March 26, 2021 Meeting Seaport Planning Advisory Committee Transcripts
Regarding consideration of Bay Plan Amendments (BPAs) 1-19 and 2-19
BCDC HOST: So we could go.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Cody do you have all the staff ready.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Are you are you ready for me to open the meeting formally.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Katharine.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: So it looks like the meeting is being recorded.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Cody I didn't hear you whether or not you're ready for me to call us to order.
BCDC HOST: Yes, I believe you can call us to order.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Good morning.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Welcome to the fifth seaport planning advisory committee or as those people familiar with acronyms call it SPAC.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: it's that meeting on the seaport update we're glad to have everyone joining us here this morning on zoom, although I would prefer to see you all in person.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: My name is Jim McGrath and I'm an alternate member BCDC and filling into chair this meeting.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The purpose of today's meeting is for the SPAC to review the results of the alternatives analysis and provide BCDC staff with direction for actually drafting the seaport plan update.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Including a recommendation for a map of land use designations to use as well as recommendations for related policy approaches and perhaps even.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: areas where we need more information, please note that the order of agenda items has changed slightly from the tentative agenda included in the meeting notice.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: which included the public comments, following the committee's discussion we've shifted the comment period so that it occurs, before the committee discussion to allow the comments to inform the discussion.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: staff will make a presentation on the alternatives and their potential effects for each port priority use area, as well as policy considerations for the draft plan, following the presentation SPAC Members will have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: and offer any clarifying information on, I am in the staff report the SPAC will then hear public comments after public comments have ended the SPAC will discuss the information presented in more detail.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Please know that, while the SPAC is expected to recommend a land use map at this meeting, it will not be making a determination on any specific port priority use designation.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: All recommendations will continue to be considered as informing the draft plan which will be subject to comment and revision until the Commission votes on the relevant.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: plan, Bay plan amendments and keep in mind that there are two there's one as back in general, which is what we're dealing with today, there is another for the request to delete Howard Terminal which is not before us today.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Our first order of business is to call the role. Committee members, please unmute yourselves respond and then mute yourself again after responding. Cody please call the role and state each members affiliation.
BCDC HOST: Thank you, Jim.
BCDC HOST: Start things off Jim McGrath chair.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I'm here excellent.
BCDC HOST: Brendan O'Meara from the port of San Francisco
Brendan O’Meara: Here.
BCDC HOST: Kristine Zortman, the port of Redwood city.
Kristine Zortman - SPAC: Here sorry.
let's see Andrea Gardner.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: Wonderful friend here.
BCDC HOST: Captain Lynn Korwatch for maritime business.
Captain Lynn Korwatch: Yeah.
BCDC HOST: David Lewis from Save the Bay.
David Lewis (he/him/his), SPAC: I'm here.
BCDC HOST: Kara Vuicich from MTC.
BCDC HOST: That yes.
MTC/ABAG Staff: Kara Vuicich, SPAC: that's okay i'm here.
BCDC HOST: Apologies every time.
MTC/ABAG Staff: Kara Vuicich, SPAC: No worries.
BCDC HOST: And then Alan Wolken.
BCDC HOST: I don't see him yet.
BCDC HOST: So anyone that I haven't called that's on the SPAC.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: Cameran Oakes with Caltrans.
BCDC HOST: Cameron Caltrans perfect.
BCDC HOST: Excellent.
BCDC HOST: And we have a quorum.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Thank you Cody.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Cody be careful when you're talking sometimes you're fading out I'm not sure if you're moving back or there's a there's a connection problem.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Thank you all, I would like to thank everyone, especially the public for taking the time to join this online meeting we're grateful for everyone's continued participation over the past year and I want to recognize how difficult the year has been and how much more.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: alienated it is to only see people by zoom with a virtual background, but we carry on.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I want to quickly share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting, so that it runs as smoothly as possible.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: First, everyone, please make sure that your microphones or phones are muted.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: To avoid background noise for committee members, if you have a webcam please make sure that is on it remains on throughout the meeting, as it is important that the public and your colleagues are able to see.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I want to reinforce that because body language and reactions are really important to total communication, if you have technical questions during this.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: technical issues during this call, please email help desk at BCDC.ca.gov for assistance today's meeting materials can be found on the BCDC website under the Seaport Plan Advisory Committee public meetings.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: there's the agenda there there's also the staff report and now there's the presentation slides.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: to submit written comments during or following today's meeting, please email public comment at.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: email@example.com where public comment is one word with no spaces and to see any comments received today will be posted next week and Cody could you put those addresses in the chat so that everyone can see them and make sure that they have them rather than rely on my pronunciation.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Now I'm gonna make a personal note, this is a difficult meeting because we've lost two members of the SPAC.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And I knew them both well.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: This is this is that that time where it's better to have the Executive Director of the Port of Oakland of the port of Richmond Jim help me with this Cody.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: mats.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Jim's last name.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Matzorkis.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Matzorkis, not the easiest name.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: passed away unexpectedly I've known Jim.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: For many years, even if I couldn't remember his name tonight, or this morning.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I got to know Jim Matzoriks as a basketball player before I realized that he worked for the Port of Oakland and I played basketball in Oakland For years, we were both young enough to do so I'm carrying out.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The management of a port like Richmond is no easy task he did it wonderfully.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And then there's.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Then there's the deputy chair of BCDC, Anne.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Again, the last name.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Anne Halsted.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: But Matzorkis was there in my meeting notes.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Anne Halsted is one of I think everyone's heroes who knows anything about the Bay, she spent she was kind of the Queen of San Francisco.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The most amazing thing about and as a model, I think, for all of us is she could be open to an encouraging of all viewpoints on a controversial issue.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: She could listen carefully to everyone, she mentored everyone that she had she tried to get them at their best and make difficult decisions, but not make them.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Within presumption, she was a model of this act of a citizen who participated in so many different aspects of life, other than just BCDC.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: She certainly one of my heroes, and I regret her passing immensely.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Now we've come to the item for approval of minutes.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: For October 29, 2020, meeting we've all been finished furnished draft minutes of our last meeting, which was held October 29, 2020.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I would appreciate a motion and second from the committee to approve the Minutes, please raise your hand via Zoom if you would like to move them in minutes or to second or, if you have any comments.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I don't see any hands raised Cody, are there any virtual hands.
Capt. Lynn Korwatch - SPAC: I'll go ahead and make the motion verbally if that's okay Jim.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Okay, so Captain Korwatch has moved and Brendan O’Meara has seconded.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Can we do this by hand vote.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: All in favor raise your hand.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Are there any objections.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: carried unanimously.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The Minutes have been unanimously adopted.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Now we've come to the staff presentation, turning to items three and four on the agenda Katharine Pan our waterfront planner will provide the staff report.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Following her presentation SPAC Members will have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions or add any clarifying details Katharine, please share your screen to begin the presentation.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Can you see my screen.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: We can okay.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Great um alright so good morning everyone and members of the SPAC I'm Katharine Pan waterfront planner at BCDC we do have a lot to cover today so I'll go ahead and just jump right in.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So today we'll be talking about the results of the alternatives analysis and a few additional policy considerations that we came across during this process.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I will spend a moment on the background of the seaport plan and the update and then move on to the alternatives.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I'll talk a bit about the purpose of the analysis and how it should inform your discussion today and then go over the alternatives and the topics we assessed.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then I'll introduce the policy considerations and talk a bit about how our meeting today will support the next steps in the planning process I'll end with some questions that staff would like you to consider, as part of your discussion.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So first let's just start with some background information to get everyone on the same page.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So the project we're discussing today is the update of BCDC Bay area seaport plan the seaport plan is an extension of the San Francisco Bay Plan that helps to coordinate port planning in the bay area and guides the BCDC decisions around port development and land use.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: As many of you know, the BCDC derives its authority from the McAteer Petris Act and everything we do flows from the provisions of that act.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The McAteer Petris Act finds that certain water oriented land uses along the shoreline are essential to the public welfare of the bay area and require that the.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Bay plan provide for adequate and suitable locations for these uses to reduce the potential that new sites will need to be created in the future, with a built, excuse me.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Seaports which are critical elements of the base economies supply chain and transportation infrastructure are recognized as such a use.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So the five goals of the seaport plan are as follows, one, ensure the continuation of the San Francisco Bay port system as a major world port and contributor to the economic vitality of the region.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Two, maintain or improve the environmental quality of the bay.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Three, provide the efficient use of finite resources consumed in developing and operating marine terminals.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Four, provide for integrated improve surface transportation facilities, and five, reserves efficient shoreline areas to accommodate future growth in maritime cargo thereby minimizing the need for new Bay fill for development.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The seaport plan tries to maintain and ensure the longevity of the port system in the most environmentally responsible manner possible.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And one of the ways, it does this is by reserving shoreline areas as port priority use to accommodate future growth and cargo.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: that's minimizing the likelihood that a port would need to fill the bay, because all existing land adequate for development, had already been developed for other uses.
00:14:28.110 --> 00:14:35.730
Katharine Pan - BCDC: For priority use areas are reserved for marine terminals and directly related ancillary activities such as container freight stations temporary storage.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: ship repair support transportation uses that just tracking and railyards government offices related to productivity, etc.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And within the port priorities areas sites for existing and future marine terminals are identified and reserved, specifically for cargo handling operations.
cargo type and amount that each marine terminal should be able to accommodate over the planning horizon.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The plan doesn't need these areas at the ports of Benecia, Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond, and San Francisco as well as that Selby and Concord, which are not currently active cargo port sites, but which were determined to have potential to serve as ports in the future.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: we're updating the seaport plan for a few different reasons, first, the forecast included in the plan are outdated and didn't project past the year 2020.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Many of the policies in the plan are also outdated referring to older initiatives that have been completed or conditions that no longer exist.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: and, additionally, with the adoption of climate change and environmental justice policies into the Bay Plan in recent years, the BCDC is looking for opportunities to make sure that the seaport plan aligns with the current Bay Plan in those areas.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And we've also received a request to change some of the port priority use and terminal designations in the plan.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So it's all of these things going on we're in a good position to refresh the plan and make sure it's relevant to current issues and conditions.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: This process started in January 2019 when BCDC initiated two Bay Plan amendments. BPA 1-19
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Is a general update of the plan and BPA 2-19 is in response to an application from the Oakland Athletics or Oakland A's to remove a portion of the Port priority destination from the Oakland port priority use area that's shown here in red on the slide.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: To allow for a proposed major league baseball stadium and mixed use development.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: we've been working on the two amendments concurrently as they share a lot of the same analyses, but they will be considered individually by the Commission.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And, given the way that the timeline has been progressing it's likely that the hearings for the two amendments might occur, a few months apart.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So amending the car plan with all the same approval processes any Bay plan amendment so that this staff will ultimately bring preliminary recommendations and analysis of the Commission for public hearing that prepare final recommendation for a vote.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: For our process are being helped by the seaport planning advisory committee.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The SPAC was initially formed to help draft the seaport plan and since then has met primarily to consider proposed seaport plan amendments it consists of representatives from BCDC’s Commission vc MTC/ABAG, the Marine exchange, the five Bay area ports, Caltrans, and save the bay.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The roll the SPAC is to advise the Commission and BCDC staff on seaport planning and policy issues, based on their technical expertise review of background reports and public comment.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The SPAC has been providing staff with direction on what analyses are most relevant what approaches best serve those analyses.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The accuracy and appropriateness of information that's used in this process and potential opportunities and challenges and plan implementation and staff will use this direction to draft a plan and formulate the preliminary and final recommendations for the Commission hearings and votes.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The planning process consists of five major phases background studies and alternatives analysis drafting the plan.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Conducting environmental assessments as a two amendments and then bringing them to the Commission for public hearings and votes.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The background studies face started shortly after project initiation and the main focus is working with consultants of the Tioga group and Hackett associates to produce an updated cargo forecast.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So the draft forecast was completed in June of 2019 and presented to the SPAC at their first meeting the SPAC provided some feedback that our consultants used to revise the forecast and the reason was also presented at the second SPAC meeting that December.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Also at that meeting MERCATOR international who was asked by the Oakland A's to review the draft forecast presented a critique of the capacity assumptions in BCDC’s forecast.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: As a result, staff was asked to vet the forecast by talking with internal container terminal operators at the Port of Oakland and seeking peer reviewers.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The results were presented at the third SPAC meeting in May 2020 where the SPAC accepted BCDC’s forecast as a basis for the updated plan.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So BCDC then interviewed staff at each of the ports to learn about their issues plans and strategies and propose to preliminary alternatives, made up of requested port priorities designation changes.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: These are presented, along with some initial policy concepts, the forth SPAC meeting last October the SPAC confirmed the alternatives and the evaluation process evaluation topics and staff conducted our analysis and are presenting it here at SPAC meeting number five.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: staff will then use any direction from the SPAC today to prepare a draft the port plan with maps policies and capacity targets.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: As well as any additional analyses requested for our final SPAC meeting, where the SPAC will review the draft plan and provide recommendations on the two Bay plan amendments for the Commission.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: At the same time staff will be working with consultants to prepare environmental assessments for the two amendments.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So we've already began this process for 2-19 working with our consultants to review the city of Oakland draft DEIR for the proposed ballpark district, and will be using that as our main source of data adjusting as needed to make sure that it's looking at issues from BCDC’s perspective.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: we're also preparing a request for proposals to see consultants to prepare the EA for.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: then bring the draft plan amendments to the Commission for hearings and finally votes.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The hearings are currently scheduled to begin in October 2021 However, given that, as timeline for local approvals we don't expect to begin hearings on BPA 2-19 and they'll probably the beginning of 2020 but will update everybody, as we learn.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So that brings us to the purpose of today's meeting.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: which I will reiterate, so today the SPAC will be reviewing the results of the alternatives analysis and providing staff with direction for the drafting of the seaport plan update, including port priority use map designations and policy approaches.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And we want to be clear that we are not asking for the SPAC to make recommendations to the Commission on either bay plan amendment at this meeting.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Any direction that staff receives is allowing us to prepare a working draft for review that can and most likely will be revised as needed up up through the Commission so.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So to that and, here are some very broad questions that everyone can keep in mind, as I go through this presentation that will hopefully help to prime you for the discussion to come.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So first What should the draft seaport plans maps and policies include, second what further information do you require to make recommendations on the draft plan and the two Bay plan amendments at the next meeting.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Three, how can be BCDC ensure adequate capacity in the regional support system to handle projected cargoes while still allowing for flexibility and individual ports operations.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: For how can the SPAC help you BCDC to implement the seaport plan and address issues on an ongoing basis, and then five is there anything missing from this discussion.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So let's move on to the alternatives analysis.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: First, I just want to remind you of what this analysis is.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The purpose behind alternatives analyses, is to allow comparison between different land use designation configurations by describing the potential effects of each one.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: When we talk about alternatives in the context of our analysis, we mean different configurations in the port priorities designation that could be included in the seaport plan.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Note that these are not the same thing as the alternatives that are required as part of the environmental analyses which will be selected based on the environmental impacts identified in those analyses.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: These alternatives are based on a different requests were designation changes we've received as part of the update.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So the objective for the SPAC and reviewing the analysis is to use the findings suggested configuration, to be used in the draft plan.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: We call this selecting a preferred plan in the staff report and, at the last meeting, but this doesn't mean that this is going to be the final configuration recommended to the Commission.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Think about it as the next step and testing these proposed changes so we'll draft a plan around them and see how things look, and then we can adjust accordingly.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So the preferred plan could be one of the alternatives whole cloth pieces of alternatives mixed together or really whatever it is, you would like to see as part of the plan that you review at the next meeting.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: We looked at three alternatives that are basically the preliminary alternatives that you looked at last time with.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Just a few changes so one is the no project alternative where we make no changes to the 2012 seaport plan and simply continue to carry it forward. Alternative one includes a series of proposed map revisions at for the ports which, if approved, would be part of.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The general seaport plan update, and alternative two includes all of the proposed changes and alternative one as well as the removal of Howard Terminal from the Oakland port priorities areas part of BPA 2-19.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So the no project alternative is simply the 2012 seaport plan with no changes to its land use designations or policies.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: studying this alternative helps us understand what is likely to happen if the seaport plan update is not approved, and none of the proposals and designation changes occur.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: To standard alternative to include because it helps us compare the effects of our other talent alternatives against the status quo.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Alternative one includes proposed priorities designation changes at Benicia, Redwood City, Richmond, San Francisco, and the marine terminal designation at Selby.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So going in alphabetical order, our first proposed changes at the part of Benicia.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The Benicia port terminal companies proposing to add and approximately 28 acres site to the port priorities area west of the current extent.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: it's also called the you have a site and the site was once part of the priorities area but was removed, along with some other locations in 2003 when other developments narrows would be being considered for the area.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: That Benicia port terminal company has stated that they need the additional storage for real cargo, in order to meet demand so while no project has been proposed here yet is anticipated to be additional parking for imported vehicles.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And next is Redwood City here the port is proposing to add a 1.2 to 1.7 acre site to the port priority use area as part of an expansion of were five replant AMI terminal that can handle a combination of Neil book write a book and ro-ro cargo.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The port is still in the process of determining the footprint of the potential terminals, so we just continue to think of this as a range, while we did this analysis.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: At Richmond the port has proposed the removal of the historic graving docks and a nearby historic building from the port priority use area.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: These structures are part of the Rosie the Riveter World War Two homefront national historical park.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The proposed drainage area also now includes the ferry terminal parking lot so through terminal three which the city has asked to remove because it was being contemplated for transit oriented mixed use development.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: This is a difference from the preliminary alternatives which did not include this deletion.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: These solutions would also necessitate some changes in the terminal designations and policies which plan for three breath container terminal in the area around the around the graving docks.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Given the presence of the historical Park, the city doesn't intend decided container terminal in that location.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: There are a number of proposed changes that the port of San Francisco so moving from north to south, the first is at Pier 48.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Back in 2016 at 2797 deem that the appearance, the wall should be free of core priorities as a nation as of January 1 2017 however BCDC has yet to reflect this change in the sea port plan.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: At Pier 50 the port priorities area would be reduced to a roughly 14 acre site and the cargo designations would be removed and this site would still be reserved for other maritime purposes such as bearthing operations or maintenance facility facilities.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: At Pier 78 two acre parking lot would be removed the preliminary alternatives also included the removal of 10 historic buildings from the reigning port priority area.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The reason the port was interested in removing these buildings was because they were concerned that maritime uses might not be able to make the investment required to rehab rehabilitate and preserve them.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: After discussing with the port and learning that the area surrounding the buildings is still intended to support maritime uses.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: staff is now suggesting that they be kept in the priorities area and that a policy be added that would allow for compatible non maritime uses of historically significant structures in the port priority area.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: At piers at 396 a future birth, with an assumed 10 acres of fill would be removed at pier 94 and due to the presence of emergent wetland on the site.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then to upland sites would be removed as well, due to unfavorable same conditions, namely elevation than an approximately 11 acre site would be added between piers 92 and 94 to connect the remaining port priority areas and reflect existing dry bulk operations.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So, lastly, we have Selby and contra Costa county, this is not an active ports site, but has been a part of the seaport plans, since 1982.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Selby is also duly designated in the Bay plan as a water related industry priority use area.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Most of the site is held in trust by the State lands Commission, although a small portion is owned by CS land, which is a subsidiary subsidiary of Phillips 66 which is next door.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Selby is currently undergoing a cleanup overseen by the Department of toxic substances control for toxic materials left by smelter that previously operated and dispose of waste on the site.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Given the site status its development potential is fairly uncertain, this is one of the reasons we did not include Selby in the cargo forecast projections.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: stats recommendation for Selby is to remove the terminal designations and throughput targets from the seaport plan for the site at least over this planning horizon because we don't expect to be able to rely on the site to provide any cargo capacity through 2050.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So now for alternative two the only difference between alternatives one and two is inclusion of the Howard terminal site our.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Alternative two includes everything from alternative one and would also remove approximately 57 acres from the Oakland port priorities areas requested by the Oakland A's.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: waiver referring to this generally is Howard terminal but it actually includes some additional parcels outside of our terminal as well.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The A’s have requested that says condition change as part of their proposal to build a baseball stadium and mixed use development on that site.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Because the proposed development is not consistent with the port priority use designation, the area would need to be removed for the A’s to receive a permit from the Commission.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Approval of the amendment would not automatically approve the proposal development which is.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Still must receive a number of other project approvals from the City of Oakland, the State Lands Commission, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Port of Oakland, as well as a permit from BCDC which is separate from this amendment process.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: We're looking at this alternative to assess how this designation change would interact with the other proposed changes and alternative one.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: while still being able to isolate any impacts that are specific to this proposal, and there are no other proposed changes at the Port of Oakland and either alternative.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So for each alternative staff evaluated its effects within a number of topic areas.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So for cargo throughput we looked at what impact, if any, the alternatives would have on the region's ability to meet the cargo forecast.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Report planning and operations, we looked at the alternatives in the context of each ports planning and long term strategies and considered how the changes would affect operations at each port.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Relevant plans, as well as compatibility or each alternatives potential for conflict with existing or plan land uses in the vicinity.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: We also looked at potential effects on public access to the bay, how the alternatives could be affected by sea level rise what environmental justice considerations may arise and whether there would be any associated fill with land use change.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: We did not consider environmental review topics as those will be covered in the required environmental assessments on the Bay plan amendments so I'll just share some high level summaries of the analysis and you can refer to the staff report for further detail.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So the cargo throughput analysis relied on the assumptions data and findings presented in the cargo forecast.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Because the alternatives involve differences and available future for future in terminal space.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: We looked at exhibit 14 and the forecast which compares acreage requirements under the low moderate and strong demand growth scenarios to land available in the port system.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And thinking about the growth scenarios, we decided to focus on the moderate growth scenario, because under strong growth we're looking at such an overwhelming cargo volume that we'd be approaching planning in a much more.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: aggressive manner in terms of investments in land and technology, and it would be different so planning than we're doing right now.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Meanwhile, we see the slow growth scenario is not conservative enough and possibly opening us up to under preparing for growth that the forecasting to be fairly likely.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: For each of the alternatives, we made any associated changes in the usable terminal acreage and compared the resulting inventory to what the demand would be under different productivity scenarios.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I'm going to include the base or middle productivity scenario my summary, we also include a low and high scenarios in the analysis, so that we could see what the difference in demand might be.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: A caveat for this analysis is that we know that not all land or priority use land is equal and its value for handling cargo and the context of that land.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Existing site conditions, including existing uses and structures Colocation are supportive services availability of required infrastructure water access and the amount of continuous connected land will affect whether and how these generic acres will perform.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: My goodness and.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The no project alternative, all we had to do was look at the existing cargo forecast, because it was based on the port priorities designation.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: In the Tony tell us before plan to basic takeaways are that overall we would still have 13 more total available acres and was projected to be needed under British productivity offer within that we would still be short, at least 33 suitable acres for rural cargo use.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Okay, with the changes and alternative one we would add up to 28 acres of our capacity at Benicia and up to 1.7 acres in Redwood City that can handle a range of cargo.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: While the Redwood City omni terminals being envision for non Dr wallach use we assume that it could be used for Dr bock if needed, given the existence of Dr bulk operations at the port.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So here we see that overall there's a 43 acre surplus of total acreage compared to project, it needs um but again we're looking at a shortage of land forever, in this case is only a shortage of three acres.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Sorry, seems to be lagging, so for alternative two we kept the additional aqueous and alternative, one that removed that 38 acres that our terminal could potentially potentially provide for container ro-ro and drive off.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Here total acres available still exceeds total acres required by five acres, but we would be short, at least 43 acres for zero operations.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So, here are some of the takeaways that I have from this analysis generally for each and alternative there would be enough total acreage to meet projected container and drive off needs through.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: That means that an important consideration will be the availability of land to meet future growth beyond the 2050 projections.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: As things stand, alternative one offered the biggest margin for future growth, no project the second, and alternative two the least. However, we should also acknowledge that past 2050 we're looking at a lot more uncertainty in cargo volumes cargo mix and terminal productivity.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Another thing is that of productivity doesn't increase to match the base productivity assumptions, at least, it could result in a shortage of capacity to meet the forecast.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Third there's potential for revenue shortfall under each alternative and base or low productivity scenarios.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: and related many of the acres appropriate for ro-ro are also appropriate for dry bulk, that we should keep in mind that utilizing land for one paragraph type reduces the availability of land for the other.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So for the other topic areas we put some highlights for each port area to share again more details available in the report.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And, but for Benicia alternatives went into what provide additional ro-ro capacity.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And because the underlying land use of the change area is compatible with raw storage extending the port priorities areas not actually necessary to.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Allow the port to use it for that purpose, however designating the site would allow us to reserve it for port priority uses in the future, and also allow us to rely on its capacity as part of our inventory.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: There is potential for port priorities in this area to have compatibility issues with surrounding residential uses.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Things like light and noise might be disruptive to residential uses and if the residential areas, part of the Community that is disproportionately burden, this could be an environmental justice issue as well, so this potential, we need to be addressed at the time, any project is proposed.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then, lastly, most of the port priority use area is susceptible to flooding from sea level rise, including the change area, which is also next to the City's wastewater treatment plant so that could be an opportunity for collaboration or potential hazards to consider.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: For Redwood City alternatives one and two and add capacity for general cargo well from the potential development of an omni terminal.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: As a Benician amendment isn't necessary for the port project to move forward, because the local land use designation is compatible with the private port use but designating it in the Seaport Plan would reserve it for port priority use and add capacity to the inventory.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: sea level rise is projected to affect nearly all of the priority use area Redwood City, without any interventions and much of the flooding could occur by mid-century.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The change area itself is slightly more resilient than the rest of the port priority use area, it could still be flooded, but not until 40 inches of sea level rise.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then, while we aren't yet aware of any environmental justice issues around the Port of Redwood City.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: There are some socially vulnerable neighborhoods neighborhoods along the highway record are leading to and from the port.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So that means that and meaningful environment or meaningful engagement around future terminal development that could affect traffic and cargo is along those routes should involve those communities to fully understand any potential impacts.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: At Richmond there are a couple of land use inconsistencies that could be resolved by removing the port priority use designation from the ferry terminal parking lot.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So the lot is currently designated by the city as a park and recreation use.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And the lot and the whole West side of the port priority use area, including terminals two and three, are also part of the south Richmond priority development area as designated by Plan Bay Area.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Which is envisioned as improvements that will promote mixed use development and redevelopment and enhanced multimodal connectivity and mobility.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: there's a high prevalence of socially vulnerable neighborhoods near the port priority use area.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And there is an existing and ongoing conversation within the Community and the Government around the air quality and health impacts of coal and petroleum coke and the Chevron refinery so any future development would need to consider that context as well.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: In 2012 the Bay Plan does include an assumption of Bay fill for the terminal development at the graving docks and in the area South terminal three so removing these sites from the port priority use area would also remove those assumptions.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: As mentioned here are some there are some consistencies around Pier 48 that would be resolved by making the requested deletions.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Also, in terms of public access, there would be an increase, as part of plan development at Pier 48 and possibly at Pier 94 and if the wetland is open for regional use.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: We also know that the port has documented processes for assessing and addressing sea level rise and environmental justice impact in the port priority use areas and for any changes in the change areas.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And, as with Richmond the 2012 Seaport Plan anticipates fill for terminal development and Pier 94 and with removal of that site that fill would no longer be expected.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: For Selby there's no change proposed the port priorities area or any proposed project, the real thing that stands out is the potential for environmental justice concerns.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Things that we want to call it the fact that tension include the presence of socially vulnerable communities and the surrounding area.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: cumulative environmental impacts from other industrial uses in the area, including Phillips 66.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The existing contamination on the Selby site itself and the record of comments we received from members of the rodale community that register concern for any further industrial development in the area.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: For Oakland here are some of the considerations for the Howard Terminal site.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: First, in terms of land use their happened a number of concerns raised about potential land use incompatibilities between the proposed development and the Port.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Including concerns about maritime navigation and safety, the location of new residential uses near port activities, traffic impacts, the last of interfaces at the terminal and impacts of the ports competitiveness as a result of those things.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: This is an ongoing conversation though between the Port, the A's, and maritime stakeholders as part of a requirement from the Port to adopt.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: set of seaport compatibility measures as part of this project, or as part of the A’s proposed project and mitigation measures that are included in the projects DEIR.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: In terms of public access the project could actually result in some new sub shoreline access in the form of parks, plazas, and the stadium itself.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Along the shoreline that is generally lacking and opportunities for access and, if you look much of the shoreline is inaccessible to the West Oakland community.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And lastly, there are a number of socially vulnerable communities nearby, including West Oakland.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: This community has been working with the Port, the City, the Air District, and other stakeholders to address some long running air quality and other quality of life issues related to its location near the Port.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: West Oakland as well as the Chinatown and old Oakland neighborhoods are also currently involved in a Community benefits agreement process that's being facilitated by the City of Oakland to mitigate any social economic impacts of the proposed development.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And lastly, you know, there are no changes proposed for Concord, but some points that maybe we may want to keep in mind as we move forward.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Is that this site may be compatible for port uses in the future, due to its existing shipping infrastructure on the site, although, as far as we know.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The military has no intention of vacating the site in the near future.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The waterfront is vulnerable to sea level rise, particularly areas adjacent to the wetlands, which could be affected by flooding from sea level rise by mid century.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Additionally, while the site is generally well buffer from surrounding uses due to its military nature, there are some socially vulnerable communities located nearby.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And so, first, I just wanted to go over some of the Bay Plan findings that the Seaport Plan addresses.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: First, the bail bail for new terminals must be minimized to conform to the provisions of the McAteer Petrus Act.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The efficiency of existing and new terminals must continue to increase and all the available sites must be reserved for terminals.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: If some parts in the regional system, do not have the funds necessary to complete facilities needed by the region.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: There will be tremendous pressure to allow the ports with the strongest finances to provide all the regional facilities, even though this might result in pressures that fill the bay unnecessarily.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And there's a risk that new facilities could be built by whichever individual port command the necessary financing, even though another site might serve regional needs equally well but with less bay fill.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: In addition, a major investment by one publicly operated part could be jeopardized by the unnecessary duplicating.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: unnecessarily duplicating actions have another publicly operated barrier port and a particular importance to proper use of the bay parts of the band could be filled and shoreline areas taken for unnecessary competing uses.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So there was actually underpin the sections that we have in the Seaport Plan today, so that includes the cargo forecast port priority use areas rain terminals container terminals bulk terminals dredging and navigation and ground transportation.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So the first issue when I talk about is terminal designations the 2012 Seaport Plan includes terminal designations for every port and for Selby.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: These are inventories of future cargo facilities presented with targets of expected throughput and throughput capability and you can see examples for Oakland and Redwood City here to the right.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Company policies say that each port and have the annual throughput capabilities stated in the inventories and policies in both the general and marine terminal sections tie development and related decisions to these targets.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So at the last SPAC meeting the Port of Oakland suggested that we omit terminal designations from the Seaport Plan update in order to give ports some flexibility to respond to emerging market opportunities and in determining terminal uses within their own jurisdictions.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So be only going to.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Save you BCDC does need to ascertain that adequate capacity exists within the seaport system but we're also open to considering options that do not designate specific activities at individual terminals.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So some of the options we were looking at one was designating throughput capabilities to port priorities areas as a whole by port rather than by terminal.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then option to was maybe making some policy language changes to provide some more flexibility are also open to hearing other options.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Second, we just wanted to read something about the reserve areas so.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The updated deeper plan, we would like to articulate the value of maintaining your priority use designations on reserved sites where they're currently no operating cargo ports and the only two remaining sites like this are Concord and Selby.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So, in a future where available capacity is unable to handle increasing cargo volumes this additional capacity, a could be a really important factor.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: However, have a reserve site is not likely to be appropriate, or feasible for port development, it may be better for us to just go ahead and determine that and remove the designation.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: This is made challenging because the timeframe for developing a port at either site is so much longer than the planning horizon for this update.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So, by the time interest in developing these sites as ports arises and market conditions come to that point the surrounding context could be very different than it is today.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: which makes making decisions about something that far in the future, a little bit uncertain.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So it could be useful for us to establish a process for making this kind of determination about the appropriateness of maintaining port priority use designations on these reserve areas in the future.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: so that we know what sort of analyses we need to prepare and what kind of decisions we need to make in order to move forward with something like that.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Next we just wanted to point to this historic properties questions so this came up when we were looking at the Port of San Francisco's change requests after the preliminary alternatives so.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: There are concerns that it might not be feasible for maritime uses to be cited in historic structures that require large investments for rehabilitation or present preservation, I was an interesting one.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: But the result, as you can see, are these little holes like within an otherwise complete priority use area and it creates these.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: pockets, where the port seaport plans policies don't apply surrounded by areas where it does so, we do want to avoid creating these islands inside port priority areas.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So here's a potential policy solution that we wanted to suggest for the Port of San Francisco but then also potentially for.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The all the ports generally So that is where the presence of historically significant structures structures on the national register of historic places like California register of circle resources or any other local register of historical resources.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Within our priority use area creates barriers for effective maritime use allow the development of non-maritime uses that are compatible with an active maritime environment and would not interfere surrounding maritime operations.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And such uses could include commercial office or light industrial uses that would not introduce a safety or security risk to either maritime or non-maritime users would not conflict with the intensity of operations in a maritime setting.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And so, then the last policy thing is the roll the SPAC so one of the things we were considering was establishing regular meetings of the SPAC on an annual basis, or at least an annual basis, and this is in order to keep the Commission up to date on our Seaport Planning Program.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: and also to facilitate future updates through regular review of policies and the forecast projections and provide a forum for coordinated regional planning collaboration on issues as they arise.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So agenda that we envisioned for a meeting like this can view could involve an annual review of productivity use and seaport plan implementation.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Review of annual cargo data and a check in on the cargo forecast and how its performing an update on each port sea level rise adaptation efforts and update on each ports environmental justice Program.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: and additional topics as requested.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And, just a quick look at what's happening next.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So staff is going to prepare a complete draft seaport plan and any remaining research and analysis that's requested by staff members at this meeting for the next and final SPAC meeting.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: staff is also looking to work with ports to conduct meaningful Community engagement for proposed port priority use designation changes and I'll get to that in a second.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: But then, looking at a had its back six the two main objectives that we're looking to accomplish are that the SPAC will provide any comments on the draft in any guidance for revisions, so that we can take whatever we have from that the drafts seaport plan and take it on to the Commission.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then, the SPAC and also provide any recommendations for.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Also to be shared with the Commission.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: After that point, the staff will prepare our environmental assessments.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: pull together the SPAC recommendations and prepare preliminary staff recommendations for the Commission hearings of each BPA.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So on to this idea of meaningful engagement with the ports, so we have a set of environmental justice policies and guiding principles.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Where we ask our permit applicants to conduct meaningful Community engagement and also hard to hold ourselves to a standard of considering environmental justice and everything that we do.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So we'd like to request the ports’ assistance in conducting meaningful meaning equitably culturally relevant engagement with their communities, about the Seaport Plan changes.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: We just feel like the ports as the local entities requesting the changes are best suited to do this type of outreach because they're already familiar with their communities and may have established forums or systems for conducting outreach that the BCDC destiny that.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Staff request that the ports use whatever avenues they deem most appropriate to lead these conversations with their stakeholders.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: With a focus on disadvantaged communities and then report back to the SPAC with their outcomes and staff is also happy to provide any content support or background information is needed at these meetings.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So sorry that was such a long presentation.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: But I just wanted to leave you with the these three sets of discussion questions for you to consider, as part of your discussion.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So first are the proposed changes and alternative one acceptable to include in the draft Seaport Plan, if not, what changes are necessary and why.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Two, does the staff require further information or analysis to make a recommendation for BPA 2-19 at the next meeting, and if so, what information is required, and when, should it be provided.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then three, how should BCDC assess whether reserve area like Selby should be kept within or removed from the core priority use designation.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: In terms of policy should the Seaport Plan continue to assign target volumes and rain terminal designations and if not, how do we ensure a long term regional capacity.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Two, what the proposed sister properties policy allow for the flexibility to reserve historic structures and, should it apply and all priority use areas and then three, are there any other policy considerations are issues that staff should be aware of, before starting to draft the Plan.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then these last few questions are about process, what would you what would make an annual SPAC meeting valuable and productive for you and the condition constituency you represent.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then to what recommendations does the SPAC have for port and Community engagement around the proposed port priorities changes.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Thank you, Katharine, even though I've read the staff report you teed up a number of things that.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: taught me something new and and was very comprehensive and put a number of questions in front of us.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Now that she's finished her presentation, I want to welcome anybody from the committee wants to ask a clarifying question regarding the.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Alternatives analysis raise your hand and you'll be recognized, I would like to distinguish between clarifying questions and commentary on the recommendation, I want to hold our discussion of this recommendation until we've heard from the public, so clarifying questions.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I don't see any hands, Cody, do you see any hands?
BCDC HOST: I do not see any hands from the SPAC now.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Okay well that's good because it's it's important to hear from the public, so we're now to Item six on the agenda public comment.
BCDC HOST: Our next Order of Business actually.
BCDC HOST: Actually, we have one we have one.
BCDC HOST: comment from David Lewis, who he has written a comment in the over in the chat and he says.
BCDC HOST: Big compliments to the staff are very thorough analysis and presentation this factual continue keeping our focus on preserving adequate seaport capacity, especially because of the extreme difficulty of designating additional port priority seaport areas in a future.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: That does not appear to be a question for clarification, but a comment.
BCDC HOST: So now it does that.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: will note that any any SPAC members have a clarifying question.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: On then let's move on to public comment I'd like to provide as much opportunity to for the public as possible without spending the rest of the day here So the first thing we're going to do is ask people to raise their hands, if you want to comment for our benefit.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And we'll try to provide you as much time as we can, but first we need to have some idea of how many people want to speak.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And, of course, because it may be necessary to limit the oral communication any written comments in lieu of or, in addition to oral comments may be submitted to firstname.lastname@example.org and again Cody make sure you have that address in our chat.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: thread any comments received during or after this meeting will be shared with the committee and posted to our website so to make a public comment at this time.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Please raise your hand into by clicking the participants icon at the bottom of your screen looking in the box where your name is listed under the.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: attendees and then click the small hand to the left, if you're joining our meeting via phone must press star nine on your keypad to raise your hand will call on individuals in the order which your hands are raised.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: After your call down, you will be unmuted so that you can share your concerns each speaker will have in my script says up to two minutes it, it does depend on how many comments we have.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: What it's your turn to speak, please state your name for the record, before beginning your comment, thank you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Cody, do we have a list of participants who want to comment and some idea of how long it will take.
BCDC HOST: We do, right now we have four people on the list.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Cody, I see no nothing wrong with giving them each three minutes does that give you heartburn.
BCDC HOST: Not at all.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Three minutes should be high so who's the first person to comment.
BCDC HOST: The first person we have is Bleacher Dave followed by Evelyn Lee and then after that would be Diane Oshima.
BCDC HOST: So, Bleacher Dave if you could please state your name and affiliation, you will have three minutes once I unmute you.
BleacherDave: Thank you very much, my name is David Peters I am here with.
BleacherDave: less open benefits for represented Western benefits for equity today, I am a third generation West Oakland resident.
BleacherDave: Like so many of the black families that came to Oakland during World War Two my grandfather came here the welder skilled Labor was no.
BleacherDave: jobs for black skilled laborers in Houston Texas in the 40s and he moved to West hopin’ to find a little bit such a little bit less Jim Crow.
BleacherDave: and equitable education opportunities for for his children and ended up working in the shipyard before working in a career of machine is.
BleacherDave: A grove out a regulator and open, so you know growing up in in West Oakland in a multi-generational family here, you know we're quite intimately familiar with the Port.
BleacherDave: Conditions in West Oakland a lack of access to the shoreline the sources of industrial pollution and the fact that there were great jobs inside the Port.
BleacherDave: And soon as you step off the Port land extremely poor Community surrounding the Port that was segregated red red line in this invested for for generations.
BleacherDave: And we look at you know personally I myself and less open benefits for equity we've spent the last couple of years, considering opportunities to create greater equity.
BleacherDave: If the Howard terminal project were to come to pass and I've spent hundreds of hours thousands of hours and hundreds of people doing that, so I come here, also as a signatory of a letter that was submitted with evidently.
BleacherDave: The open ages in Chinatown coalition and what's happening around my indicators project.
BleacherDave: Asking and requesting that if this project, were to go forward that the Community be granted water access in the form of a fishing pier.
BleacherDave: You know I've spent many days with my grandfather fishing boat and the Bay and and various lakes, you know around the region, you know fishing has deep cultural roots and ties.
BleacherDave: For many of the black families that currently still live in West Oakland and were challenged with water access the harbor homes were on the estuary.
BleacherDave: Back in the 50s as a wartime project because I've since been demolished and have been replaced with an actual terminal.
BleacherDave: middle harbors shoreline park is difficult and dangerous to get to without a car, you know if you're walking or on bicycle.
BleacherDave: And there are areas fishy access further down along the estuary but Howard Terminal would be the access point, it would be closest.
BleacherDave: To West Oakland, and so we certainly believe that is in keeping with some of the requirements it's spelled out in the letter in the in the trial, you can send the trust.
BleacherDave: Laws provide public access and recreational access on thailand's properties when the opportunity arises itself and certainly believe that if this project, were to go forward, it would be appropriate and consistent.
BleacherDave: With the mission of the organization since provide such access and that encouraged and highly highly encourage the request that this be part of the recommendations if this project would assemble for appreciate the opportunity to address you, thank you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Mr. Peters I'd like to ask you a one clarifying question this is this is Jim McGrath I know there's a fishing Pier.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: In somewhat dilapidated condition, but still functional I believe at Port View Park at the end of the Seventh Street terminal and there's a new fishing Pier at the base of the Bay Bridge.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And you can comment, if you wish, on the utility of those.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: But what your specific request is for a fishing Pier if the Howard terminal is no longer for priority use and available for other kinds of public uses you'd like to see a fishing pair there is that correct.
BleacherDave: that's correct, you know the that's a beautiful park at the foot of the Bay Bridge.
BleacherDave: But that and the middle harbor to the park are tough to get to from myself particularly in I'm thinking oh I'm lucky enough to be able to drive.
BleacherDave: On particularly I'm thinking back when I was a youth and for current users get around a bicycle with fishing Poles it's a dangerous write down some street.
BleacherDave: To get out to to that part and wow there was plans to build a bridge for protection and bike access over the rail lines there between frontage road and wood street that's not yet there yet.
BleacherDave: So, to have this fishing.
BleacherDave: gear, there were greatly improve access, thank you for your.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Thank you, I appreciate the clarification on next we have Evelyn Lee Is that correct.
BCDC HOST: That is correct, we have Evelyn Lee followed by Diane Oshima followed by Mike Jacob. So, Evelyn Lee, you will have three minutes once I allow you to talk.
BCDC HOST: Please state your name and affiliation.
Evelyn Lee: Can you hear me.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Yes.
Evelyn Lee: All right, great.
Evelyn Lee: My name is Evelyn Lee and I'm the.
Evelyn Lee: chairman of the board of the Oakland Asian Cultural Center. The Oakland Asian Cultural Center is.
Evelyn Lee: based in Oakland Chinatown in the Pacific Renaissance Plaza and we are a Center that presents Asian Pacific islander artists.
Evelyn Lee: To promote intergenerational and cross-cultural understanding and to promote social justice we and Dave and I and we represent.
Evelyn Lee: The Chinatown and black communities in the Howard terminal Community benefits agreement planning process, and I believe this morning received our joint letter, along with West Oakland environmental indicators project.
Evelyn Lee: You know, we we came across this idea of a fishing Pier because we think that it's a great way for us.
Evelyn Lee: To move for move forward with preserving our cultural identities black people and Asian people love fishing I hate to say this, and feel like oh I'm engaging in stereotyping, but it is true.
Evelyn Lee: It would be an intergenerational activity, it would be Community building and it would also promote resource awareness within the Asian and black community of the Bay.
Evelyn Lee: What you see in the draft Howard terminal environmental.
Evelyn Lee: impact report is a plan for a walkway where people can admire views of the bay, but that's a passive way to engage with our natural environment and we believe that fishing will bring much greater understanding and perhaps even vocational opportunities to people who enjoy fishing.
Evelyn Lee: We Dave mentioned that, historically, there was a little settlement called the Harbor Homes down on the estuary down about where the post office is now and we bring this up, not to lay claim to prescriptive rights but.
Evelyn Lee: to remind you that.
Evelyn Lee: That there was Community access to the water in the past and we feel that, as a matter of equity if you're removing one of the Marine uses court use of the property, you should at least preserve the public trust over the property in the form of an alternative.
Evelyn Lee: means of public access and that's why we were behind this fishing Pier concept.
Evelyn Lee: let's see I don't know I think Dave said it all I grew up in San Francisco we went to Community Pier.
Evelyn Lee: We you know my dad and I fish we didn't catch very many fish but those are really great times that I remember, and I feel that.
Evelyn Lee: Every child growing up in the Bay area around this wonderful Bay should have an opportunity to realize the beauty of something that people travel from all over the world to experience so.
Evelyn Lee: Without I hope that you will read our letter at the end of our letter we asked.
Evelyn Lee: You know if this is not the right forum for us to submit our request for a fishing Pier please give us some guidance, but we feel at bottom that if the port designation as we move from this public trust land BCDC should.
Evelyn Lee: should preserve the public trust through an alternative.
Evelyn Lee: means of public enjoyment Community enjoying it Thank you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Thank you, Evelyn.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: But we'll keep that in mind as a comment, not just for this one, but for the next one, so we have another.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: We have David Lewis next was that correct.
BCDC HOST: Diane Oshima is.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Diana Oshima, I'm sorry, Diane, go ahead.
BCDC HOST: Please state your name and affiliation you, you have three minutes.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: Good morning, everyone I'm Diane Oshima I am Deputy Director for the Port of San Francisco's planning and environment division.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: And I thank you all for coming together and my colleague Brendan O'Meara on the SPAC committee.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: First off, I mean Katharine and Linda fantastic job on all of the work that you've done on the analysis it's very impressive and.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: your presentation of all that information Katharine was equally impressive, so you know, I think that we find that you worked with us very collaboratively and understand the San Francisco port designations so in large part, I think that we find ourselves in good alignment.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: I would like to note that the comments submitted by Port of Oakland for providing flexibility of the uses of the existing terminals.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: To take advantage of different types of cargo businesses in those spaces, when the designated cargo in the Seaport Plan isn't apparent.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: I think that it's very important because it is a very dynamic, volatile industry.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: And that the ports need to be able to have some economic flexibility in order to preserve these areas that you want to keep designated for port priority if it's really.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: You know sort of paste it in with one type of use and there isn't that business there, then it upsets the viability of the entire premise of the Seaport Plan, as well as the individual ports.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: The other item that I wanted to call attention to was the Pier 70 historic buildings, we would like to work with.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: Katharine you and Linda further regarding the designation for that, I think that just again to be as clear and focused as possible, the better.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: scenario from our perspective would be to take those historic buildings, out of the port priority area versus having a policy in place, even though we recognize the intent of the policy of.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: Maintaining uses that are restricted in those historic buildings that are so that they're not incompatible or impede the maritime use of the Pier 70 port priority area.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: We have had a lot of experience, trying to save these historic buildings, they are very complex affairs to try and do that these buildings are at a national register historic districts, so there are lots.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: of historic preservation and economic requirements around that and at the same time, the port of San Francisco is maintained ship prepare for 150 years in that area as a testament to our commitment to the maritime mission that that area is is designated for.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: That to ship repair industry also is dynamic and so Andrea Coleman and Brendan O’Meara.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: are actively working on making sure that we use that for other maritime industrial functions, but we think that we have a pretty good handle on how to maintain.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: compatible uses within rehabilitative historic building such that we can do that, outside of the Seaport Plan so those would be my comments, and thank you again for all the good work.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: tell you I'm going to follow up just for a minute.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Are you saying that that the suggested policy fix suggested by Katharine Pan is not necessary or is an overreach or.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: or shouldn't be done in the Bay Plan self the Seaport Plan itself.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: yeah I think our proposal had been to have those historic buildings excluded from the core priorities own Seaport Plan there at the edges of the shipyard area there so it's not like they're in the middle, and I think that that would just provide clarity there.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: anything to graphically they're sufficiently excluded.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Is that you're.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: Geographically there on the edge and X, you know and wouldn't impede the overall port priority area, there are more than 100 feet away from the shoreline so otherwise wouldn't be within a BCDC permitting.
Diane Oshima, Port of SF: posture and I think just to avoid any ambiguity or confusion, then that would be the better way to go.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Okay, I think I should clarify that Thank you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Cody, next to I'm not going to try to do this by memory.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The next person.
BCDC HOST: Sure thing, the next person is Mike Jacob.
BCDC HOST: Jacob, please state your name and affiliation, you will have three minutes.
MikeJacob: Good morning, thank you, Chairman McGrath and committee members, Mike Jacob, Merchant Shipping Association, and we have a number of concerns.
MikeJacob: Regarding alternative two you won't be surprised to hear that, given the conversations that have occurred at the SPAC over the last several years.
MikeJacob: again recall where we've been.
MikeJacob: Based on a tag a study the spec is essentially rejected the basis for moving forward with.
MikeJacob: The A's plan on on projected value.
MikeJacob: of cargo growth scenarios and we think that that's really important because.
MikeJacob: The basis for the success of port priority use designation is what's been laid out in the comprehensive plan your I'm sorry report you heard from staff today.
MikeJacob: Specifically on page 42 sets of stage where it lays out that alternative one provides more acreage.
MikeJacob: And the lowest margin for potential error in the future, with respect to pressures on batesville an alternative to provides less acreage and the highest margin of error for pressure on batesville.
MikeJacob: And while the BCDC obviously has many competing policy areas, it looks at, it's overriding and main goal is to minimize unnecessary bay fill and to remove pressure for bay fill.
MikeJacob: Obviously, we have a lot of pressure and a limited resources in the waterfront we all acknowledge that and we all know that it's there.
MikeJacob: And that's one of the reasons why expand on this a little bit of time I have and will submit some written comments as well.
MikeJacob: But obviously the removal of an existing designation at Howard results in more pressure on seaport priority uses.
MikeJacob: because their existing uses there there'll be displaced, they will presumably have to go somewhere.
MikeJacob: And if no additional acreage is identified by the city and A's which it has not been yet and that demand for support.
MikeJacob: ancillary services property and direct property will increase and as the Bay Plan findings have acknowledged and we all know, is true that increased pressure on demand for this property leaves the demand and pressure on sale.
MikeJacob: we're also really pleased to see from the staff report that the BCDC is doing its own environmental analysis, because the draft EIR by the city.
MikeJacob: it's fundamentally inadequate and numerous respects with respect to those baseline land use requirements, in particular, and what happens with those existing uses.
MikeJacob: Obviously, we will be forwarding the comments on the draft EIR that we make to the City that are due at the end of April to BCDC and those will be available to the SPAC before the next call.
MikeJacob: And then there's a couple other specific issues touch on very briefly with respect to what's missing from alternative two if you decided to move forward with that which obviously we would oppose, but if you did move forward with it, there are two different considerations there one Mike.
MikeJacob: Adams time.
MikeJacob: i'll i'll wrap up quickly if that's the right term McGrath please, please wrap up quickly.
MikeJacob: Okay, thank you, one of them is it emits the recognition of the maritime reservation area scenario which should be comparatively included in any alternative to that's the turning basin and expansion, so if you're intending on maintaining all of the the.
MikeJacob: Traffic in the inner harbor that's imperative and so I'll turn to should not go for without the maritime reservation area.
MikeJacob: same thing with support dependability measures those should be included and then finally alternative two should also look at the potential removal of the bulk properties insurance or steal given the stance of the A's and the litigation to shut down that property.
MikeJacob: Again, will submit comments and writing, thank you for the time this morning.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Thank you. Now Cody, I understand we have a comment in the in the chat.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Yes, from Nina Solari so go ahead and read that.
BCDC HOST: Yes, Nina Solari has asked if the Howard terminal is removed.
BCDC HOST: If the Howard terminal is removed it would remove the ability to move containers Is that correct, followed by the Howard terminal has not had any activity in a while correct correct there hasn't been any current terminal operators interested in Howard terminal.
BCDC HOST: For questions and statements okay.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: So at this point we're going to come back to the Commission in about five minutes I think it's time for us to take a five to seven minute break please try to keep it briefly for the staff.
Jessica Fain, BCDC: to interrupt tear their looks like there's one more comment from Kari Kilstrom.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I think Kari is listed as a staff member Is that correct or not.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: So.
Jessica Fain, BCDC: Kari, do you want to speak.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: I can, I can wait till after the break okay that's fine.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And so, for the next sort of is after the break I'd like for the staff to.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: provide any clarifying answers from the questions first and then we'll turn to this back for discussion and recommendation so.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: let's take.
BCDC HOST: We have had our five minutes, I think.
BCDC HOST: We're ready when you are.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I'd like to call us back to order I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person that needed that break.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And I'm pretty sure we all benefit.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: With with that.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The other reason is that I anticipated anyone that didn't need it then might have needed it before we finished our discussion so.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I'm going to turn first to Katharine.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Because there were a couple questions that I think are separate that might help our discussion.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I want to give you an opportunity to add any clarifying comments that you think are necessary at this time, go ahead.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Which comment which question specifically are we talking about the ones that were submitted by going to Solari.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I wanted to go specifically but anything that you think are necessary to to respond to the public, comments and get us ready for our discussion.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Well, so for that one, I would say.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: If we do in response to that, I asked the our staff members from the partner San Francisco Port of Oakland if they would prefer to feel that, rather than having me make the attempt.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Also, I just wanted to thank the other speakers, you all came up I think we're looking forward to continuing to work with the Port of San Francisco.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: and looking forward to like kind of hearing a little bit more detail about how we can kind of.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Either mold that are like mole other policies to kind of to make sure that we're all on the same page.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then also wanted to thank the folks who came from West Oakland and Chinatown I would suggest actually next Monday, there is a design reward.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Design review board meeting taking place where they're going to be looking at the design for the project, the Howard terminal project and so that might be of interest to to the those individuals, it might be a good forum or a better forum for the types of comments that they need.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So I think if there anything is there was anything specific feel free to check back in but otherwise I'll just let you guys have your discussion okay.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Sure. Sure from your perspective, you can work with the Port of San Francisco.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: To look at their geographic issue and see whether or not, as a general rule, or as a specific role for that change it's necessary at this time.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Yes, and I'm also curious to see what everyone else thinks about it, and one of the things I do, I do have a concern of for the type of map that arises from something like that, with your just like.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: A port radius area or any land use designation area with holes in it just sort of brings an alarm bell as a planner but i'm.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The same issue also just supportive of Richmond over the.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Data store crane and that can be stored Doc Doc okay.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I haven't had a chance to speak with them about it, yet, which is why it we didn't introduce that topic so yeah, but I am curious to see what other people think.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: With that I'm going to turn to Andrea and see if you want to have an opportunity to go ahead and address and then I'm going to go through all the Members one, at a time so Andrea first just on the question of how a terminal uses I understand there are some uses but not container.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: friendship and correct.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: Yeah I'd like to hand over Bryan Brandes our maritime director, was able to join us, I will hand this question off to him.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: That thanks Andrea going and everybody at Brian Brandes so yeah the there has been a number of years before ships.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: called Howard, and actually cargo operations were handled at Howard, it is still you know capable of handling vessels, and you know with working cranes if that's.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: You know if it led to that direction, right now, it is you know being used for ancillary purposes truck parking and also pma training for the lw Labor.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: i'm sorry you're on mute.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I know so Brian if it is available for us, and it provides ancillary uses that otherwise might be forced other parts of Oakland correct.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: that's correct.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: So.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I'm going to go now to discussions I know Kari had her hand up so I'm going to start with you, I want your specific questions comments and.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Of course, we have a list of questions from from the staff that can inform you I don't want to try to have everybody respond to each one of them, but, but any comments that you may make go ahead, please.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: Thank you, Jim and.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: I just want to commend the BCDC staff on a great staff report and presentation and just a lot of good information my my comments are about the the mapping of the vulnerability for the sea level rise vulnerability.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: I thought it was a really.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: illuminating set of maps for each port.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: Pointing up the vulnerability.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: of ports to sea level rise, which is another pressure point on these port priority use areas as Mike Jacobs stated, and I just had two comments, one.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: I wanted to share with the group, if you don't already know about this, the state's guidance document for sea level rise planning, and I can put a link in the chat.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: But there's a recommendation from the state that is very specific to California ports and it states that.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: sea level rise adaptation strategies should consider the unique characteristics and constraints of existing water dependent infrastructure, including ports and public trust shoreline areas.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: And it's basically recognizing that ports and marine infrastructure, support uses that are vital to the state.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: and are often located in densely developed coastal areas where a managed retreat strategy may not be feasible.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: And so it's encouraging port planners to work with the state to develop strategies that allow ports to repair and retrofit existing infrastructure in place to adapt to sea level rise over time so I'll put a link in the chat to that recommendation and page number.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: The second thing is.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: appreciate the staff report for each of the ports, describing the current resilience planning efforts that are underway, including in San Francisco the port has.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: A number of projects, working with the army corps of engineers on a flood study for the seven and a half miles of the city shoreline.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: In addition to that resilience planning the port is also undertaking a seismic vulnerability study of the port priority use areas in the southern waterfront and.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: What I wanted to share is that one of the one of the findings as the port plans to address both seismic risk and flood risk there may be.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: A need for measures that stabilize the existing terminals through pile supported fill or other types of fill the edge of the bay and.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: I just really bringing it up to the SPAC to see if it might be worth a future discussion specifically of.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: How will ports adapt in place and to sea level rise, and how can we.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: Have adaptation strategies that support the ongoing function of the Deepwater births and the cargo uses that we have going.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: So thank you Kari. I'm going to I'm going to put you and, as a future warning all the other SPAC Members on the spot a little bit.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I appreciate all the clarification, do you think from your perspective we're ready to have this go on to the next stage, which is the preparation of a draft.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Report with mapping.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: That this report here.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: Yes, you can map it via the.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: Item at hand.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Yes, yes.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: Yes, I.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: want to make sure that.
Kari Kilstrom, SPAC: I know.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: That we don't lose track of what we're supposed to do today.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: yeah your next on my on my screen.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Go ahead.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: that's a good morning again so first of all, you know I do want to thank.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: You know staff, for you know, listening to our comments and incorporating you know you know the comments into the proposal you know I'm new to this process, I appreciate, you know that we were able to be to heard and listen to, so thank you so.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: You know, with respect to that you know we really have no, you know comments on the you know the alternatives to the analysis.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: We you know, specifically we'd like to keep in you know the you know the option for for bro 21 phil I mean that may be an option down the road as we continue to you know to expand the the outer harbor.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: And then.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: You know I'm gonna keep going down the list on the human also address the annual meeting.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: You know.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: i'm sorry.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: What you think it's a pro okay.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: All right, perfect, so the request for the you know the immediate We understand that.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: You know that request, I mean we'd like to you know, maybe talk more and vet that out, you know to us that.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: You know we're definitely you know willing to you know spend the time, and you know educate and that's really what the port is going to be doing, you know a lot this year and a planning exercise.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: So you know, but we don't want that to be just an annual exercise of just one way, education, you know to you know, to the BCDC, we think that would be you know, maybe helpful but, again, we want to really vet that out, just so that we can see value from both sides.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: I think that's really what you know what we hadn't been again I definitely do want to thank you because the flexibility of of utilizing you know the areas that we have is a significant.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: If you didn't mind that there will be a presentation still have the draft report you think we're ready to to let the staff go to work on that, yes, thank you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Andrea your next on my on my screen anything to add.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: um I would just expand a little bit on what Bryan said, you know that we think there's sufficient information for staff to move forward with with the analysis they need to do.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: I would just say you know I think an important waiting for this to you know what letters will be coming in, on the city's draft EIR.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: And our ongoing work on see for compatibility measures, so I think, as before, keep sharing information and.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: I think that should be incorporated as well.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Thank you, Andrea next on my screen is Brendan O’Meara a fine Irish name, I must say.
Brendan O'Meara - SPAC, Port of San Francisco: Thank you, on yeah I have no further comments, but, as everyone has stated very much appreciate all the work put into this and and the clarity on in the presentation, so thank you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I would be remiss to say McGrath in the month of March to not add the file that my observation of the fighting Irish name.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: drop.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: After all, I'm married to a Colleen Houlihan.
Brendan O'Meara - SPAC, Port of San Francisco: Wow, you got both sides.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Oh, I get it on all sides.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Next, on my screen is Kara.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Kara hi.
MTC/ABAG Staff: Kara Vuicich, SPAC: Um yeah I I'm in agreement with Stephanie for it, I guess, one of the it sounded I think I have the answer to this, but just to confirm it sounded like.
MTC/ABAG Staff: Kara Vuicich, SPAC: We would potentially have some more information from comments on the EIR the ballpark the er and from the Port of Oakland in terms of their port compatibility measures on our terminal for the next draft.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: Yeah Brian, you can.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: Take that one.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: Was gonna ask you to take that you.
Bryan Brandes - SPAC: want more details on that.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: yeah so we've you know we've been doing work already on see for compatibility measures and much that's reflected in the er, but we are also waiting to see.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: What comments come back on the EIR and see if there's some for the work that needs to be done in that area and yeah we'll keep you a price right.
MTC/ABAG Staff: Kara Vuicich, SPAC: yeah so.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: that's the one yeah.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: yeah.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I would add, though, in terms of knowing what the comments are on the EIR.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: The comment period is good, it goes through the end of April, April 24, I believe, is the last day but I'm not sure when we'll have access to the actual comments prior to the final EIR coming out, so I don't know Andrea if you know more about yeah.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: I do they they are required by at 734 to post the comments, within a few days after receiving them I'll send you the link there already been posted.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Thank you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Next, on my screen is Cam Oakes.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: Oh hi this is Cameron Oakes from from Caltrans yeah I don't have any substantial comments I think it's fine to move forward.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: With respect to mapping, you know where there's a lot of talk of course of sea level rise, but I was just thinking you know I'm just putting it out there, that you know what about other.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: Factors with respect to climate change, such as you know, extreme weather events such as high winds and and or increased storm.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: I guess increase impact from storms themselves so just something to consider in the in the mapping, as well as maybe you know extreme heat events and other things other just other factors, with with respect to climate change.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: And then one other thing I was wondering about in new and might have this already so you know, please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm there.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: With respect to future forecasts, is there anything that that we can do to understand the future forecast with respect to truck parking demand.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: That there's a, we know that there's shortage of truck parking all over the state of California, I think.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: In terms of truck vehicle miles traveled the state of California ranks about 48th in the nation in truck parking, and so we, the communities.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: That are adjacent to industrial land uses seaports are heavily impacted by by that lack of truck parking so if there's any possibility to include an analysis of future truck parking demand and where that would go, that would be maybe would be kind of.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: might be advantageous and just one question I have is with the new direct service maritime service from China to Oakland.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: That hasn't occurred, I think, at least it's been about 10 years since there's been a direct service from Asia to the Port of Oakland does that change anything with regard to the forecast.
Cam Oakes - SPAC: Thank you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Thank you, Cameron. Next on my screen is Captain Korwatch, Captain.
Capt. Lynn Korwatch - SPAC: Good morning, everyone I'm with the Marine Exchange and I was curious from staff, whether they have factored in.
Capt. Lynn Korwatch - SPAC: There was a huge demand for places to lay up passenger ships that were impacted by COVID restrictions, so I just want to kind of throw that out there as something that I would like to see if we could include in your report, as we go forward.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Anything further, Captain?
Capt. Lynn Korwatch - SPAC: Nope that's it, thank you, Jim.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Next, on my next on my screen is Kristine Zortman.
Kristine Zortman - SPAC: Thank you, Chairman McGrath I'm a Port of Redwood City doesn't have any comments I think I'd like to echo some of the other SPAC committee members, thank you to Linda and Katharine.
Kristine Zortman - SPAC: For all of your time and diligence and thank you to Dan Smith from to Tioga and then, of course, also all the other BCDC staff that's been working on this and we appreciate all your support as we move forward, thank you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Is that except for me, the end of the of the SPAC.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Cody.
BCDC HOST: I don't know if you've heard from Alan Wolken yet.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Oh that's right Alan Wolken has he doesn't have his hand raised, but he he is here Alan.
Alan Wolken, SPAC: Yep, I'm here that's me.
Alan Wolken, SPAC: see if I can get me on there yeah.
Alan Wolken, SPAC: Thank.
Alan Wolken, SPAC: me the opportunity, though.
Alan Wolken, SPAC: I echo the comments of a lot of the other participants I think staff did a great job and City of Richmond Port feels that they're ready to move forward with putting together the draft plan for additional comment.
And then also David Lewis.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: David, go ahead.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I know that David had to step off at 11 for a call and he left a comment in.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Both in an email, and in the chat David, are you there.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I don't see a title for David.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: want to echo the excellence of the staff work, I have a couple clarification things I'm not going to be as brief as anybody else but.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I've got a rather unique perspective on it.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: To start with, with the question today and moving forward, I certainly think that the staff has developed an array of alternatives that can inform our future decision making.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And that we should endorse it going forward for the development of the draft plan, and so, in a few minutes I'll ask for that motion.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And I want to drill down a little bit specifically on page for the staff recommends consideration of alternative two.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: acre electrified marine terminal I think that covers the options and provides a basis for analysis.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And I believe a thorough analysis of this alternative would provide the necessary information to consider the proposed amendment to delete our terminal from the port priority use it.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: However, since that amendment has slowed down but it's still relevant and one of the driving factors I'm going to add a few comments about how we need to look at that.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: and go beyond, of course, I have a rather unusual role in this planning process I oversaw the environmental efforts for the Port of Oakland.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: When they implemented vision 2000 with construction of new terminals along the inner harbor the joint intermodal terminal and dredging the harbor to 50 feet that's.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Not long after that I was involved in the major seaport planning effort associated with the closure of the Oakland Army Base that eliminated 40 acres of proposed fill from outer harbor and the transfer portion of the Oakland Army Base to the Port in the City of Oakland.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I agree with.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: With Bleacher Dave that it's a little hairy to ride your bicycle through the Port of Oakland, but I do it anyway, maybe I'm just foolish or willing to risk but but I've certainly watched the progress of that effort and what's happening and.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: it's certainly safer than it was when I started at the Port of Oakland and for most of the way it's it's only a little bit hair raising.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: But, but I think I've been able to see some of the attendant things and I think they're relevant for providing some information for the stakeholders were interested, not just in this Bay Plan, but the future.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: So we have both a duty and a responsibility we're here for the next step in the planning process to determine what areas are suitable for port use and the language in the Bay Plan is is actually very brief.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And it doesn't talk that much about how we carry out that responsibility, but, as I see it, we're given a duty to make sure that decisions.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: That are made by institutions in this case the Oakland A's and the City of of Oakland that make economic sense for them do not end up, resulting in a field that could have been avoided.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: If the land was reserved for port purposes so that's the that's the objective we have and and that that duty.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: But at the, on the other hand, we have a responsibility to not keep designating land for port purposes for an entirely speculative purpose.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Publicly held land does generate tax revenue and they generate jobs but, as I know well, about the Port of Oakland those impacts are not limited necessarily or the.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Benefits maybe region wide but, but the impacts may be concentrated in Oakland.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And so we need to balance that duty of that responsibility, as I see it, I couldn't vision determine that the Howard terminal is not needed for port, for her to use if a compelling case can be made that the.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The idea that land may be needed in the future, for purposes of speculative rather than a reasonable scenario.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: What we do with sea level rise and what we do beyond 2050 both bear on that and I think Katharine Pan did make the case that the the small amount of excess capacity we have available only goes to.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And doesn't consider.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: What may happen, we sea level rise, and particularly its impact on ro-ro.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I want to also also address a few things that came up during the discussion that the SPAC had about.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: That the cargo forecasts and.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Whether or not, they were speculative or realistic.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: hostility over over trade and offshoring of jobs might affect that the rising.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: standard of living and wages in China might affect that.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And I don't think that's been borne out at all, you know there's a number of different things, including.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: A New Yorker article and in the last issue and a couple of things in and routers in early March that confirm that trade with China has actually increased despite efforts to.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: You know the pandemic and and.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: tariffs, so I don't think that we can say that those those.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Forecasts are overly optimistic another line of reasoning that I do think should be addressed in this effort is the question of intermodal cargo.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Certainly, when I was at the Port of Oakland I was worried that investment in an intermodal joint terminal was pretty high risk economic risk for the Port.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Both the Pacific Northwest and the southern California ports have better rail service to some of the Eastern markets and.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: On the other hand, every time I've been on in the Port on my bicycle I've seen a huge amount of increase in activity at the intermodal terminal.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I would like to make sure that the staff documents that but my kind of first impression is indeed there still a substantial amount of intermodal cargo so looking at those two sources I'm not convinced at all that there's an overly optimistic scenario in the forecast and we're done.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Now the question of utility of Howard terminal.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Well, I think that that the three options there that have been listed for Howard terminal or are illustrative I appreciate the comments of the Port of Oakland that capacity is not just acreage and there has to be some flexibility and it has to be some consideration.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: So I want you and I know I'm asking my staff to do a work that's hard and then consultants, but, but I think we have to drill down a little bit on the capacity of our terminal I think you have to ask the question of is a new turning basin.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: reasonably foreseeable is that term of art exists in sequence.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: What does it cost who's going to pay for it, is it sufficiently determined, and the reason I asked that is.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Like do right by bicycle around and up on the bridge and I looked at the you know, the first few vessel calls of the new generation of ships that are not even envision when we did the 50 foot project and they all went to outer harbor which is not so seriously constraint.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And I also know that the shipping industry does not move uniformly only to the very largest carriers and the very fastest cranes there's also a holdover of other smaller activities and each ports, our terminal was, in fact.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: On each port for manson before they were enticed to move into another terminal that had lots of excess capacity.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: We knew when we put in Vision 2000 into place, that there was excess capacity what's going to happen is that capacity starts to dry up and what our terminal be viable as an each port, either at the full size, because.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: large carriers could be accommodated matter harbor or even on a smaller terminal and if if it would need to be modified.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: or or modernized in ways that could involve either faster cranes or seismic efforts would it still be viable I think that's a very critical question and it's not one it's not critical for what we do at the next page phase of this, but I think it is critical for.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: that the second amendment, how viable, would it be as a container terminal and that's digging down a little bit in terms of feasibility.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: So so that's that's supported the idea that that that was expressed by the Port of Oakland that acreage alone is not a mechanism, we need a little more flexibility.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And then finally.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Logistical improvements.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: One of the things again we go back to staying in our lane, and is there a reasonable case that can be made that the system will get or efficient.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Beyond you know with something less than full automation such that you need less space to carry the number of boxes through through the system and.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: The dwell time of a container on a seaport is a critical movement to that now we all had to deal with that, when we were doing Vision 2000 because each movement of it, of a container in in a.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: shipyard adds a mission, so we were all looking at that there aren't logistical benefits in terms of those things which involve careful planning of cargo movements, so that it doesn't dwell on a cargo, so that you don't have.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: You don't have trucks queuing at the gates, and you can get capacity, without quite as much area, so I do want that question revisited as we, as we pursue those are the things so um.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And then, finally, a couple comments that were made today.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I do think that the question of.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: equitable access to fishing is something that might be dealt with through the mechanisms that SAFA suggested about environmental justice.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I certainly support fishing, whether or not it's it's part of the Seaport Plan is another question, but it may be part of the next one, but, but I think Katharine you've suggested a mechanism for consideration of issues like that, and I certainly support that.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I'll stop there.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I think that's probably more than anybody wanted to hear but.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I've been around this for a while, again, I think we have to stay in our lane if if we can determine that even beyond 2050 despite sea level rise that efficiency will take care of capacity.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Or that our terminal be maybe so compromised, we may be able to find that we can't with this, but I think we can say at this stage that the staff has done enough work to send this on to the draft report, the next SPAC and they've done an excellent job so.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: We with that Katharine remind us of what we have to do today.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So one of the things I would love to hear is so for this draft, and that will be preparing for the next meeting, because we do have to include.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: You know mapping and things in it.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: What How should we are do you have an idea of how we can.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: deal with the idea that we have these two Bay plan amendments like what.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: What format of a draft would be most helpful for you.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: In deciding in in your life deliberations about the two different Bay Plan amendments because.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: You know there there's like there's like a version of just your all the 1-19 changes and then there's also still the Howard terminal question.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Would you like to see everything in one draft, would you like to see.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Like maybe what all the 1-19 items together and then like a little addendum for.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: What what are some of the ideas that you might have and how we can best IT picked this decision for you.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I guess my assumption is that our activity today is just related to the first.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: amendment.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And there would be a second one, and are you asking us.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Should we, as a policy matter combine the two or suggest that we could combine the two or I didn't repeated.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: You know, I think that what I've heard from the seaport and I share that view is there's enough here to formulate a draft staff report, for the first amendment, which considers options, but not to select one that would eliminate Howard Terminal.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And the second amendment would have to carry the burden of proof on that is have I misstated anything just want to ask the SPAC Am I overstating the case.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Any.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: yeah I would add, Jim I I got the impression from an early in Katharine's presentation that these runs slightly different timelines as well, so it makes sense that that we'd be doing.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: Moving that forward first.
Andrea Gardner, SPAC: In terms of the staff report is that correct.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Um yes, it is that it is correct that they are on slightly different time tracks now, but I think my question is more, just like in terms of process and ways that you could.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Consider the issue, whether or not you wanted some combination of the two as part of this draft plan.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: But also, starting with.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then figuring out how 2-19 would fit into that later on, is also an option.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I guess speaking for myself and.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I want to advance this on, so we can eventually go out the rest of our day.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I would, we have before us in the first amendment and and the City of Oakland and the Oakland A's have chosen a process that.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: has two different amendments and that's their choice and I don't want to deny them of their choice they may find it at some point.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: As a draft report is prepared.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: advisable or desirable for them to slow down and combine them but that's not a decision that I think the SPAC should make for them does anyone disagree with that.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: So I'm seeing shaking heads, I think we should finish our work on this for today, which is not the fish but it's to send it back to the staff you've done an excellent job you've teed it up.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I, I think that.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: there's a robust amount of discussion that will occur at the second one, but with a more complete staff report.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: So that's what I think we're ready to do is it.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Am I miss something Katharine.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I know that sounds great essentially basically a set an explicit statement like that is very useful to us.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I mean we don't make the decision on timing by ourselves we're responding to a request by the City of Oakland and in the Oakland A's and we're doing our best.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And From my own perspective I'm trying to stay in my lane and try to figure out, is there a scenario that would require us to keep Howard terminal is there a scenario that requires to that would allow us to to find in excess but we're not there yet.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then another question is so we noticed that nobody commented on our request for the Ports to help us with outreach and just curious if there are any responses to that any questions.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: You know, of course, will will follow up with everyone after this meeting, but if there's any discussion that you want it to have now we'd be interested in hearing.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Brendan, go ahead.
Brendan O'Meara - SPAC, Port of San Francisco: Yeah, I would just say I know for least that's the port San Francisco we have in place different Community advisory groups that meet regularly on port related items so.
Brendan O'Meara - SPAC, Port of San Francisco: They would be a good way to address that, at least initially, and and maybe that could just that can be the process, but for us, we had it, we have some things in place, we can discuss with you, that would be easy ways to access our communities that bridge our that border our properties.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Other comments.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Help me with a motion here, Katharine.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I think we need a motion to.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: authorize this and, unlike many of these.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I don't know that there's a motion that's available.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And I don't know if you need one.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: Another.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I think we've.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: tried, I think we have.
Steve Goldbeck - BCDC: started her I I do think you've given us good direction I don't think we need a formal motion for us to proceed things.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: um.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: With that Oh, we had an end.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: We are, I guess, I could.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Just sort of reiterate some of the upcoming timeline things that we have going on, just to remind everyone of the milestones.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Let me just do that really quickly.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Just so that I can finish my presentation, let me.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: So thanks everyone for sticking around.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: If we are a little bit past 12 o'clock.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: But so here are the remaining milestones that we have and our tentative timeline for them, so we'll go to work on this draft plan, and you know, based on your direction.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: we'll just really focus on the 1-19 related land use changes, for now, and so that will have at some point in the late summer, early fall of this year I'll also include some additional analysis.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: That everyone requested so we'll bring everything back, and so the SPAC meeting, for that will also all just follow along the heels of that.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Read descriptive notice of when these are starting to go to the Commission it's actually in October, I think it's a second Commission meeting in October we'll have.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: You know, further announcements, I think, on the 2-19 amendment just because it's unlikely to be ripe, I think, at that time.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: But just look for look for this like process to be heading towards an October Commission hearing on the first amendment.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: And then also while I have you on the screen, I just wanted to thank, really quickly, Dan Smith of Tioga, again.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I didn't mention this before, but he did actually put in additional we did get additional consulting work from him to do parts of this analysis, so.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: As always, like his expertise is appreciated and then, as another next step item, this is actually my last SPAC meeting as a planner with BCDC, I'm moving over to the permitting department.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: pretty much right after this but I'll still be around and also be helping out and continuing conversations with people so.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I'll still be around as a resource, but anyways yeah so.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: I think that is everything for now um.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: One more thing Jessica, did you hit your hand raise a point you wanted to make here.
Jessica Fain, BCDC: you're still in good hands don't worry, but I also just wanted to thank Katharine, for all her hard work and dedication to this, and and Linda and Cody as well.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: I'll echo that this is not my first rodeo with a big plan amendment and support amendment and and Katharine your work has just been stellar. Thank you.
Thank you that's.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Great so we'll just be following up with everyone about your comments and thank you all for coming, and thanks for participating so much that time is great to hear everyone's thoughts.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: With that can I get a motion to adjourn.
Brendan O'Meara - SPAC, Port of San Francisco: ocean Georgia.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: We have it.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: At a second.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: And and I'll use a line that I stole from Zack Wasserman and all in favor.
Jim McGrath, Chair, SPAC: aye, if you're opposed, you're welcome to stay, thank you all.
Thanks everybody say.
Katharine Pan - BCDC: Aye.
Steve Goldbeck - BCDC: Thank you.