \nMANY PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME \nBEFORE BCDC AND A LOT OF THOSE \nARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECTS \nSO IF SOMEONE HAS A \nSINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECT WE \nSAY WHAT’S THE MAXIMUM FEASIBLE \nPUBLIC ACCESS WHICH MAY BE ZERO \nWITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME \nBECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT PEOPLE \nWANDERING INTO THE SINGLE-FAMILY \nHOME SO THERE IS NO PUBLIC \nACCESS IN THE SHORELINE BAND ON \nTHAT OR IT MAY HAPPEN THERE MAY \nBE ABILITY TO PROVIDE SOME \nSTAIRS DOWN THERE OR SOMETHING \nWE LOOK AT EACH PROJECT AND MAKE \nCASE BY CASE DETERMINATION AND \nFROM IS NO SET BACK IT JUST \nDOESN’T EXIST AS A CONCEPT \nWITHIN OUR REGULATIONS I THINK \nIT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMISSION \nCAN APPROVE OR DENY THE PROJECT \nBUT IT’S GOT TO BE BASED ON \nMAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nAND STAFF HAS PROVIDED \nCONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT — \nYES LARRY KEEPS \nSAY CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT\, HE’S CORRECT WE LOOK AT \nTHE PROJECT\, LOOK AT THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND SAY HAS THE \nAPPLICANT PROVIDED MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS. \nSTAFF BELIEVES THEY HAVE GIVEN \nTHE CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROJECT \nTHE QUESTION IS\, DO YOU THINK \nTHEY HAVE\, AND THAT’S WHAT \nYOU’RE VOTING O REALLY NOTHING \nELSE. I MEAN\, THE CITY OF \nREDWOOD CITY HAS GONE INTO THE \nOTHER ISSUES\, YOU KNOW\, THAT’S \nOUR JURISDICTION\, THAT’S OUR JOB \nTODAY. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. I — \nOKAY\, POINT TAKEN. I UNDERSTAND \nTHAT. YEAH\, ARE THE ONLY POINT \nI WOULD MAKE IS \nPERHAPS BEYOND TODAY A \nDISCUSSION IS WHEN IN THE LONGER \nTERM WHEN CITIES DO LOOK AT \nZONING FOR AREAS ALONG THE \nSHORELINE AS WE HOPE THAT THEY \nALLOW\, YOU KNOW\, ZONE WITH — \nWITH SEA LEVEL RISE\, ET CETERA\, \nIN — AS ONE OF THE \nCONSIDERATIONS. SO\, THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nHAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND A \nREQUEST/SUGGESTION. I WANT TO \nREEMPHASIZE WHAT GREG SAID. THE \n100 FEET SHORELINE BAND IS \nWITHIN OUR JURISDICTION UNDER \nSTATE LAW\, UNDER THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT FOR PURPOSES \nOF MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF \nTHE PROJECT. THERE IS A \nSEPARATE OVERLYING PIECE\, WHICH \nI THINK WE WILL GET TO IN THE \nFUTURE\, COMING FROM OUR \nGUIDELINES TO JURISDICTIONS \nUNDER SB272 OF HOW TO RESPOND\, \nTHAT MAY HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE \nACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 100 \nSHORELINE. BUT THE PRIMARY \nJURISDICTION OVER WHAT GOES \nTHERE\, ACCEPT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS \nIS UP TO LOCAL JURISDICTION NOT \nTHIS AGENCY. \nMY SUGGESTION REQUEST IS \nWHETHER WE CAN HAVE A CONDITION \nTHAT THE — THAT THE CONDITIONS \nIN THE EXISTENCE OF PERMIT IS \nRECORDED. \nWE HAVE HAD OCCASIONAL \nDISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS THERE IS \nA CONDITION HOMEOWNERS BE GIVEN \nNOTICE BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE \nWAY DO THAT NOTICE IS RECORDING \nTHE PERMIT SO THAT SHOWS UP IN \nTHE RECORD AND IT’S PARTICULARLY \nOUT FOR THIS PROJECT WHICH IS \nFOR SALE PROJECT SO THAT THE \nINDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND SUCCESSORS \nAND BUYERS WOULD THEN CLEARLY \nHAVE NOTICED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE \nIN THE RECORD AND TITLE REPORT I \nPOSE THAT TO STAFF AND THEN \nASSUMING THAT’S OKAY WE’LL POSE \nTO SEE WHETHER IT’S ACCEPTABLE \nTO THE APPLICANT \n>>SPEAKER: QUICKLY THERE IS \nALREADY ONE CONDITION WITHIN THE \nPERMIT SO IT’S IN ADDITION TO \nTHE NOTICE TO BUYERS ANY TIME WE \nHAVE DEDICATION CONDITION WITHIN \nA PERMIT IT’S TYPICAL WHERE WE \nWOULD REQUIRE RECORDING AS WELL \nTHE TIMING ON THIS ONE IS \nSLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF THAT IT’S \nREQUIRED AT THE TIME OF CLOSE OF \nSALE OF THE PROPERTY. \n>>KATHARINE PAN: BECAUSE THE \nPERMITTEE CURRENTLY DOES NOT \nACTUAL LE OWN THE PROPERTY\, THEY \nHAVE AN OPTION TO PURCHASE. BUT \nIT IS IN THERE THAT AT THAT \nTIME\, WHEN THEY’RE READY TO MOVE \nFORWARD WITH THE PROJECT\, THAT \nIT WILL BE RECORDED. \nI THINK AT THIS POINT IT’S NOT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO\, \nYEAH\, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT \nUNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES\, YOU \nCAN’T RECORD THE PERMIT UNTIL IT \nCOMES INTO THE APPLICANT’S HANDS \nTHAT\, MAKES PERFECT SENSE. I \nJUST WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF IS \nSATISFIED THAT WE’RE FULLY \nPROTECTED. NO DISRESPECT AT ALL \nTO THE APPLICANT THAT THAT WILL \nBE DONE. SO\, IT’S THERE. \nTHAT’S FINE. I’M SATISFIED. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, CAN I INTERRUPT FOR A \nSECOND. CAN I PLEASE ASK ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS TO TURN ON YOUR \nCAMERAS\, ALL COMMISSIONERS ON \nTHE CAMERA AT ALL TIMES WE NEED \nTO MAKE SURE WE’RE KEEPING \nQUORUM AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN \nTELL IS IF WE CAN SEE YOU. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IF \nTHERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS THEN \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION\, PLEASE. \nOH I’M SORRY. WE DID CLOSE THE \nPUBLIC HEARING\, DIDN’T WE? \nTHANK YOU. STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION\, \nPLEASE. \n>>SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. SO THIS \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS MAILED \nTO YOU ON MAY 10TH\, 2024. IN \nHERE I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A \nMOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THAT A LOT \nOF THE HARD WORK ON THE STAFF \nANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION WAS \nACTUALLY COMPLETED BY JESSICA \nFINKEL ONE OF OUR EXCELLENT \nPERMIT ANALYSTS WHO RECENTLY \nWENT ON PLAN LEAVE AND SO \nCOULDN’T BE HERE TO PRESENT THE \nITEM TO YOU TODAY I WANT TO \nPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR HER \nEFFORTS BECAUSE IT MADE IT \nPOSSIBLE FOR US TO CARRY IT THE \nREST OF THE WAY. WITH THAT \nSTAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE \nCOMMISSION APPROVE THE PERMIT \nAPPLICATION WITH SEVERAL \nCONDITIONS AMONG THEM ARE \nDEDICATION OF THE ON-SITE PUBLIC \nACCESS AREAS AND IMPROVEMENTS \nWITHIN THE TOTAL PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREA INCLUDING IN THE CALTRANS \nREDWOOD CITY RIGHTS OF WAY \nPRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PROCESS \nENSURING FEASIBILITY AND \nCONSISTENCY OF FINAL DESIGN \nSUBMITTING PROPERTY INTERESTS \nFOR WORK ON LANDS THAT ARE NOT \nCURRENTLY OWNED BY PERMITTEE \nPRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK \nSUBMITTING APPLICABLE WATER \nQUALITY CERTIFICATIONS OR WASTE \nCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE \nWATER BOARD PRIOR TO BEGINNING \nWORK DOCUMENTING COMPLETION OF \nON-SITE AND OFFSITE REMEDIATION \nPRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ON \nINHABITABLE SPACES MEASURES TO \nPROTECT BAY RESOURCES \nCOMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE \nHABITAT IMPACTS OF NEW BAY FILL\, \nMONITORING AND ADAPTATION \nPLANNING TO ENSURE CONTINUED \nVIABILITY PUBLIC ACCESS NOTICING \nFUTURE HOME BUYERS ABOUT \nRESPONSIBILITIES UNDER PERMIT \nINCLUDING REQUIREMENTS TO \nMAINTAINS ADAPT PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREAS STAFF CONSISTENT WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONS LAWS AND POLICIES \nRECOMMENDS THAT YOU ADOPT \nRECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTAKE DOWN THE SLIDE SO YOU CAN \nSEE THE SCREEN PLEASE. IS THERE \nA MOTION? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE THE \nSTAFF — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M \nRECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: I WOULD LIKE TO \nMOVE APPROVAL OF THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION PATTED PAT EKLUND \nI’LL SECOND. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nECKLUND SECONDS. IF THERE ARE \nNO FURTHER QUESTIONS SIERRA \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBAL? \n>>SPEAKER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: IT’S A \nTOUGH ONE\, BUT\, YES\, I GUESS SO. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: I HAVE A \nTOTAL OF 14 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND \nONE ABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANKS ALL OF \nYOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK \nAND THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION \nFOR THE THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN\, WE \nWILL RECEIVE A BRIEFING AND \nCONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING OUR \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO \nA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nAMONG BCDC AND THE MEMBER \nAGENCIES OF THE BAY AREA \nREGIONAL COLLABORATIVE\, BARC. \nTHE PURPOSE OF THE MOU IS TO \nCOORDINATE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS \nTHE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AREA. \nJESSICA FAIN OUR PLANNING \nDIRECTOR WILL INTRODUCE THE \nISSUE THEN INTRODUCE ALLISON \nBROOKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE \nLEADER OF THIS EFFORT TO DRAFT \nAND ADOPT THE MOU. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND GOOD \nAFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS I’M \nPLEASED TO BE HERE AT THE END OF \nTODAY’S MEETING WITH YOU TO \nPRESENT AND SEEK YOUR \nAUTHORIZATION FOR OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN \nINTER-AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF \nUNDERSTANDING ON FLOODING AND \nSEA LEVEL RISE. I’M JOINED \nTODAY BY ALLISON BROOKS THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE WHO \nHAS HELPED SPEARHEAD THIS EFFORT \nAND WHO IS GOING TO BE \nCOPRESENTING WITH ME TODAY. SO \nIF SOMEONE CAN PULL UP THE \nPRESENTATION\, WE CAN GET GOING. \nTHANK YOU. SO\, THE COMMISSION \nIS WELL AWARE THAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE IS HAPPENING AND THAT AS A \nREGION IT WILL FUNDAMENTALLY \nCHANGE THE WAY THAT WE WILL \nLIVE\, WORK\, AND RECREATE ALONG \nOUR BAY SHORELINE. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. IT WILL ALSO COST A LOT \nOF MONEY. HERE IS A SLIDE FROM \nA RECENT REPORT THAT BCDC AND \nMTC ABAG RELEASED LAST SUMMER \nTHAT MAPS OUT THE $110 BILLION \nTHAT IS ESTIMATED\, THAT IT WILL \nCOST THE REGION TO ADAPT TO \nRISING SEA LEVEL BY \nMID-CENTURY. \nAND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS $110 \nBILLION ESTIMATE\, ABOUT HALF \nTHOSE COSTS ARE BASED ON WHAT WE \nKNOW OR OUR PLANNED PROJECTS\, IF \nYOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE RIGHT \nTHOSE ARE THE BLUE SPACES AS \nWELL AS WHAT WE CALL PLACE \nHOLDER PROJECTS GREEN LINES \nWHERE NO PROJECT EXISTS BUT WE \nKNOW SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO \nHAPPEN THERE. WHILE THIS IS A \nLOT OF MONEY IT APPEALS IN \nCOMPARISON TO THE ESTIMATED $231 \nBILLION IN \nANTICIPATED DAMAGES SHOULD WE \nDO NOTHING. \n$230 BILLION ARE BASED ON \nACCESSED PROPERTY VALUES AS WELL \nAS TRANSPORTATION ASSETS. THE \nREPORT INDICATED THERE IS \nCONSIDERABLE UNEVENNESS ACROSS \nTHE REGION IN TERMS OF PROJECT \nTYPES HOW FAR ALONG PLACES ARE \nAS WELL AS ABILITY OF LOCAL \nGOVERNMENTS AND OTHER PLACES TO \nRAISE FUNDS THERE ARE EQUITY \nIMPLICATIONS TO THIS WORK AS WE \nLOOK ACROSS THIS REGION TO TRY \nTO ADAPT AS A REGION. \nADDITIONALLY IT’S WORTH NOTING \nTHERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF \nACTIVITIES THAT ARE NEEDED BOTH \nTHE RESTORATION OF OUR BAY \nWETLANDS\, AND OTHER NATURE-BASED \nSTRATEGIES. BUT WE ALSO KNOW \nTHAT A VARIETY OF GRAY \nINFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES ARE \nNEEDED IN OTHER PLACES. SO \nWHILE A LOT OF THE WORK THAT A \nLOT OF OUR REGIONAL AND STATE \nAGENCIES ARE FOCUSED ON NOW \nACCELERATING NATURE-BASED \nSTRATEGIES THERE IS NOT A \nSIMILAR ANALOG FOR GRAY \nINFRASTRUCTURE WHERE \nNATURE-BASED STRATEGIES ARE NOT \nFEASIBLE AND BOTH OF THESE TYPES \nOF SOLUTIONS ARE REQUIRED. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nSO THIS REPORT AS WELL AS BCDC’S \nWORK THROUGH OUR BAY ADAPT \nPROGRAM HAVE REALLY IDENTIFIED \nTHE NEED TO NOT JUST IDENTIFY \nTHIS BIG FUNDING GAP\, BUT THAT \nWE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO \nIDENTIFY HOW WE CAN IDENTIFY \nLEADS WHO CAN SPEARHEAD AND HELP \nFILL THE GAPS WITH SOME OF THESE \nFUNDING HOLES. THE BAY ADAPT \nJOINT PLATFORM FOR EXAMPLE\, \nCALLS FOR A REVENUE GENERATION \nAND DISTRIBUTION PLAN AND \nACCOMPANYING GOVERNANCE \nSTRUCTURE TO RAISE AND \nDISTRIBUTE FUNDS AND THIS REPORT \nWE RELEASED LAST YEAR LIKEWISE \nCALLS FOR ESTABLISHING AND \nDEVELOPING BETTER LEAD ROLES FOR \nORGANIZING HOW WE FUND THIS \nWORK. THE BAY AREA REGIONAL \nCOLLABORATION HAVE ROLLED UP \nTHEIR SLEEVES TO DEVELOP THE SEA \nLEVEL RISE MOU IT IS ATTACHED IN \nYOUR MEETING PACKAGE TODAY\, \nATTACHMENT A\, AND I’LL TURN IT \nOVER TO ALLISON TO TALK US \nTHROUGH IT. \n>>ALLISON BROOKS: THANKS \nJESSICA\, AND THANKS FOR HAVING \nME HERE TODAY. I CAN SIT DOWN? \n[LAUGHTER] \nGREAT. THANKS JESSICA. IT’S \nGREAT TO BE WITH YOU TODAY \nCOMMISSIONERS. NEXT SLIDE. A \nQUICK RECAP OF WHAT IS THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATION. IT \nWAS CREATED THROUGH STATE \nSTATUTE. WE HAVE FOUR MEMBER \nAGENCIES WRITTEN INTO THE \nLEGISLATION. THE TOP $4\, \nINCLUDING BCDC\, AND THEN WE HAVE \nTHE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THREE \nAGENCIES THAT PARTICIPATE \nREGULARLY IN OUR EFFORTS\, AND \nTHEY ARE SIGNATORIES OF THIS \nMOU\, AS WELL. AND THEY’RE ALL \n— WE’RE MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH \nGETTING THEIR APPROVAL\, EACH \nAGENCY’S APPROVAL TO HAVE THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS \nSIGN THE MOU. EACH ARE KIND OF \nAPPROACHING IT IN THEIR OWN WAY\, \nBUT YOU’RE THE FIRST ONE TO \nBRING — YOU’RE THE FIRST ENTITY \nTHAT WE’RE BRINGING IT FORWARD \nTO\, SO THAT’S EXCITING. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, WHAT IS — WHAT’S IN THE \nMOU? WHAT IS THE MOU\, IF YOU \nHAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO POUR \nOVER IT QUITE YET\, WELL\, ITS \nPURPOSE IS TO ALIGN EFFORTS \nEXPERTISE AND CORE FUNCTIONS \nACROSS THOSE SEVEN AGENCIES TO \nACCOMPLISH SOME KEY GOALS\, \nACCELERATE PROJECT \nIMPLEMENTATION\, INCREASE THE BAY \nAREA’S COMPETITIVENESS FOR \nFUNDING SO HOW CAN WE WORK \nTOGETHER TO GO AFTER \nINCREASINGLY MORE SCARCE \nRESOURCES AT THE STATE LEVEL AND \nAT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO SUPPORT \nSOME OF OUR BIG ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD \nAROUND THE REGION. ANOTHER GOAL \nIS TO ESTABLISH STRUCTURES \nCOORDINATION AND PROJECT \nPRIORITIZATION\, SUPPORT \nMULTI-JURISDICTIONAL \nPARTNERSHIPS\, AND SUPPORT CITIES \nAND COUNTIES\, AND WORK WITH YOU \nALL TO EXPAND YOUR CAPACITY TO \nFUND AND IMPLEMENT ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL\, \nBECAUSE WE KNOW THAT’S REALLY \nWHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD. \nSO\, I’LL QUICKLY GIVE A BRIEF \nSUMMARY OF EACH OF THE FIVE \nTOPIC AREAS WHICH YOU’RE SEEING \nON THE SLIDE HERE THAT ARE \nCOVERED IN THE MOU\, THESE CORE \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS WHERE WE HAVE \nIDENTIFIED LEADS WHERE\, AS MUCH \nAS POSSIBLE. SO\, ON THE \nPLANNING SIDE\, PREPARING FOR SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND FLOODING RISK\, \nTHAT FOCUSES ON PLANS\, POLICIES \nAND PROJECT PRIORITIES TO FOSTER \nAN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR WIDE \nSCALE ADVANCEMENT OF EQUITABLE \nMULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS. THE FIRST MAIN ITEMS \nINCLUDED IN THAT ARE BCDC \nDEVELOPING YOUR REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR \nSENATE BILL 272\, WHICH IS OFF \nAND RUNNING\, AND THE SECOND IS \nTO DEVELOP A SEA LEVEL RISE \nFUNDING AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY \nTHAT’S BEEN GOING TO BE LED BY \nBCDC AND MTC ABAG TO REALLY \nPRIORITIZE PROJECTS AND FUNDING \nSTRATEGIES WHICH WILL THEN BE \nINCLUDED IN PLANNED BAY AREA. \nSO\, WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES \nWORKING TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS \nTO REALLY START TO INTEGRATE \nTHESE EFFORTS AND I THINK IT’S \nSHOWING UP HERE REALLY NICELY. \nON THE FUND MANAGEMENT SIDE\, IT \nDESCRIBES HOW THE AGENCIES WILL \nCOLLABORATE TO SEEK\, SECURE\, AND \nDISTRIBUTE FUNDING TO SUPPORT \nTHE DELIVERY OF PROJECTS THAT WE \nHAVE IDENTIFIED THE STATE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY IS THE LEAD \nFOR FUNDING PROPOSALS TO FEDERAL \nAGENCIES\, THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY WITH BARC WILL TRACK \nWITH STAFF AND COORDINATE \nFUNDING PROPOSALS AND THERE ARE \nROLES IN THERE FOR SAN FRANCISCO \nESTUARY PARTNERSHIP\, MTC AND \nABAG AND CALTRANS TO RAISE \nFUNDS\, ALIGN AND DISTRIBUTE \nFUNDING\, AS WELL AS COORDINATE \nON LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY AND \nREGIONAL FUNDING MEASURES. THIS \nSECTION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE \nFOCUSES ON HOW REGIONAL AGENCIES \nCAN BEST SUPPORT PROJECT \nDEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY THROUGH \nA REGIONAL TA PROGRAM. THIS IS \nINTENDED TO AUGMENT THE CAPACITY \nOF LOCAL GOVERNMENT\, SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS AND LOCAL \nORGANIZATIONS. OF COURSE\, \nREALLY BRINGING THIS TO THE \nSCALE\, I THINK WE ALL WOULD \nBENEFIT FROM AND REALLY WHAT WE \nNEED IS \nGOING TO NEED IS MORE FUNDING. \nTHERE IS A LOT TO START WITH AND \nMANY INVOLVED IN THIS SPACE \nWE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO FOCUS \nON HOW WE CAN ORGANIZE OURSELVES \nAND POTENTIALLY EXPAND AND MEET \nTHE NEEDS OF THE REGION \nPROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. \nTHE REGULATORY ALIGNMENT SECTION \nIS FAIRLY SHORT BUT WE COMMIT \nTHE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER \nAND WITH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY \nTO CONTINUALLY IMPROVE THE \nPERMITTING PROCESS TO FACILITATE \nMULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION \nPROJECT DELIVERY WHILE \nMAINTAINING IMPORTANT \nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS\, AND \nFINALLY THE COORDINATION SECTION \nFOR COLLABORATIVE \nDECISION-MAKING DESCRIBES THE \nPROCESS AND FORUMS FOR \nCOLLABORATION AND \nDECISION-MAKING. AND IT’S WORTH \nNOTING\, THINGS CHANGE. WE KNOW \nTHINGS — THERE IS A LOT OF \nCHANGE IN THE WORLD. SO\, THE \nMOU DOESN’T SUPERSEDE OR CHANGE \nANY AUTHORITIES OR JURISDICTIONS \nOF INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES. IT \nDOESN’T LOCK US INTO THIS \nRELATIONSHIP MOVING FORWARD\, IT \nALLOWS FOR CHANGES TO OCCUR \nMOVING FORWARD. IT’S EXCITING \nTHE AGENCIES ARE COMMITTING TO \nREALLY KIND OF FIGURING OUT HOW \nTO SYNC OF AND ALIGN THESE \nEFFORTS AROUND THESE FUNCTIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nHERE IS A QUICK ROLES AT A \nGLANCE SUMMARY SHEET WE HAVE \nPREPARED THAT IDENTIFY THE PRIME \nENTITIES FOR THE DIFFERENCE \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS THE CORE AGENCY \nIS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM AND \nESSENTIALLY EVERYBODY’S INVOLVED \nIN EVERYTHING ON THIS NEXT \nSLIDE. SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? \nWHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL\, WE \nHAVE NEVER DONE SOMETHING LIKE \nTHIS BEFORE IT’S INTRODUCING A \nCOORDINATED REGIONAL STRATEGY TO \nFUND AND DELIVER PROJECTS WHICH \nREALLY HASN’T BEEN UNDERTAKEN. \nIT IS SIGNIFICANT AND THERE IS A \nLOT OF WORK TO DO TO REALLY \nOPERATIONALIZE THIS BUT IT IS \nOUTLINING RULES AND \nRESPONSIBILITIES ACROSS \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS TO ACHIEVE \nTHESE SHARED GOALS. I THINK WE \nHAVE ALL BEEN WORKING ON THIS\, \nAND I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY BIG \nDEAL\, AND I’LL HAPPENED IT OVER \n— WE HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE? I \nTHINK THAT’S IT. THAT WOULD BE \nIT. OH\, YEAH\, I CAN HAND IT \nOVER TO JESSICA NOW. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: SORRY. IN CASE \nTHIS SOUNDS SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR TO \nYOU OR ANY OF THESE CONCEPTS\, IT \nREALLY SHOULD. MUCH OF THIS \nCOMES FROM THE BAY ADAPT JOINT \nPLATFORM THE CONSENSUS DRIVEN \nROADMAP FOR REGIONAL SEA LEVEL \nRISE ADAPTATION LED BY BCDC \nADOPTED IN 2021 THE MOU SPECIFIC \nCALLS OUT FOR EXAMPLE\, SOME OF \nOUR BAY ADAPT GROUPS LIKE THE \nIMPLEMENT BAY ADAPT \nIMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING \nGROUP OUR LEADERSHIP GROUP TO BE \nA FORUM THAT’S TO HELP MOVE THAT \nMOU FORWARD RELIES ON REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nBACKBONE TO SUPPORT THAT BCDC IS \nPROVIDING TO HELP MOVE IT \nFORWARD AS L LASTLY THE MOU \nADVANCING SEVERAL OF BCDC’S \nSTRATEGIC PLAN GOALS NAMELY GOAL \nONE LEADING REGIONAL PLANNING \nEFFORTS THAT RESULT IN \nSUCCESSFUL EQUITABLE ADAPTATION\, \nGOAL TWO IMPROVING OUR \nREGULATORY PLANNING FUNCTION IN \nA UNIFIED REGIONAL SCALE \nAPPROACH AND GOAL THREE \nEMBEDDING EQUITY INITIATIVES AND \nPRACTICES THROUGH THE OUR \nPROGRAMS. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, OUR NEXT STEPS\, AS ALLISON \nMENTIONED\, EACH OF THE AGENCIES \nIS WORKING THIS THROUGH THEIR \nOWN SYSTEM WE LIKE TO BE FIRST \nLIKE ALL THINGS RELATED TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, PAVING THE WAY\, THEN \nTHE IDEA IS THAT THE BARC \nGOVERNING BOARD MEETING IN JULY\, \nHOPEFULLY THE FULL BOARD WILL \nAPPROVE THIS\, THEN THE HARD WORK \nBEGINS AS WE START TO REALLY \nDIVE INTO THE WORKPLAN THAT \nWE’RE DEVELOPING AND MOVING \nTHESE PIECES FORWARD. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nI’LL READ THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND THEN PERHAPS \nWE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR \nDISCUSSION. BUT\, WE’RE ASKING \nYOU TODAY TO AUTHORIZE THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO \nA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nAMONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nCONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT \nCOMMISSION AND THE ASSOCIATION \nOF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS\, ALSO \nHOST SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY \nPARTNERSHIP\, THE BAAQMD\, THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE\, THE \nCALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY\, THE CALIFORNIA \nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION \nDISTRICT FOUR\, THE METROPOLITAN \nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\, AND \nTHE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER \nQUALITY CONTROL BOARD\, SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY REGION. TO \nCOORDINATE EVERYDAYS TO ADDRESS \nTHE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AREA. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nTHANK ALL OF THE PRESENTERS. I \nWILL HAVE SOME REMARKS IN A \nBIT. \nDO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NONE \nIN-PERSON AND NO HANDS RAISED\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMENTS OR \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANKS \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, AND THANKS TO \nALLISON AND STAFF FOR THE \nPRESENTATION. JUST WANT TO \nCONGRATULATE YOU ALL ON GETTING \nTO THIS POINT. I KNOW IT’S \nGOING TO BE COMPLEX TO FIGURE \nOUT HOW TO WORK ACROSS SO MANY \nDIFFERENT AGENCIES BUT HAVING A \nSHARED UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IS \nDOING WHAT AND WHAT THE PURPOSE \nIS IS INCREDIBLY HELPFUL AND I \nTHINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A \nVALUABLE TOOL. SO\, \nCONGRATULATIONS FOR THAT. I HAD \nONE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT MAYBE \nALLISON CAN SPEAK TO. I NOTED \nIN THE WRITE-UP THAT YOU HAVE A \nLEAD IDENTIFIED FOR SEEKING AND \nSECURING FEDERAL FUNDING. I \nDIDN’T SEE ANY REFERENCE TO THE \nSAME THING ON THE STATE LEVEL. \nBUT THAT’S — I ASSUME THE \nPATHWAY THAT WE’LL NEED TO \nPURSUE AS WELL\, AND I WONDER IF \nYOU COULD SPEAK TO THE APPROACH \nTHAT’S PLANNED THERE? \n>>ALLISON BROOKS: YEAH. THAT’S \nA GREAT QUESTION. IT’S PART OF \nTHE COORDINATION THAT WE’RE \nDOING\, WHERE WE’RE HAVING A \nSUBCOMMITTEE OF THE KEY AGENCIES \nAROUND THE FUND-RAISING TO\, \nFIRST\, IDENTIFY — WE’RE GOING \nTO HAVE A LIST AND IDENTIFY ALL \nTHE ACTIVE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES \nTHAT ARE COMING FORWARD\, AND \nTHROUGH OUR WORK TOGETHER AND \nCOORDINATION\, WE’LL IDENTIFY WHO \nTHE APPROPRIATE LEAD IS FOR A \nSPECIFIC GRANT OPPORTUNITY AS \nTHEY COME FORWARD BASED ON WHO \nIS BEST POSITIONED TO GO AFTER \nIT. AND THEN THROUGH THAT\, \nWE’LL IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR \nJOINT PROPOSALS THAT MAY COME \nFORWARD. BUT\, REALLY\, I THINK \nIT’S HELPFUL TO JUST SAY WE’RE \nGOING TO START WITH THE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AS THE KIND OF MAIN \nENTITY. BUT THERE WILL BE \nOPPORTUNITIES WHICH WE RECOGNIZE \nFOR STATE GRANTS AND OTHERS \nWHERE ANOTHER APPLICANT CAN \nPROBABLY BETTER SUITED TO GO \nAFTER IT. SO\, THAT’S REALLY \nWHERE THE COORDINATION AND THE \nSYSTEM WE’RE SETTING UP TO \nREGULARLY BE ON TOP OF THESE \nOPPORTUNITIES WILL KICK N FOR \nSURE.   . \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: A QUESTION \nABOUT FINANCE. I’M REALLY \nPLEASED TO SEE THE DISCUSSION \nWITH INVESTMENT STRATEGY IN \nPLANNING\, NUMBER ONE\, BUT UNDER \nNUMBER TWO\, I HAVE A QUESTION\, A \nLOT OF THE DISCUSSION AS STAFF \nWAS JUST TALKING ABOUT\, IS ABOUT \nA LOT OF LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT \nSEEKING FUNDING FROM STATE \nGRANTS FEDERAL GRANTS AND \nREGIONAL SOURCES. WE HAVE \nTALKED MANY TIMES ABOUT THE \nPOTENTIAL FOR A REGIONAL — A \nREGIONAL BALLOT MEASURE\, LIKE \nMEASURE AA\, THAT WOULD BE \nSUBSTANTIALLY LARGER\, FINANCE \nADAPTATION\, I KNOW 2H DISCUSSES \nTHAT POTENTIAL\, BUT IT SAYS \nLEAVING INSTRUCT BE DETERMINED \nFOR THAT ITEM\, THAT IDEA IS \nCRITICAL THERE MAY BE ANALOGOUS \nIDEAS THAT ARE JUST NOT QUITE \nTHAT BUT SOMETHING ELSE CREATIVE \nALONG THOSE LINES. I WANTED TO \nASK WHY 2H IS LEFT UNRESOLVED \nAND WHETHER THIS MOU ADEQUATELY \nCAPTURED OTHER POTENTIAL \nCREATIVE FUNDING MECHANISMS? \nBECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO \nCOME UP WITH THOSE \nMECHANISMS. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: I CAN TRY TO \nANSWER THIS\, I DON’T THINK \nANYONE IS JUMPING TO LEAD THE \nFUNDING MEASURES AT THIS POINT\, \nAND CERTAINLY\, WOULDN’T WELL \nSUITED\, BCDC IS NOT GOING TO \nLEAD A REGIONAL FUNDING MEASURE \nFOR EXAMPLE\, MTC AND ABAG ARE \nOCCUPIED RIGHT NOW WITH OTHER \nBALLOT MEASURES INCLUDING \nHOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION WHICH \nHAVE RESILIENCY COMPONENTS AS \nWELL BUT AREN’T SPECIFIC ON THIS \nTOPIC. I THINK THIS IS \nIMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THIS IS A \nCONCEPT WE DON’T WANT TO LOSE \nIT’S KNOWN IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE \nDISCUSSED FOR A LONG TIME THAT \nWE’RE COMMITTING TO BUT I THINK \nTHERE IS MORE TO BE DONE IN \nTERMS OF FIGURING OUT EXACTLY \nTHE RIGHT LEAD ON HOW TO MOVE \nTHAT FORWARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ONE \nOF THE DIFFICULTIES IS THIS MOU \nIS REALLY AIMED AT THESE \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND WHILE \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES WERE \nINVOLVED IN AA\, THEY WERE NOT \nTHE LEAD AND THAT MAY BE THE \nCASE AGAIN. BUT WE WILL \nCERTAINLY BE VERY INVOLVED IN \nNOT ONLY THINKING ABOUT IT\, BUT \nMAKING SURE IT STAYS AT THE TOP \nOF EVERYBODY’S ATTENTION. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK \nJESSICA AND ALLISON AND ALL OF \nTHE AGENCIES. I HAVE BEEN \nFOLLOWING THIS AND VERY \nGRATIFIED TO SEE ALL THE \nPROGRESS IT’S MADE. I WANT TO \nOFFER A FURTHER THOUGHT ALONG \nTHE LINES THAT COMMISSIONER \nNELSON JUST OFFERED\, AND THAT \nIS\, I KNOW THE FOCUS HERE IS ON \nCOORDINATING GRANT APPLICATIONS \nFOR FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING\, I \nTHINK IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO \nREALIZE THAT THE PRIVATE AND \nNON-PROFIT SECTORS WILL PLAY A \nROLE IN FUNDING IN THE KIND OF \nMITIGATION ACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE \nLOOKING FOR. AND SO WHILE IT \nDOESN’T TOTALLY FIT WITHIN THE \nGRID AND TABLE THAT WE SAW\, I \nTHINK THE AGENCIES\, AND BARC\, \nWANT TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE \nHOW WE WOULD INCORPORATE THE \nPRIVATE AND NGO SECT ON WERES \nWHO WILL INEVITABLY GET INTO THE \nPICTURE AND HOW WE LEVERAGE \nTHOSE DOLLARS ALONG WITH THE \nSTATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING. SO \nJUST WANTED TO THROW THAT INTO \nTHE POT FOR FUTURE \nCONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWANT TO JOIN IN THANKING \nEVERYBODY. WHEN I WAS INVOLVED \nIN A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS \nLEADING UP TO THIS MOU\, AND \nTHERE WAS INITIALLY A LOT OF \nSKEPTICISM\, NOT ABOUT DOING IT\, \nBUT HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE\, \nOR NOT\, AND HOW QUICKLY WE COULD \nDO IT. AND I THINK WE ARE \nBEATING PEOPLE’S EXPECTATIONS. \nI SHARE JESSICA’S PRIDE IN OUR \nBEING FIRST AGENCY TO APPROVE \nIT\, AND I THINK IT WILL MOVE \nALONG WITH ALL OF THE AGENCIES\, \nBUT IN PART BECAUSE THIS CLEARLY \nWAS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT. NOT \nALWAYS WILLINGLY\, BUT EVERYBODY \nUNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF \nDOING THIS AND TAKING THIS \nAPPROACH. AND A LOT OF THE \nFOCUS IS ON FINANCING\, BUT THE \nMOU GOES BEYOND THAT AND TALKS \nABOUT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND \nMOVING TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION. \nSO\, I WOULD — IF THERE ARE NO \nFURTHER QUESTIONS\, WELCOME \nSOMEONE MAKING THE MOTION TO \nAPPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT \nWE AUTHORIZE OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, I BELIEVE YOU NEED TO \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST? \nNEVER MIND. I STAND CORRECTED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY\, I WOULD \nLIKE TO MOVE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS. \nIF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS\, SEER A \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CAN I \nCONFIRM THAT WAS ECKLUND AND \nGUNTHER\, CORRECT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: KIMBALL? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON \nPETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>JUSTINE BEACH: ABSTAIN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nCAN THROW IN A REGRETFUL. \n>>SPEAKER: VERY REGRETFULLY\, \nPERSONALLY SUPPORT. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nVERY HAPPILY\, YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: A TOTAL \nOF 15 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, ALL VERY MUCH. I \nAPPRECIATE THIS. I APPRECIATE \nYOUR ATTENTION AND EFFORTS\, AS \nALWAYS. \nAND WITH THAT\, I WOULD \nENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nADJOURN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES TO \nADJOURN AND COMMISSIONER NELSON \nSECONDS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO WE’RE ON OUR \nWAY NOW TO ABAG. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \n[LAUGHTER] \nIF THERE AREN’T NO OBJECTIONS \n\n \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-16-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240517T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240517T120000
DTSTAMP:20240528T225149Z
CREATED:20240528T224810Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T225149Z
UID:10000180-1715940000-1715947200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 17\, 2024 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
DESCRIPTION:Meeting Notice
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-17-2024-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group/
CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240521T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240521T120000
DTSTAMP:20240528T212536Z
CREATED:20240130T045033Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T212536Z
UID:10000134-1716283800-1716292800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 21\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-21-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR