BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.16.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20220101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230830T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230830T170000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230831T004031Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240127T080732Z
UID:10000070-1693400400-1693414800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 30\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board
DESCRIPTION:The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format\, in person and virtually. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterRedwood Room\, Fifth Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83409862703?pwd=QmRJNEdRaUE2TjlqeTQvSE5HRytZUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID834 0986 2703 \nPasscode755718 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review\nStaff Updates\nPublic Comment Period for Items not on the Agenda\nItem of Discussion: Cargill’s Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project – Berm Stability (BCDC Permit Application 2021.003.00) (PDF).The Board will review geotechnical reports and data on berm stability\, addressing issues raised by the ECRB in their first meeting with the Applicant of November 16\, 2022. These documents are related to the Cargill’s application to the Commission for the “Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project” (O&M Project)\, BCDC Permit Application No. 2021.003.00\, to continue maintenance and operational activities at Cargill’s solar salt facilities located in Newark\, Fremont and Redwood City over a ten-year authorization period. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the berm stability specifically for Ponds P2-12 and P2-13 due to a seismic event\, overtopping\, erosion\, or sea level rise.(Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Attachment A (PDF) // Attachment B (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/08/08-30-Audio.mp3 \nMeeting Transcript \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): We are recording. Proceed. Great. Thank you. Guys. I’d like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission engineering criteria for today’s August thirtieth. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): 2023. This meeting will be recorded. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): we are meeting here in Vcbcs. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the floor conference room today. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and the public can join \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): either here in person or on the zoom link \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): everyone who is here. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): From the \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Rob\, do you wanna go? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Sure. Okay. So good afternoon. Welcome to this \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): virtual Bcd C. And in person as well. Bc. DC engineering criteria review board meeting. \nI’m Rod Iwashta. I’m the chair of Bcd’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Our first order of business is to call the role Board members. Please unmute yourselves\, and to respond\, and then mute yourselves again after responding. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, please call the roll \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Rob\, you Rushka! \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Jim! French vice chair of the board. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): What’s that? \nJim French: So that’s the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: alright got it? \nYes. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Bob Batalio. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): it’s not present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and also not present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Jima Kasawi. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): present \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: precise \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Marlene Gossorki \nRamin Golesorkhi: present \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Maya Travisaro. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and I know she couldn’t be here today. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Nick Sutar here. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Gail Johnson. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m participating as a public attendee because I’m \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): presence here. Okay? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And Philip Travetti. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I know he is absent \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and just Samantha \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: applicant cargo today. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And we have so we are doing to conduct business. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Alright. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Wanna share some instructions on how we can participate in this meeting \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): so that it runs as smoothly as possible. First\, everyone\, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): for board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure it is on so that everyone can \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): period. That is part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 2 ways. First\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform. Please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): if you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen\, the hand should turn blue when raised \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the second way. If you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): We will call on individuals who have raised their hands and the order they were raised during public comment period for each project. Finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host Grace. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): who is acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Please be patient with us if it’s needed so a little bit about ex parte communications Board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): staff BC. DC. Staff\, with a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. I invite members who have engaged in any such communications to report on them at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, has any board member raised his or her hand. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I see none. Okay\, great. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. On to agenda. Item\, 3. Staff updates. Jen\, you have staff updates. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yes\, thank you\, Cheri Rushka. I’d like to provide an update on a few items. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: On September twenty-seventh next month. I believe we will be meeting to discuss 2 permanent applications \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: with the design of the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection program. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and also the consistency determination for the Us. Army corps of Engineers\, Oakland Harbor\, turning basins\, lightning project. and also hopefully\, we will have an engineer to recommend to you to fill the vacant alternate spot on the board. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: There currently no permit applications signed up for the October or November meetings\, but that could change. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): On December sixth the Ecr meeting scheduled for them. India\, based in Shoreline Park is currently on the agenda \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and all future Ecrb meetings. After this one will be held on the first floor up of this building in the year Bergwina Conference room. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And that’s it. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, on to other announcements. Are there any announcements from any members of the board? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, so now move on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Can I take a moment just real quick? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): as the ecr I’m II had always thought that we were not able to even attend meetings. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): But \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know Justin’s here\, and I’m just curious if \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that is \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): now allowed\, or if this is just or what \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): michael and I went over this \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): participants. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: yeah\, I think it’s fine \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: or \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Justin. Justin’s\, Chris\, hey? I think you’re gonna be refused from participating in at all. I think we had given the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: suggestion that if someone else was able to provide the presentation that providing that would be\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, I think\, ideal. But ultimately\, you know\, it’s Cargill’s call on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that. And I think\, as an advisory body to the Commission. Ultimately\, you know. There’s not a significant conflict of interest issue that\, you know \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is going to. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, undermine the ultimate decision here. I think the Commission. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: if and when you know this permanent application is brought to the Commission\, don’t be made aware of that Justin is an Ecr member\, but was used from participating. But provided Cardel’s presentation before the Ecrb. When it made its recommendation to the Commission. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay onto agenda. Item number 3\, public comment period for items\, not on the agenda. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So right now we will take any public comments for items\, not on the agenda for public comments on the Cargill presentation. Please wait until after the presentation. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): After you are called on\, you will be unmuted so that you can share your comment. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a 3 a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): please keep your comments respectful. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is there any public comment? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Is there anyone online remotely to make a public comment? There’s nobody here in person. \nBCDC HOST: I don’t see any hands raised on the attendees. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): No hands are raised. Okay. Great \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): onto agenda. Item number 4 the item of discussion. Cargill\, Solar Sea salt system\, maintenance and Operations project mixed. See salts\, ponds\, berm stability. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So let’s see\, first up. Jen Hyman\, senior engineer from BCDC. Will make a short presentation with some background information on the issues \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): before the Board today\, followed by Cargill’s presentation. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I would like to remind the Board and participating members to please turn on your video when you’re speaking\, and answer or answering questions \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): when you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your videos so that we minimize distractions on the screen. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, it’s on to you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thank you. Good afternoon very much to the members of the engineering criteria Review Board. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m Jenna\, and I’m a senior engineer here at PC. DC. And Secretary of the Engineering Criteria Review Board\, and this will be the Board’s second review of the cargo system\, maintenance and Operations project. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I have some background information on the project to share with you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Solar system maintenance operation permit meeting today. This is the agenda for the meeting. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: We already took public comments on the agenda. I’m going to give up presentation on background information with your presentation by Cargill and their representatives. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: we will take public comment on the presentation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and then there can be discussion by the engineering criteria view board and applicant team\, and then we will adjourn \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: carcass maintenance and operations permit. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): was originally issued by BC. DC. In as a 10 year permit. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Authorization has been extended. Numerous times \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: has applied for a new 10 year permit. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Ecdc. Is preparing an environmental assessment for Ea to comply with sequa\, assessing the potential impacts\, continued maintenance and operational activities. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The Ecr meeting today focusing on the stability and safety of the earth and Burns surrounding ponds and at Cargill’s Newark Plant 2. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: These ponds store mixed sea salts \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: due to its high salinity\, and the fact that it’s ionic imbalance differs from day water \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: mixed sea salts could contribute \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to potential environmental impacts if overtopping\, scour and erosion caused a release of brine to the Bay. And that’s a quote from a report by acom from 2021. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This figure shows the location of the 2. Mix sea salt ponds\, p. 2\, 12\, and p. 2\, 13. It’s located \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: just south of the Dumbarton Bridge\, on the east side of the bay in Newark. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: circled here in red. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This is also an aerial photo of the 2 mixed sea salt ponds and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: taken from Google Maps. And you can see surrounding the ponds are tidal wetlands. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: On June seventh \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I took a tour of the mix sea salt ponds at the Cargill facility. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And this is a photo of the berm along p. 2\, 12\, that faces the bay \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and see the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: reddish water \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: of pond on the left\, and the tidal marsh on the right side of the berm. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Aecom’s 2021 sea level rise. Assessment of the Cargill facilities for Cargill \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: includes this figure. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This figure shows \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: pond overtopping and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: inundation \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: during a scenario of 100 year storm tide\, plus 6 inches of sea level rise. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Vcdc. Staff proposes that the new 10 year permit authorization period lasts 10 years\, from 2024 to 2034\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and sea level rise at 2030 is estimated at 6 inches. Acom’s sea level rise. Risk assessment for Carville shows some overtopping of the mixy salt palm berms \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: in this scenario of a hundred year storm tide\, plus 6 inches of sea level rise\, and it’s indicated in this figure by the yellow lines along the berms around the ponds. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So a little bit of a review of the Ecr’s review of this of the Cargill Mixy Salt Pond Burns \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and the Ucr. Had their first meeting on the topic of the stability of the mixed sea salt. Pom. Burns\, on November sixteenth\, 2022\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: in a follow up meeting in a follow up to that meeting. The ECRB. Requested that Cargill provide 7 different things. I’ll read them off now. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: A geotechnical investigation of the firms. site-specific surveys and Cross-sections of the Firms. History of mixed Sea Saltburn maintenance. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Static Condition. Assessment of the Burns analyzing daily Operations. Ties and Seepage on Berm Stability seismic analysis of burn stability with earthquake scenarios\, including 100 year flood\, base flood event\, scenario. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: an ecological risk assessment due to potential release of mixed sea salt into the environment \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: describing expected impacts from berm failures on adjacent communities or human developments. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Second\, presentation to the Ecrv which this is and an updated sea level rise\, risk assessment\, including wave run up wave-induced sperm erosion \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and the risk of groundwater on berm stability. The Cargill submitted reports on items\, one through 5 A\, B and C\, which are the focus of discussion today. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Cargo will make a presentation also on Item 7. Today\, the updated seal or as risk assessment. But this report has not yet been submitted to Pcpc. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So in my staff report to the board \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: providing the information on today’s presentation\, I ask the 7 questions for the Board to consider to day \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: are the scenarios and criteria in the static and seismic firm stability. assessment adequate for assessing the risk of berm failure at Ponds\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Do the static and seismic stability calculations for the Burns adequately characterize and model the berm’s civility. Stability. Considering the available geologic data and berm history\, including any berm raising to address subsidence and sea level rise in 6 inches of sea level rise predicted for 2030. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Does the scope and the Geotechnical Work plan provide data to increase the confidence of the geologic model and used instability modeling? And do you recommend updating the Burn Stability modeling. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Following the execution of the work plan. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: does the updated Cross section memo with the 2 cross sections adequately address the Ecrb request for site\, specific surveys and cross sections of the Burns. Considering the risks of worm failure related to both seismic stability and erosion from overtopping \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: does the summary of the history of p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. Firms adequately address the request for this information. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Do you agree that the results of the berm stability modeling indicate that an ecological and human health risk analysis is not needed. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Does the Board have any other concerns regarding burn stability that have not been addressed. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So that’s the end of my presentation. And now we’ll hear from \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Carpel’s presentation going up to the minute. Let’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you probably do. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Then Michael Willange be on the phone. \nThat’s okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thank you for your patience while we \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: get Cargill presenters added to the zoom. \nBCDC HOST: I think I moved them all over. The only one \nBCDC HOST: I see that doesn’t move over is Gina young? \nBCDC HOST: Okay. \nGayle Johnson: if they’re presenting\, we’re not hearing anything online. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: send the environment \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and also explored some conceptual sea level Rise adaptation strategies that could be implemented \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to continue operations at the facility for the seal Brice scenarios that were evaluated as part of that assessment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and as follow up to the fall meeting with the Ecr. PC. DC. Requested\, the Cargill. Evaluate the impacts of wave run-up and overtopping\, including the effects of C-level rise \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: on the bayfront berms. And that is what is being presented today. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think we might have gone. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. So the purpose of this assessment\, was first acknowledging that the prior study focused primarily on the impacts of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: extreme tides and storm surge on the berms and so this assessment includes consideration of the effects of wave run up and overtopping \non the berms for existing and future conditions\, with sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the way that we approached this was by looking at 2 metrics to characterize the exposure of the berms\, to wave overtopping \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the first is tabulating the duration of berm toe exceedance during conditions for wave height. At the toe the berm exceeds a threshold of one foot. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and that was quantified in terms of average hours per year. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the second was looking at the frequency of berm crest overtopping by waves\, and that was quantified by characterizing the return period of the coastal storm event that would result in overtopping of the berm crest. So we I’ll I’ll get into that in a little bit more detail. But I just wanted to kind of emphasize that there’s these 2 metrics that we’re looking at. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so all of the analysis and the maps that are included in this presentation are focused on sort of presenting graphically\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the results of that analysis. And these 2 metrics. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So the results of this will help Cargill identify the burn segments that may experience increased exposure to wave impacts in the future due to sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So the approach that I’ll provide an overview of today and our plans to follow up with a more detailed memo and technical documentation\, outlining the data sources and methods and findings for Re review by Vcdc. And Vcrb. But the steps that we follow there’s 6 steps that are outlined here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: first laying out the wave analysis\, transect layout. which are essentially locations along the base shoreline where the analysis was performed. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We then extracted bithymmetry and topography\, elevation profiles at each of those locations\, and that was used to identify key sort of geometric and geomorphic \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: parameters on the berm’s\, including the berm toe and the berm crest elevations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We then subdivided the shoreline into approximately 300 foot segments\, and assigned a representative wave analysis transect to each of those segments. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We then used a a long time series of simulated water level and wave model output data. to characterize water level and wait conditions at each point along the shoreline \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and construct a time series of wave runup on each of those locations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then we performed a statistical analysis on that data to estimate \nexceedance levels for wave run of elevations \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that we’re then used to compare to the burn\, tow\, and burn crest elevations to assess the potential for overtopping and the frequency of which that would occur. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then those results were tabulated. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then translate it in Gis onto maps\, depicting segments that could be exposed to You know each of these 2 metrics that we used \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so we have those figures as well. Just in the bottom left is that wave run up plus water level. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so the figure on the bottom left. The blue line is showing the still water level\, the Tide Time series\, and then the red is is sort of the corresponding wave hype \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so this figure does not yet combine everything. But the middle figure does show the total water level time series. And those are just kind of example plots. But I have some more specific. \nCases we can look at. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. so this slide shows the process to lay out the transacts for the wave analysis. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The wave analysis transacts. These are oned transsex that are shown in yellow they’re numbered along the New York shoreline here from one to 37. And so the way of run-up analysis was conducted at each of these locations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the transects were placed to capture variations along the shoreline in terms of the shoreline orientation and wave exposure. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The presence or absence of fronting marsh in front of the berm. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Whether or not the shoreline is armored or unarmoured. So in some cases that required a higher density of transsex\, because those conditions were changing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: along the shoreline pretty rapidly\, and in other cases where you had sort of straight uniform stretches\, the transact layout is a little bit more sparse. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the other thing I want to point out here is all of the Orange dots. Show the locations of the Wave and Water Level Model Time Series data. That we extracted from the Fema coastal flood study for San Francisco Bay. And so each wave analysis transect is essentially paired with a model output point\, and those water level and wave conditions from that point are then used for the way they run up analysis at each transect. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And similarly\, this shows the transect layout for the Redwood City shoreline. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s a much smaller area. So there’s fewer transacts here. But you can see that in total\, we have 48 analysis locations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: throughout the cartel facility. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay? So this slide shows that next step of assigning a representative transect to each of the segments of berm. So we recognize that there’s variability in the berm press elevations along the shoreline \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And through some kind of evaluation of that variability and and testing. We’ve decided on a 300 foot binning \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: of the firm. And so the orange line show all of the subdivisions of each of the firm segments in some cases like\, where you see the transition from 2 to 3 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: there was\, you know\, a single segment might contain a segment of unarmored firm and a piece of armoured berm. So we added additional subdivisions in there. So there’s some subdivisions that are \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: shorter than that 300 foot segment. But in general\, that was how the scrolling was partitioned\, and within each of those segments we use the Lidar data that was available to calculate the average crest elevation \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: within that segment and assigned it to be representative of the Berm Crest elevation within that segment. So if you go to the next slide. It kind of shows how \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: each of those transects is mapped. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so\, for example\, analysis transact\, one is assigned to those first few segments at the north end\, and 2 is assigned to the next view\, and then you hit 3\, which is representative of an armoured segment. So that’s kind of representing the the red color segment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So this was basically a bookkeeping exercise\, and this allowed us to use to know which wave run up results to assign to each segment of firm. So we did this for the whole shoreline. But this is just a snapshot showing what the process looks like. At the northern end of the Newark Ponds \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Phony Directional. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But I guess it’s a few slides back. But \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, maybe if you go back to this slide with the transact layout. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you get one more that should show it. Yeah. So the so the orange points are where the waiting one level. They are. The wave data from the model is directional \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and so we’re using the way period and wave direction from all of it\, and then bring those pay conditions in to the yeah. \nNicholas SITAR: Excuse me\, may I ask in all of these analyses. \nNicholas SITAR: are you taking into account long-term settlement? Do you have data on the crest settlement of these levies of these farms? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. So the question was whether this analysis accounts for 700 firm is not. We’re we’re taking that existing crest elevation average along that segment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And and using that as a \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: okay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we can jump back. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. \nso this slide \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: sort of defined some terminology. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Just to kind of Orient everyone. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We’re talking about wave run up\, which is commonly referred to as the total water level. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and it’s called total water level\, because it encapsulates all of the various coastal processes that contribute to flooding at the shoreline. So that includes the astronomical tide \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: storm surge\, which which accounts for low\, you know\, low atmospheric pressure that can result in a rise in the water level. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Wind effects. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know. Periodic El Nino effects. They can also elevate water levels at the shoreline. So all of those effects of the tide and the storm surge\, or sort of already accounted for in the in the hydro dynamic model that was developed as part of the Fema study. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And then we add the wave analysis pieces at each of those transect locations which include wave setup\, which is a super elevation of the water level of the shoreline\, due to the presence of breaking waves\, which kind of pile water level up against the shore\, and then wave run up\, which is that last piece of the wave actually breaking\, and then running up the base of the berm. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so the the relative magnitudes of each of these components are are shown here. And so when we’re talking about these extreme total water level events events that occur with\, say\, a return period of say\, you know\, every 10 years\, 50 years\, 100 years. Those events\, and these\, like annual maxima that we’re using in our analysis\, are on the order of 10 to 15 feet. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: elevation relative to the nabd Kba\, datum. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So yeah\, the schematic here kind of shows the waves coming in. In some cases we have a marsh plane. In some cases there’s there’s no marsh and the berm. The face of the berm sort of intersects a mud plaque\, and there and and in those cases the berm is generally armored \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and so we’re accounting for the wave breaking at the burn tow and looking at that wave height\, and that feeds into the wave runoff calculation\, and then calculating the the elevation of that total water level \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: on the face of the berm\, and comparing it to the berm crest elevation\, to determine whether or not overtopping is occurring. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Other. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. So just to clarify\, I think everything else you’ll hear today is focused on the Mss. Pause. The request for the wave run up. Study was to do that for the entire facility. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So so all the neurons and legacy are available. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I have a question\, too\, back on the slide that you were on \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: schematic. It shows the overtopping with no water going into the pond. It’s just ending at the pond. Did you also analyze the amount of water that how much could make it all the way over the burn into the pond? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yes\, so we haven’t calculated any of our talking volumes. We’ve mainly been looking at \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: sort of the number of exceedances and duration that overtopping would occur. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we haven’t looked at\, say. overtpping volumes or velocity of water \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: extent\, to which \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: overtpping with travel across the top. I mean\, in general\, the firm presss are relatively wide. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So wouldn’t expect that there would be a huge volume flowing down the back. But certainly for larger. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: See? Otherized scenarios and large volumes of overtopping. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: This. This is a okay. So finally\, to get to that question\, this is a a typical section showing some of the typical dimensions. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: In this case\, we’re we’re flip now\, so the bay is on the right side\, and the phones are on the left side. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m just sort of showing the the relative width of the Berm press \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: relative to the\, you know\, kind of side slopes and hype. So so they’re generally relatively wide compared to the hype. So I think there’d be more discussion with this later. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay\, so to get that John\, into your question about the Total Water Level Time Series. This is an example \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: showing the time series of total water level at transept 2 which is at the northern end of the Newark ponds. \nAnd there’s a couple of things I wanted to point out. Here. One is the the model that I’ve been mentioning. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The model that was developed for the Fema crystal flood study has a 50 year\, 54 year on cast \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: of water level and weight conditions with hourly data. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so you can see\, you know\, we’re capturing all of this kind of daily seasonal inter annual fluctuations in the water level and rate conditions\, and in general\, the kind of annual Max run of events that are shown here are these red dots\, and they’re on the order of like 9 to 10 feet elevation at this site. And you know\, it’s really only those kind of like perfectly aligned combinations of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: high tide\, storm\, surge\, wind from the right direction\, the result in the really high run of events. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so you can see the the firm crest. Elevation at this location is approximately. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: say\, 13 or 13 and a half feet and so you can see that over that 54 year Time series\, there’s a couple of events around the 1\,982\, 83 Amenio\, where we’ve run up would have been projected to kind of approach platform press elevation. So essentially\, what we’re doing at each of these transact locations is creating a time series like this. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then using it as the basis for the extreme value analysis to estimate the elevations associated with those extreme run up events\, and then also comparing those to the Berm toe elevation and the Berm Press elevation to get it. Those 2 metrics \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that are used to kind of characterize the way run up exposure. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Question. Yes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: one only to 2010. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Oh\, that’s when that’s basically when the the modeling effort \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: was was done for the Dean of Whistle Force study. So there is no data beyond 22. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, there certainly is data. But this modeling \nsoftware 2010. It’s \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that was just when the work was done. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So so we’ve we’ve leveraged that prior modeling study. We haven’t done \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you had to demand of modeling data specifically for this \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: purposes of this assessment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So in fact. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: any climate change\, recent climate change. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the insights \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m not in here\, right? I would say yes and no. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re we’re adding in this levelized piece\, so we’ve conducted this analysis\, using the baseline time series \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then repeated it for 3 c levelize scenarios 6 inches 12 inches and 36 inches. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So just the sea level rise piece of climate change is included. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But storms are getting more intense\, too\, because I see that a lot. So my question is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: his date\, or Wendy goes to 2 things. I’m not clear is this data or this model \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: modeling? So I’m not the one. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So if it’s only modeling\, that’s one thing. But is this data. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s a model driven by observational data. So the the record of water levels in the model. The model is driven by 0 tides at the San Francisco tide station. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s also driven by observed. When data. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: various airports around the bay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So it’s it’s it’s it’s a model. But it’s intended to be a model that simulates the historical conditions as they occur. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m very familiar with \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: is not well calibrated for waves\, because there’s not a lot of data available in San Francisco Bay to calibrate a full San Francisco Bay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and I don’t know. I’m gonna ask this question later. But \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and my experience in working now with the storms that occur \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: from New Jersey and through March\, particularly during the huge bomb cyclos. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Many cities in the bay had wave heights overtopping and flooding\, that exceeded anything that occurred during the 54 year period. Amazing. The videos that people have collected is that the wave dynamics? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So I don’t know if you guys have looked at the data or tried to model some of the events that happened after 2\,010. But I would definitely encourage you \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to do that\, is it? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, it is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: since\, particularly since this way modeling. And it was not calibrated. But we now have some storm events with very good ways to kind of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: kind of look at. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So your analysis is basically closed 2020\, 2020\, 2020\, 21. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, the the analysis goes through 2010\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I mean. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we are to wrivings \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: extreme value statistics from the slime cast. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So your data was 2010. Wasn’t your analysis performed in 2\,021? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: right? So they 2021. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, this this analysis is new\, right? The 2\,021. They just looked at new analysis\, looking at like. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But it \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: but it’s just not. It’s based on the model. It was completed in 2010. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: any events that happen after 2010 \nnot be \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: represented in the slides. That’s true. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So the reliability of this particular model beyond 2010 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: who is bad or indifferent? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I don’t think it’s bad. I mean\, I think it’s some of the best available modeling data that’s out there. It’s one of the most comprehensive modeling studies that’s been done for San Francisco Bay \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: already saying it should be up there and based on \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: should be updated by current by recent observations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s a very significant model. I don’t think the model could be rerun through present day to take for account. And I agree that it’s like the most conference of data that we have for today. Absolutely. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But I think\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think the team still could look at individual events that have occurred\, and add them into the analysis\, just to see what it would be with these bigger storm events. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and how that might affect some of the the \nyeah. Yes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Another question on simple question\, what’s the date on the Survey date survey for the tops of rooms? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I will double check\, but I believe it’s 2016 Lidar data \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: project specific record of engineers. It’s not project specific. It was collected for another purpose\, but it was. It was purchased from the vendor \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: towards 2020 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: point of view. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think it was me. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. \nso we’ve been talking a little bit about this \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: historical time series of data \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at each location\, and the next step in the process was to extract the annual maximum events and perform a statistical analysis \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to estimate return carriers associated with total water levels of different elevations at each wave analysis transact. And so what we did was we use the 54 year time series. The annual maximum from those and estimated \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: essentially a a total water level exceedance curve \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where we we came up with estimates of extreme total water levels renew from a one year event all the way up to a 500 year. Event. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And then we looked at those those 2 metrics that I mentioned. So the first one is is essentially \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: intersecting the Berm Press elevation at each of those 300 foot segments with that quota water level curve to estimate the return period\, total water level event that would cause overtopping with the berm \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so that could be like\, maybe under current conditions. It would take a hundred year event to overtop the firm. If you add 6 inches of sea level rise. Maybe now it’s a 50 year event. You got another 6 inches. Maybe it’s a 25 year event. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So this analysis kind of allows us to project that sort of relative decrease in the level of protection provided by the firm over time due to sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And then the second metric is looking at kind of the \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we were trying to characterize the potential for wave impact directly on the face of the firms. And so the metric that was analyzed was basically counting up \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: for this 54 year time series\, counting up the total number of hours for which the berm toe was exceeded by way of run up. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: coupled with a wave hype greater than one foot. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then divided by the length of the time series to calculate the average annual hours of burn to exceedance with waypipe graded at one foot\, and that was done for. Each of the transsex. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So just to give an example of kind of what the output looks like that. You just have 3 example transsex here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Where we’re showing just the 10 year total water level event and you can see how\, as you add successive sea level rise\, that 10 year event increases. So it turns out to it’s like\, roughly 10 feet today\, increasing to about 12 feet 13 feet\, and then up to 16 feet. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: As you add higher amounts of sea level. Rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we have tables that have all of the results\, for you know all of the transacts and all the different return periods as well. So that was used. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay\, so that was kind of like the tabulation of the results. And then what we did was we took that that data and mapped it spatially\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: onto a berm crest delineation. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so this is the metric that depicts the return period that would result in \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: crest overtopping of each of the berm segments. And so these figures show a couple different things. The first is a delineation of the berm crest\, and that’s the colored line. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The second is the the black hatching shows \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: existing armoring along the burns. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so what you can see is as you progress. So if we pick one spot like the where it says so upon 5 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the the the bar on the bottom is covering up the labeling on the panels. But it basically goes \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: current conditions. 6 inches of sea level rise 12 inches of C over eyes and 36 inches of sea level rise. Those are the 4 panels. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I just wanna note that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: is not current conditions. That’s the year 2\,000. We’re almost at 2030 now. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we should not be same deal with residents\, 0 as current conditions anymore. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So\, okay\, so to. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So this is 0 added to the model \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: time series\, which is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: 2010. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. So split hairs a little bit. But \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, the sea level rise\, numbers are intended to be added to year. 2\,000 baseline conditions. \nNicholas SITAR: Well\, III just out of curiosity\, what has been the sea level arise between 2\,010. And now\, as far as the base concerned. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: how much is it? Yeah\, it’s hard to to tease out a term in such a short time. Period. I’ve I’ve looked at it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: You fit a line to the data over a couple of decades. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I don’t have that here\, but I \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I believe\, if you like\, did a trend line at this point\, but that would be worth \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: they actually looked at observers up to 2020 using satellite and time pages. And then they also did \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: an extrapolation of what is most likely to happen by 2050 based on current trends. They don’t go past 2050 because it. you know\, not experiencing a lot of other dynamics. So I think you can get that information without doing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: analysis. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I just wonder if that’s done. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Does that consider \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the historical data before \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the year 2\,000? Or is it like recent. That is done from 1970 to 2020. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So a longer time period. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s yeah\, it’s pretty robust. And you can download all of the analysis online. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: What does that suggest for me? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, I mean\, it definitely shows that we’re on track to to meet or exceed the 6 inches. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think\, by 2030. I think we’ve had about 5 inches of seal of arise so far \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: since 2\,000. So yeah\, maybe 3 inches since 5 inches since 2\,000. We’re now in a but time of sea level rise is currently accelerating on the West Coast. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s looking like 5 inches in the last 23 years. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And I think\, if you \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so so yeah\, these are a series of of figures that essentially show the results of that analysis. what I wanted to kind of step through was\, just if you kind of look at one location. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you can like\, for example. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’ll do t 2\, 12. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, we’ll okay\, yeah\, we’ll do. We’ll talk. Okay. So for the in the top left panel \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: there’s generally generally greens and yellows which imply overtopping\, which we kind of qualitatively qualit\, qualitatively characterize as rare to very rare. So something greater than a 10 year. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: maybe even greater than a hundred year event to result in overtopping. \nAnd then\, as you progress through the sea level\, rise scenarios\, you’re getting more oranges. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then\, of course\, it’s 36 inches of sea level rise. That would be a very frequent event\, something \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: annual or less than a 2 year event. So that’s the intent of these graphics is to kind of show \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the progression of that exposure under the different seal rice scenarios. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think it would be helpful to bring to that 10 to 100 here \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: down\, and do like an additional bin\, unless those numbers are like very close to each other. I’m sure that’s all documented what the numbers and stuff are in that report\, but it’s like it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Do you like. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: orange? And so does that mean a lot of what was yellow and 0 was probably closer to the 10. And I think. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, we so we could. Add another another. \nNicholas SITAR: May I ask the a question in a different direction. \nNicholas SITAR: What are the consequences of the burn being over topped \nNicholas SITAR: and looking at it in terms of firm stability? Stand point\, duration of a specific storm. \nNicholas SITAR: and high water \nNicholas SITAR: really is a concern in terms of erosion of the structure. \nNicholas SITAR: If it’s over topped its water on the other side. \nNicholas SITAR: you have to dispose of it. You have to have provision to deal with it\, but that doesn’t necessarily impact the stability of the structure. So what am I missing here? \nNicholas SITAR: It can result in erosion on the back side\, so you can get erosion potentially at both. Oh\, that’s why I’m looking at. It’s the it’s the duration of the event and potential for erosion of a specific location. But that’s more tied to a specific \nNicholas SITAR: duration. So one has to look at a duration of a wave run up \nNicholas SITAR: of this critical event \nNicholas SITAR: more than \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: how many times it happens. \nNicholas SITAR: Because\, though how many times it happens\, that’s how many times you have to repair it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But \nNicholas SITAR: when it does happen. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: what are the potential consequences? And obviously consequences is breach of the breach of the levy. And what are what is the problem\, what are the \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, yeah\, I mean\, I think\, you know\, that’s a fairly tough \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: perspective. You have to look at that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at every location. So it’s pretty variable. And so so I mean. the the analysis that we’ve done was \nNicholas SITAR: facility by\, you know\, high level both parameters. We haven’t gotten to a level of detail looking at it. But you already show \nNicholas SITAR: locations that are more likely to be over topped\, based on your analysis. So it seems to me that one could take it in that direction and say\, since these are the areas that are more likely to be over top\, let’s do a more detailed analysis on these\, because they’re clearly are going to be critical. \nNicholas SITAR: Could others be overtocked in a extreme event\, of course. but you already have identified what may be the sort of weak links in this \nNicholas SITAR: in this\, basically\, what you have a longitudinal structure that you know is quite challenging. And I accept that. \nNicholas SITAR: Yeah. And I agree\, because even with 0\, if we just look at \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the 12\, it has some spots that are. you know\, orange. So they’re already in that moderate level. So those are probably your lowest click week link areas. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, I wanna propose that you would do that kind of site specific analysis on all of the fun\, but it would be helpful to do it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know\, like at p. 12\, for this purpose. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and just for a maintenance perspective. So following large storm events like\, for example\, the last this past winter\, after any large summer event card\, you’ll just go out and inspect and monitor the firms and I believe the only overtopping we observed was further up north\, near Pond one\, and it was minor overtopping. There was no emergency repair or major erosion that we needed to address. \nOh. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I noticed that there maintenance is out there monitoring everything. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and they do yearly helicopter tours \nNicholas SITAR: last \nNicholas SITAR: and response as well. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: II appreciate that\, and I\, of course we expect that. But but but what I’m what I was driving at is\, if the maintenance does not know where the critical areas are. They don’t. They don’t know where to look. There is a red spot\, and there is no red spot is not necessarily going to lead you to a point where you say you know what this place didn’t overtop. But you better look at \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: shoreline. Make sure that there’s no erosion\, because we know this is a critical segment. So I’m more a \nNicholas SITAR: suggesting that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a maintenance also in inspection should be also focused unknown \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: right that need to be inspected first or or paid special attention to. That would be my. Of course they have experience and they retire. \nNicholas SITAR: That’s right. So the the the point is\, you know\, it has to be documented some place where it says\, you know\, here is your priority list\, and it’s not just space. Because \nNicholas SITAR: person A has been here for 30 years and knows by experience. We also have data that suggests that this is an area we should be looking at. So that’s that’s that’s where I’m sort of having experience. People\, of course. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I think\, like you all are saying\, map maps like this could help identify where some of those thoughts might be. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Of course it’s gonna be very particular to the characteristics of the given storm\, you know\, direct to where we come from\, things like that. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: see also\, I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: there are \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: be nothing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it would all be done like after\, which is aimed \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: confusing to me if we’re having. Here’s a problem. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But we’re not. Gonna \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): we don’t have to do anything about it until down the road. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I don’t think that was the intent. The intent was to utilize this next 10 years to do investigations like we’re doing now and more\, and to prioritize \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a large firm like this\, a large system is going to take some time to develop the process like which areas do we need? Can we raise them the same way we do now\, or do we need different methods? And then also\, there’s got to be budgeting large \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: company like that has\, like every other government entity\, you’ve got to go through a process to prove. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know why you’re extending that like making these expenditures and doing different methods. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we were hoping that we could use that time really again and make sure what what \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re identifying as a me. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s actually technically feasible in an economical way as well. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. And I think when we say raising the burns\, I think that’s is it? 6 inches? Well\, right now we\, we understand. Well\, inch left is what is maintained all the time. And Mss\, we’re gonna get to that later. But what we’re saying is that within our maintenance projections this year we can accommodate that within the standard maintenance methods and volume. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we knew that in the Mss. We could handle that under the next. Get get that? Get that? At least a foot left done \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: while we’re processing and analyzing and investigating best ways to do things and and to what we’ll say we don’t wanna say to raise\, because raising to us needs going above a foot lift \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: maintenance methods. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And and that’s what we’re trying to separate that vocabulary. When we say we’re raising\, it’s over a foot. It would need to be over a foot. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and that takes a little bit more engineering\, as you will\, and that’s why we’re here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But in my view\, I think the predicament \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re all in as society is that this sea level rise and climate change is happening in real time. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: As we sit here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So it’s trying to catch up to it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: 18. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s kind of like catching up. So I think it needs to be understood \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: what the impacts are like\, Nick was suggesting. Then then you can focus where where the vulnerable spots on and then say\, Okay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re gonna look for it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We don’t concentrate so that we we don’t have an impact or a negative impact on the day and on your facilities as well. So I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that appreciation needs to be on the table \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: cannot be looking at data from 50 years ago and say\, it’s okay\, because we are. Storms are getting more intense. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: deliberate happen. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And if we are already at 5\, 2030\, more than likely is more than 6. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I mean. that’s kind of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that’s the the issue that I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: every project of this nature has to be looking at because it’s it’s happening in real time. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: All these changes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and we cannot depend on on information that is sold. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, I haven’t \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: thinking that. you know there’s no guidance. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: really\, for changing climate\, right for design criteria. So. And that’s why the Crv is here. Right. We have judgment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know\, subject matter experts in our field \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to help provide this kind of guidance. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so I think that that’s \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: okay. Let’s see where this all goes\, where this discussion goes\, I think maybe we should continue the presentation. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And but but yeah\, just keep in mind that I think that in terms of. you know\, saying specifically\, Okay\, well\, we have to include. But this year storms into a data set. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s probably not realistic. And \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at at this point. But I but I agree that there are some good points that have been made about \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: focusing inspection work or strengthening \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But yeah\, what can we \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: claim the board. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I think there’s \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, just to kind of close out the the presentation. There’s just another another set of maps here related to that other metric. I think if you go one more. So these are kind of organized in the same way. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where we’re basically mapping that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: metric around exceedance of the berm toe kind of impact on the berm face\, and these are these are characterized in terms of the average \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: annual number of hours per year\, where the total water level exceeds that burn toe \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and so yeah\, like in in Redwood City\, you know\, it’s very sheltered. Greco Island blocks a lot of the wave energy. So you would expect\, you know\, that that condition of having a large wave high\, you know\, to to be pretty infrequent\, and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: as the results show. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it shows up is very rare. So a lot of green\, some yellow there and then contrast that where\, if you go back. One. \nyou know\, there\, as we talked about\, there’s some segments where \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: actually\, can you go back one more \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where there’s already armoring? The firm comes down and intersects the mud flat. So the toe is relatively low. So there’s a lot of impact on the firm face. Of course\, where you see red. You also see the hatching which indicates that those segments are already armored. So it’s not necessarily an issue in terms of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: erosion of the berms. But then you see that there are some unarmer segments. That kind of go to that same transition of like green to red as you add sea level rise. Which would be expected\, as you kind of inundate the marsh\, and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: those type of events become more frequent. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay\, so I think that’s all we had to \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: present on. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And as I mentioned\, we’re working technically. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So just. And I mean. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I mean\, I know there are a lot of different practice we’re looking at. But have you developed \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a set of generalized conclusions and based on all this modeling that you have done? Maybe in terms of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the presence or absence of time\, or you know what the impact that in terms of over the top and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: no they need generalized \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: observations or conclusions that you develop based on. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think that’s so. Fun. Well. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: drawing conclusions from\, say\, the overtopping analysis \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you have to recognize that that analysis assumes that no further raising or modifications of the burns would occur. Right? We’re showing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: increased frequency of overtopping. Assuming no action was taken. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so I think that would be one thing to to keep in mind is that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: okay\, you know. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: as you know\, as most spots are observed or minor erosion occurs\, general maintenance. using these maps to identify some of these weak links as as they were referred to. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think all of those things will result in raising of the raising of the burns over time. so I think that the maps kind of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: provide a little bit of a preview of what would happen under a no action scenario. I think this is useful from that perspective. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I just\, you know. The more I looked at him II felt like the results kind of made sense\, you know\, areas that are generally more sheltered and protected by Marsh today \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: become more exposed in the future with sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and that’s another caveat. This analysis is good. We’ve assumed the marsh is static and just becomes inundated. We know that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: marshals accumulate sediment and grow to some extent over time whether or not they can keep pace to see all Verizon there question but to the extent that they do keep pace they could offset \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: some of those impacts that we’re projecting. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So yeah\, I don’t think there were necessarily any like big big surprises. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: progression of impacts kind of made sense to me. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I have one other question and one of the photos that Jen took like photos 6. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s just interior brought per rip wrap on on. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Has that to do with \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: like erosion that’s developing from waves in the pond. Is that why you have to armor it on the inside? Or is that due to something else? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I think that’s correct. Yeah\, Matt Pitcher would be able to answer that in more detail. But cause there are very large ponds. We do get waves\, large waves in those sometimes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, not a whole lot of maintenance is needed for the inboard sections\, but there is some armoring required \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: any other questions on the sea level rise analysis. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: if not\, is Michael. Yeah. So one quick question you. You mentioned that he’s invited data from 2\,016 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: for the elevation of the park. You know the level of accuracy of that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: like that data\, because it wasn’t specific to your site to purchase. You know\, data that had been around for \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at the current project. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So there is a \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a tech technical documentation associated with the Lidar where they do like the ground checks and everything\, and characterize the accuracy. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: My sense is that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s probably fairly accurate on crests. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Because there’s no vegetation on the crest of the burns in other locations like \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where there’s marsh in front or vegetation on the toe \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it\, you know\, there’s gonna be like. It’s gonna be less accurate there. But my sense is that the the definition of the crest elevations is probably pretty reasonable\, especially when you consider that we’re \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that we. We’ve averaged \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: some some links. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to the extent that there’s uncertainty in those estimates \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we would be averaging\, accompanied by what the level of currency is. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know that? Oh. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: maybe you can check \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: if not\, is Michael Whalen \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: think he’s a panelist? Yeah\, I’m I’m right here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: not really like a couple. People have their \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: like son and Christine\, I think you came up a little bit soft in. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m talking with alright \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: someone who’s listening somewhere else. So maybe \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’ll just turn on mics. Or\, yeah. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: are we all gonna listen to Michael for your speaker\, or we should turn our speakers on the desk phone dial in. And \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: good question. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: or a Turner. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, that might help just keep your mics. Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: okay. testing testing. How does it sound? Is it working \nMichael Whelan: for everybody? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yes\, go ahead. Okay. \nMichael Whelan: very good. Thank you. Everybody. \nMichael Whelan: thank you for this opportunity to speak. I’m Michael Whalen\, with anchor. Qa. My colleague\, Andrew Baird\, is also listening in and our colleague Cole Bales assisted with this. I’m going to present static and seismic \nMichael Whelan: stability of the of the berms \nMichael Whelan: specifically the berms at the mix sea salt ponds and \nMichael Whelan: and specifically on the next slide. Let me tell you what I’m going to tell you. \nMichael Whelan: give a short sight overview. I think a lot of that’s probably \nMichael Whelan: redundant\, but I I’ll cover it briefly. I’ll talk about available site and subsurface particularly subsurface information \nMichael Whelan: that we’ve made use of in the analysis \nMichael Whelan: that I’m presenting will talk about and show \nMichael Whelan: cross-sectional geometry of the of the berms and interest of interest. \nMichael Whelan: I’ll discuss our interpretation of sub service conditions. \nMichael Whelan: The engineering parameters that we’ve assigned to the subservice conditions and the water levels \nMichael Whelan: from this. I’ll I’ll make note of the analysis of static stability of these terms under normal conditions. \nMichael Whelan: Then we’ll spend a little more time on the on the seismic conditions\, both in terms of what is an appropriate seismic event. Magnitude. To apply to these analysis\, and then given the answer that we’ve developed to that question the results of that \nMichael Whelan: of that analysis. all of which we’ve concluded show that these berms do\, in fact\, remain \nstable \nMichael Whelan: under these conditions. That said I’ll conclude by talking about our thoughts and proposal for some additional explorations \nMichael Whelan: at ponds and 13. \nSo let’s let’s jump into this a little bit more introductory stuff. Here’s the the ponds that we’re \nMichael Whelan: specifically talking about here. As I’ll mentioned in just a moment. This is all \nMichael Whelan: directly following from our meeting with with you folks on the Ecrb last November and your subsequent correspondence from December. So we’re focusing on these. \nMichael Whelan: Justin talked a little bit about well\, actually\, quite a bit about the use of Lidar survey\, we made use of the same Lidar survey in our own evaluations \nMichael Whelan: of these. Of these berms for these ponds. Let’s go to the the next. I wanna give a real short overview of the fact that there is a lot of existing geotechnical information around this \nMichael Whelan: area and the surrounding region. Folks who may remember us talking a bit about this back in November. I’ll get a little more detail on this shortly\, but there’s a lot of information available\, and it is\, of course\, helped us \nMichael Whelan: to perform these analyses in a meaningful way. \nMichael Whelan: Let’s and I’ll talk about that in more detail. Here’s the our own picture of one representative spot along \nMichael Whelan: the berms one of the berms. They are built out of native soils as a as was reported in in Jen’s statement\, and as I think we all recognize \nover time they have been compacted. \nMichael Whelan: they’re wide enough to accommodate vehicle traffic. When conditions are \nMichael Whelan: are are dry\, the top is flat. \nMichael Whelan: They’re they’re graded for that vehicle access. \nMichael Whelan: and on the left side you see the interior of the pond as it appeared on on this day\, and on the right\, you see an example of the of the tidal marshes that are \nMichael Whelan: frequently prevalent on the outside of the of the ponds. So just again\, this is just for general context. \nMichael Whelan: Let’s go to the to the next. Here. I mentioned the origin of of the specifics of the study I’m presenting\, and this does go back to the letter from \nMichael Whelan: Bcd’s Ecrb back on December twentieth item for a conduct\, a static condition assessment. \nMichael Whelan: including daily operations\, routine tides\, and so forth. \nMichael Whelan: I’ll mention that item 5 a in that letter was\, regarding \nMichael Whelan: the seismic risk\, assessment and occurrence with base flood event and just an understanding of a full range of scenarios. So this this really this text. \nMichael Whelan: really was our our guide post towards what we proceeded with \nMichael Whelan: studying here. \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, I think I’ve set the stage now. I guess I’ll I’ll start talking about things a little more specificity. \nMichael Whelan: I showed that map a moment ago about the variety of sub service explorations in the region. But specifically here\, at these ponds there is \nMichael Whelan: a lot of \nMichael Whelan: there. There have been a lot of investigations around these particular ponds. I’ll show a picture that in in a moment as we talked about last November they had. These berms \nMichael Whelan: have performed very well for over a century. They’ve ever since they were originally built. We’ve talked about Cargill’s \nongoing inspections \nMichael Whelan: and maintenance work\, but the the these terms have held up well\, including through all the seismic events that have occurred during that time span\, and and of course there are occasions where cargo will perform routine maintenance. So II think that’s \nMichael Whelan: been pretty well established. The keying point. I’ll I’ll show that in a minute in some of our cross sections. \nMichael Whelan: Now let’s look on this next slide at the the Geo. Technical information that is\, in fact\, available. That circle in the middle is where that picture I showed a few minutes ago was taken. \nMichael Whelan: Cargill’s done a number of \nMichael Whelan: of explorations \nMichael Whelan: on these berms. 24 borings to relatively shallow depths sufficient to get through the burns into the underlying\, pre-existing native materials. \nMichael Whelan: They’ve done a few borings that are deeper to over 80 feet in a couple of spots \nand a lot of the explorations also have been augmented by cone penetration tests \nMichael Whelan: with hydraulic profiling tools\, which\, of course\, is useful for a a fuller understanding of the subsurface conditions that \nMichael Whelan: that I will. I will lay out here\, in fact\, next slide. \nMichael Whelan: we we see 3 basic sole units here under these ponds. And in fact\, we see these \nbasic soil units existing throughout the region in\, in\, in\, including\, in the explorations that were done. \nMichael Whelan: not in these ponds\, but in neighboring areas. \nMichael Whelan: We’ve got the berms themselves which are built of what we’re calling a densified fill. It’s again\, it’s native material that was \nMichael Whelan: that was trenched from adjacent and place to build the berms\, and then has been used to to carry vehicle \nMichael Whelan: traffic over all these years since. \nMichael Whelan: And then below that\, the pre-existing and still existing native sub service materials are are a classic sequence throughout the region of bay muds. \nMichael Whelan: and we see that here young bay mud\, which is relatively softer grading to old Baymud\, which is \nMichael Whelan: not not a soft. I’ll I’ll put some specific numbers to that in a minute. \nMichael Whelan: You saw this in one edition of this in in Justin’s talk. Again. This is based on the Lidar survey \nMichael Whelan: the Justin reference that we’ve also used. We’ve I guess you might say ground truth it from our own on site observations. This is a vertically exaggerated scale. If if that wasn’t apparent to you already. So it’s it’s exaggerated. But \nMichael Whelan: the scaling is is appropriate\, and you see the the berm itself made of densified fill. You see\, it’s sitting on top of \nMichael Whelan: Young Bay mud that extends down about 10 to 15 feet\, and then below that is old bay mud\, which extends well below the bottom of this \nMichael Whelan: of this section\, and of course\, the mixed sea salts on the left\, and \nMichael Whelan: tid tidally influenced flood flood influence to waters on the right in the next slide. You see the same thing\, except that we’ve added the fact that Cargill does perform the keying or corring or core compaction. There’s a couple of different terms that have been used for this\, but that is \nMichael Whelan: where Cargill’s done that where they excavate through the middle of the berm \nMichael Whelan: to a depth of some 8 to 9 feet and put back compacted densified soils \nMichael Whelan: as a as a means of \nMichael Whelan: avoiding seepage. So that’s what that one is showing \nMichael Whelan: now. The memo we wrote. Everything I’m talking about here is is a summarization of our memo which we put forth. It’s dated the very end of July\, I think\, was our our date on it\, and \nMichael Whelan: attached to that memo was a compilation of \nMichael Whelan: all of these subservice explorations that I mentioned\, not just the ones at the 2 ponds and 13\, but also stranding areas as well that are relevant. And \nMichael Whelan: I know\, for you folks are well familiar with \nMichael Whelan: sub service logs\, and and our memo kind of gives for folks who are maybe less familiar with them. A little bit detail on what they’re seeing. Here’s one of many examples \nMichael Whelan: and and what this is showing\, if you look closely\, is the presence of of clay\, silt\, silty clay\, basically the bay muds that are again prevalent through the area. \nMichael Whelan: the this particular pair of logs\, and the other ones. We looked at closely \nMichael Whelan: did not reveal to us. any significant sand lenses of any connectivity. And the reason I mention that is because \nMichael Whelan: that that tends to be a pretty important thing to look for when you’re evaluating potential for liquefaction. So I’ll mention that when I\, when I get to seismic in a few minutes. \nMichael Whelan: And here’s some some other logs that show similar things. \nMichael Whelan: So there\, there’s all these logs we’ve put together and integrated and and looked at and what we did was \nMichael Whelan: we assigned \nMichael Whelan: what we believe to be reasonable or or reasonably conservative \nMichael Whelan: engineering properties to these 3 soil types. The densified berm filled the young bay mud \nMichael Whelan: in the old bay mud and this is really based on a compilation of of the blow counts\, and the descriptions and the laboratory tests were done in a number of places for sheer strength and compressive strength\, and and those of you who’ve been involved with that process recognize that you tend to get a lot of scattering the data. And and it’s the engineers job to distill that down into \nMichael Whelan: are reasonable values. \nMichael Whelan: These are\, these are the values we’ve assigned for these materials. They’re all established as cohesive soils\, that is to say\, they behave in an undrained \nMichael Whelan: manner we felt that was most appropriate for the material types and and the kind of potential risk of failure that we’re interested in. So that’s why\, you see cohesion applied. You see\, in each case we’ve applied a a linear increase in cohesion with depth throughout these \nMichael Whelan: soil types. \nMichael Whelan: And I\, whoever’s controlling this\, you can go to the the next slide. I \nMichael Whelan: wait a minute. Is that the one I okay. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. Bef\, the next stay right there. The next 2 slides will go back to that table. \nMichael Whelan: I wanted to put a little more emphasis on how we derived geotechnical properties for the Bay muds. And this is a plot from us. Stress versus strain tests that should put kind of a classic \nMichael Whelan: development of strain in a in a testing regime. \nMichael Whelan: And are part of the the rationale we use from an engineering perspective \nMichael Whelan: to select \nMichael Whelan: the the strength properties\, though cohesion properties that we did\, and so on the next slide you’ll see that summarize for \nMichael Whelan: well\, for for everything. There\, there’s the young bay mud again. Cohesion at the top of. We’ve assigned 300 pounds per square foot\, increasing with depth down to 1\,000 pounds per square foot at the base of the unit\, and then the next slide just highlights\, the same \nMichael Whelan: but higher values \nincreasing with depth \nMichael Whelan: for old bay mud. \nMichael Whelan: The last thing I want to say about this? Is that someone had a question. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Yeah. May I ask a question? \nMichael Whelan: Yep. \nMichael Whelan: are you? Yeah. You might have gone back on mute. There. \nRamin Golesorkhi: let me get that code. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I was curious how you go from \nRamin Golesorkhi: 300 Psf. Cohesion at the top\, which is reasonable to me\, and 8 pounds per square foot per foot is also reasonable for a normally consolidated play\, like \nRamin Golesorkhi: the Bay mud \nRamin Golesorkhi: and the thickness of your layers\, and your cross section was about 10 to 15 feet\, even if I put 15 feet at 8 pounds per square foot per foot \nRamin Golesorkhi: and add it to 300. I get something like 400. Psf\, how do you get 1\,000? \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, you don’t get a thousand that that quick\, do you? I think what what may maybe a better clarification on this table would be that \nMichael Whelan: that that cohesion of 1\,000 is actually would apply well below the base of the young bay mud. You’re right at the at the very base\, down at the 10 to 15 foot mark. Your cohesion is more on the 400 to 500 Psf. Range\, based on that increase with depth. \nMichael Whelan: So it may\, it may be that the \nMichael Whelan: the 1\,000 at the base unit isn’t actually what you’re getting at the at the base of the young bay \nMichael Whelan: young Bay mode. That’s kind of a a maximum at a greater depth. \nRamin Golesorkhi: So you’re using actually the 300 plus 8 per foot rather than \nRamin Golesorkhi: some sort of linear interpolation up to 1\,000 at the bottom of the layer. That’s right\, yeah\, is\, in fact\, increasing by 8 per foot. So it’s by the time you transition to the old Bay mud contact\, you’re not actually up to 1\,000. You’re actually quite a ways from it. You’re right about that. I would agree with your math. \nMichael Whelan: We can. We can clarify the what what we mean by that\, or perhaps just modify to reflect what happens at the depth at the base of the Ybm. \nMichael Whelan: okay? \nMichael Whelan: Other questions\, I mean\, I was going to make one more comment on the properties\, and I’m going to shift into \nMichael Whelan: the seismic analysis. Before I do that I’ll see if there’s any other questions the other the other point I was just gonna offer on these \nMichael Whelan: properties is\, yeah. We we took all this site information and boiled it down and integrated and chosen. But we also looked at it in terms of what have we used and other projects in and around the San Francisco Bay Area? And you know\, use that as a reality check and it and it did seem to us that you know these seem pretty reasonable here\, and and consistent in our view\, with \nMichael Whelan: with with the overall region. \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, any anything else. Before I go into seismic? \nMichael Whelan: you’ll notice I skipped right over static we’ll get back to static in a few minutes. They. The reason is because the the factors\, if you’re really high \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: under static conditions. So we we really focused here on what’s going on in seismic events. And what\, in fact\, are the appropriate events? One more question. \nMichael Whelan: Okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Michael. I mean\, I haven’t looked closely at your boring logs. But what’s the variation in terms of moisture? Content \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: between the the compacted fell and and the natural. uncompacted baymat? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: What kind of moisture contents were you? \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, \nMichael Whelan: I have. I haven’t tabulated the answer. That question in a handy place. II will say that the moisture contents to our eyes did appear consistent with the notion that \nMichael Whelan: the the berm fill is in a much more compacted state. then the the the higher void ratios present below it. \nMichael Whelan: in the in the younger bay muds. \nMichael Whelan: It’s\, in other words\, a lower moisture content. But II can’t say I’ve got the a handy tabulation of that right here with me\, although that \nMichael Whelan: I could see that being a useful furthering of the rationale\, for how we distinguish between the densified state of the berms and what’s below it. \nMichael Whelan: That kind of what you’re getting at is\, is that consistent with our interpretation of these properties? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. So III remember the the basic premise there. But III don’t have the the numbers in a handy place to \nMichael Whelan: to recite them at the moment\, or the range. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, did you? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Did they do a lot of moisture content? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Best of all. on the \nMichael Whelan: what? What were you asking if there were a lot of moisture contents available there. There were quite a few. If that was a question. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, I was trying to look at the logs. It’s kind of difficult to \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: see. Okay. \nMichael Whelan: yeah\, I’ve got the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and it was\, go ahead. \nMichael Whelan: I’m taking a scan through the the logs myself. \nMichael Whelan: When we talk. I mean the logs. \nMichael Whelan: Well\, there\, there’s there’s a lot of logs\, but like if you were to look at \nMichael Whelan: appendix B\, 2\, to the memo \nMichael Whelan: which which is part of the the exploration is done around the \nMichael Whelan: the ponds. You’ll see \nMichael Whelan: you’ll see a number of moisture contents with pretty pretty wide ranging values. \nMichael Whelan: and generally seem to be most frequently done in the underlying bay muds and less frequently above. \nMichael Whelan: But given in like the 20 to 30% range. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: But I admit that’s just. That’s me. Looking through a few pages at the moment. There’s there’s more in there to that we could tabulate. \nMichael Whelan: and\, to be honest\, I mean what we att fixed in that attachment is the boring logs\, and \nMichael Whelan: doesn’t include the full set of laboratory data. So there may be some further laboratory data that was part of those explorations that we that we didn’t include. Just because we were kind of curating the overall \nMichael Whelan: batch that’s presented in that attachment. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you can go ahead. \nMichael Whelan: Okay. Alrighty. \nMichael Whelan: Let’s let’s talk about earthquake evaluation. the. The the purpose here that we undertook was to derive \nMichael Whelan: a meaningful and appropriate peak ground acceleration corresponding to a design level earthquake\, or\, in fact\, design level earth \nMichael Whelan: quakes now. here\, we felt that it would\, it would be \nMichael Whelan: reasonable and even and even potentially conservative. potentially. \nto use the the return periods \nMichael Whelan: that appear in motems \nMichael Whelan: design criteria for marine terminals. Now\, of course\, this is not a marine terminal\, but th that that seemed like a good baseline to use\, because it’s \nMichael Whelan: it’s it’s got It’s it’s been used elsewhere. It’s been used for facilities with a high level level of critical nature and and it allows us to look at 2 different return periods. And and so that’s what this is \nMichael Whelan: explaining. So we looked at what motems terms and operating level earthquake\, which is essentially a 50 year return period. \nand and and a larger. \nMichael Whelan: less frequent \nMichael Whelan: contingency. Level earthquake. Again\, terms from motems which has a statistical 475 year return period. So \nMichael Whelan: those are what we used\, and I’ll and I’ll describe the numbers we came up with from them. And the other point is that we selected a site class of E \nMichael Whelan: for basically for soft deposits\, which is. \nMichael Whelan: we feel appropriate. Given the preponderance of bay muds. So those those are the 2 return periods. That’s site class and so did a couple of things. First of all\, we determined a a base PGA Peak ground acceleration\, using the unified hazard tool from Usgs. \nMichael Whelan: You folks familiar with that? I mean\, that’s a basically an integration of risk from a variety of \nMichael Whelan: regional fault centers and distances and so forth and and then overall distillation of that. \nMichael Whelan: and just to jump to the punch line from the hazard tool for the contingency level earthquake. The larger 475 year event. We get a base \nMichael Whelan: peak ground acceleration of about point 5 5G\, \nMichael Whelan: then\, on the next slide\, we took that. \nMichael Whelan: and using the site class of E\, we apply. And this is following ashto seismic design guidance. \nMichael Whelan: we applied a site factor \nMichael Whelan: based on this table here that \nMichael Whelan: takes into account the site class of E and the base peak ground acceleration I just mentioned. And \nMichael Whelan: and and that’s the basic mathematics. That’s the formula that we applied the and the answer we get from this and that we have applied for the for the contingency level earthquake for the larger \nMichael Whelan: seismic event\, the less frequent one is point 5G\, that’s the \nMichael Whelan: that’s the third bullet here. \nMichael Whelan: And for the smaller\, more frequent operating level event we end up with a PGA of 0 point 3 4G\, \nMichael Whelan: so\, as you guys all know\, these are really important values for this analysis\, they really kind of drive\, what comes of our analysis\, and that those are the values we’ve selected \nMichael Whelan: for this for those 2 return periods. And and actually\, as you’ll see in a minute. We really focused our attention on the larger one again\, which we felt to be \nMichael Whelan: on the conservative side. But you know\, in in design and engineering it. \nMichael Whelan: that that’s usually a a good way to to go. So that’s that’s where we took our analyses. \nMichael Whelan: And I’m gonna show you the results of our analysis. Any any any questions about what I just laid out there on the development of these \nMichael Whelan: pgas? \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, well\, let me describe our analysis and what we came up with. So we we selected the different places along these \nMichael Whelan: berms. We use the Lidar survey we constructed mock up cross sections. \nMichael Whelan: Michael\, can I ask one more question? Going backwards now? A little bit couple of slides ago you had 4 75 that you got from Motems\, and you also had a 50 year return interval. Where did that come from? \nJim French: And what did you do with that? \nMichael Whelan: That is the what it did. \nMichael Whelan: 50% chance of exceeding a hundred year interval. which you know nominally is 50 year return\, interval. \nMichael Whelan: or 50 year return period. \nMichael Whelan: and what we did with it is not. I’m so pretty honest. But where did that come from? Is that a \nJim French: some some other code? \nMichael Whelan: I believe that’s also from the motemps code. \nJim French: Okay\, I don’t remember that \nJim French: 31 apple black all the time. Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: now. So in some cases I’ve seen that referred to as a 72 72 year return interval just based on the \nMichael Whelan: on the statistics. But the prospect of defining that \nMichael Whelan: percentage of exceedance in a hundred year event as an operating level of earthquake. I think that’s directly from the motemps code. \nJim French: If 50 years\, like a 67% chance at Cedenson 50 years or something like that. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: might have been appropriate \nJim French: definitely. So so what did you do with this? \nMichael Whelan: Well\, to be honest\, most of our work\, we we use the 475 year event. But in both cases we use those to derive pgas \nMichael Whelan: to apply to our seismic. 4\, 75\, I think. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. So the the 475 gave us a PGA of up point 5. And most of what I’m going to show you was using that one. Okay. \nMichael Whelan: okay? Yeah. So the analysis we did using slide 2 software\, we\, we ran 5 different \nMichael Whelan: as we saw at representative locations along these berms \nMichael Whelan: we use the Lidar data ground truth by our own observations to construct these. \nMichael Whelan: let’s go to the next. So the next. The next part of this is to determine what is the. As you guys know\, the slope stability analyses result in a factor of safety \nMichael Whelan: at at their at their simplest level. Now\, there’s other analyses one can apply in terms of deflections and so forth. But we ran to see what are the factors of safety we’re getting. \nMichael Whelan: and\, in fact. what what factors the safety do we want to get? \nAnd here we relied on Astro guidance \nMichael Whelan: again. A a good and and well established \nMichael Whelan: design type guidance that’s out there. And essentially\, what we \nMichael Whelan: concluded was that for static conditions. \nMichael Whelan: depending on the long or short term durations as defined by Ashto. \nMichael Whelan: You could use a 1.5 target fat or safety\, or 1.3 3 \nMichael Whelan: 1.3 3 target factor safety we chose. Let’s look\, let’s let’s aim for 1.5 and and use that as our basic criteria. It’s the worst case for static conditions\, for seismic conditions. We followed a sto guidance recommending a factor\, safety of 1.1 \nMichael Whelan: for for finite length. seismic events. \nMichael Whelan: So those those are the target factors of safety we were bearing in mind as we performed our \nMichael Whelan: our analyses. \nMichael Whelan: And I will\, I will stop at this table. I’ll tell you about this table\, and then I’ll I’ll stop and see if anyone has some questions. Then I’ll show you some example. \nMichael Whelan: Model runs. But he! Here’s the take away. So this is a compilation of of several of the runs we did. It’s not necessarily all of them\, but this is a we felt a good handy way to boil them down. \nMichael Whelan: and the 3 rightmost columns are the key\, the the fourth column\, static fos\, static factor\, safety. Our numbers were above 2.5\, sometimes well above 2.5 every time. \nMichael Whelan: even even when we applied. What you might think of is somewhat out outlandish scenarios. The static fact\, save it was just. It’s it’s high. These look very stable under normal circumstances. It’s the seismic \nMichael Whelan: that is more interesting. And when you look at the rightmost 2 columns\, you can see that. \nMichael Whelan: the right most column\, the sixth column. That’s where we applied the \nMichael Whelan: Pj. That pertains to the 475 year event. And you see those numbers range from 1 point \nMichael Whelan: 6 down to 1.2. So they’re above our criteria\, the criteria of 1.1 which suggests to us that the this is sufficiently stable even in the 475 year event. \nMichael Whelan: the the in between column. The fifth one is the is the 50 year event. II would I would tend to agree which what I think Jim might have been saying that you could perhaps more mathematically\, correctly call us to 72 year event. But regardless\, it’s the smaller one that \nMichael Whelan: that occurs. you know\, within a century\, statistically speaking\, and and those numbers are are well above 1.1. They’re they’re 1.7 and higher. So \nMichael Whelan: the the the overall conclusion we draw from these \nanalyses is that \nMichael Whelan: these berms \nMichael Whelan: are very stable under static conditions\, and even under seismic conditions\, even under a 475 return period\, which is\, is a long time in a in a \nMichael Whelan: buy. Our reckoning is is a pretty large quake. even under those conditions. \nMichael Whelan: These berms are stable\, and the other comment I’ll make\, and then I’ll pause for a minute. Is that you see in this table we ran the analyses at different \nMichael Whelan: tide stages high and low \nMichael Whelan: at flood\, an interpretation of the of the theme of flood stage when the water is higher yet. \nMichael Whelan: and and and that’s what encapsulates the overall numbers \nMichael Whelan: farmer analysis. So before before we go to the the next set of slides \nMichael Whelan: which is just running through a bunch of model results. Let me stop and see if folks have reactions or questions to about this. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I just wanna make sure\, Michael\, that you verify that \nRamin Golesorkhi: very high strength was not assigned to the bottom of the bay. Not layer\, because all the seismic failure services. Obviously it’s kind of failing at the base. Oh\, sorry. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Your 8 pounds per square foot per foot. Kind of increase in strength was really used in your \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: stability analysis. Specifically\, the seismic stability analysis. \nJim French: So please make sure that that you verify that\, because kind of is concerning to me the one that we discussed before. \nMichael Whelan: Ii yup\, III can verify that right here by saying\, that is indeed the case. \nMichael Whelan: And I do understand the the nature of your question\, because that would have a really significant impact on what kind of stability values we wouldn’t want to have \nMichael Whelan: that 1\,000 at the base of the young bay mud artificially driving up these factors. Safety. So II totally understand that. And it’s it’s a matter of correcting the table and not changing the analysis. \nNicholas SITAR: can I before\, before we move on questions exactly about the geometry of\, and especially what circles were being considered\, because. \nNicholas SITAR: frankly looking at the analysis suggests\, you know the whole \nNicholas SITAR: levy is failing. That’s not\, as far as I can see\, they’re concerned. \nNicholas SITAR: A toll failure on an embankment is the most common failure that one gets. And that’s really the critical failure during a major storm or whatever. And \nNicholas SITAR: I’m not sure how slide does it? But most \nNicholas SITAR: of these codes do the search algorithm and immediately do a deep seated failure circle\, which I don’t believe is a realistic failure. Scenario for this \nNicholas SITAR: Toe circle should have been considered. And typically\, you get very shallow failures on these things. But the consequence of a shallow failure is that now your effective crest of the levy is much less. \nNicholas SITAR: and this is essentially and then and that\, as far as I can see\, or consideration of that was completely missing from here. So I do not consider \nNicholas SITAR: these failure circles of actually being \nNicholas SITAR: of any consequence to the actual performance of these structures. That’s not what we see. That’s my concern. There would be do you have any way to report? \nJim French: What your search methodology are? Methodologies\, were the search criteria I know with slope W. At least you can \nJim French: plot where your entry and exit points are\, or where the bottom tangent points are. And there’s nothing that indicated how you searched on this\, I think \nMichael Whelan: slide does slide has that as a output possibility. But I don’t think that was reported\, at least in the limited slides that we have. Right? Okay\, let let’s talk a little bit more about this. Let’s jump ahead \nMichael Whelan: this next slide. I don’t want to linger on too much\, because it’s a little strange. I admit this. This was just part of our parametric analyses of water levels at different heights. I don’t want this to be interpreted as a \nMichael Whelan: an actual flood stage over the room is just a a means by which we look to see what are the effects of different variables. And it’s just one example of a static condition. \nMichael Whelan: but not really representing a true flood scenario. I II do think it would be useful to let’s go to the \nMichael Whelan: I wanna talk about these circles\, these failure circles. Okay? So \nMichael Whelan: here’s one under seismic conditions. And quite a couple couple folks have asked. \nMichael Whelan: how did we \nMichael Whelan: limit the \nMichael Whelan: search mechanism for failure circles? \nMichael Whelan: We were pretty ex. And yeah\, you you you do have various ways of kind of limiting or bounding\, or or widening your \nMichael Whelan: your search profiles\, and and even\, you know\, semi-circular \nMichael Whelan: failure arcs like this one or or non circular arcs\, and we were pretty expansive in what we offered the program. The ability to to derive \nMichael Whelan: including the with the the notion. I think it might have been Nicholas talking about\, you know. \nMichael Whelan: toe failures or or or failures kind of at at the at the front face of it. \nMichael Whelan: That was that was part of the the searches we set up. \nMichael Whelan: and I mean\, what we’re showing in these series is the slides\, which is admittedly a again kind of a curated selection of them. \nMichael Whelan: But we found here was the the worst cases \nMichael Whelan: in each. In each analysis. Now There! There was some commentary that you you weren’t convinced this was the \nMichael Whelan: really the most high risk scenario for for failure. \nNicholas SITAR: That that that’s correct. II would I would submit that first of all\, you’re going to have a vertical face at the at the edge of the fill\, and you will have a non circular failure surface. So I would consider Spencer \nNicholas SITAR: method with a series of non circular surfaces that follow. Layering in the in the bay. Mud \nNicholas SITAR: is the most critical. For some reason we all kind of fall into this trap of assuming that because it is. \nNicholas SITAR: quote unquote clay that\, you will get a circle of failure surface. But it’s a layered medium. \nNicholas SITAR: There are interbeds of silt and clay\, and I have seen quite a few failures in this material that follow basically a distinct bedding plane. So I would \nNicholas SITAR: like to see a series of\, you know\, sensitivity analysis to see what happens if you consider that kind of a that kind of a scenario \nNicholas SITAR: rather than just purely. \nNicholas SITAR: even if you have a very extensive search\, purely circle or failure surface. Because that’s not what we see in a\, in a\, in a embankment of this type \nNicholas SITAR: compacted embankment. It doesn’t fail along \nNicholas SITAR: circle of failure. Surface the scarp is gonna be almost vertical because it’s contacted material and the material below may or may not ever circle failure surface. So I would like to see a little more nuanced \nNicholas SITAR: approach to this\, and and you may find it convince everybody and yourself that\, in fact\, that is\, this is the \nNicholas SITAR: most likely scenario. But at the moment I I’m skeptical\, right? \nNicholas SITAR: I it’s fairly sensitive to the thickness or height of the levy itself\, and the thickness or depth of the bay mud of the young bay mud itself. \nNicholas SITAR: and so I think these are plausible circles as being critical. But I agree with Nick that it would be nice if you could see what your search for charity was with the search limits limits were\, and see what was \nNicholas SITAR: my. My question is\, gonna be generic circles shown in the plots here\, but looks like your bay mud thickness here is something like \nJim French: 7 feet or 8 feet\, or something like that\, as little as 5 feet\, and a couple on the right side of this particular image\, and as deep as you know\, 7 or 8 feet\, or something like that. And if I look at the Cpt’s from \nJim French: Appendix B\, 3 and one of your data packets\, I think. There’s some Cpt’s that look like bay mud goes at least to 20 feet\, which is the bottom of the plots that are shown. \nJim French: If I looked at the II don’t remember where I got this. I think it was part of the packet of information that was sent by BBC. DC. An old Gmatrix report \nJim French: that shows Isopax of bay mud that suggests\, through most of Pons. E. \nJim French: A. A. Ponds\, P. 2\, 12 and 13. It should be \nJim French: least 10 feet\, and really more like 15 to 20 feet in most locations. And \nJim French: you know\, I’m you know the the yeah. Obviously\, we’re\, you know. \nJim French: the the enviable position of being volunteers on this type of work here\, and haven’t spent as many hours\, perhaps\, as I would like to have. But the little data that I’ve been able to look at. It looks like the bay mud is really more like 15 to 20 feet\, or maybe more\, like 25\, even based on the geometric isopax. \nJim French: and everything you’ve shown here. \nJim French: suggests that the bay mud is only a you know. \nJim French: 5 to 5 to 8 feet\, or something like that\, and that will be completely critical and sensitive your your stability analysis\, both \nJim French: static as well as dynamic seismic. So curious what your thoughts are about that. \nJim French: And incidentally the bay mud\, the the \nJim French: the Cpt’s look like the the strengths are going to be on the order of 300 ish\, maybe 400 ish down to 20 feet\, which is consistent with the model that you use\, but not with the geometry. \nJim French: Yeah\, Michael\, why answering that question \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the question. The larger question I was going to ask was\, How did you determine where your cross sections. you know? To be taken? Are these the critical cross sections in your view. And what are the factors dictating that \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: those are the most critical cross sections? Right? \nMichael Whelan: Okay? Well\, III picked up 3 distinct questions. There\, let me let me touch on each of them in turn. So the first one about \nMichael Whelan: circular failures. Yeah\, it’s true. All of these are all these figures show circular failures. We did run it with non circular failures. I think. Nicholas\, your point about\, you know\, a vertical failure. Service and then kinda \nMichael Whelan: sliding along the plane. II I’m hearing that I’m thinking of one variation on a \nMichael Whelan: more like a non-circular. \nMichael Whelan: Or\, or\, you know \nMichael Whelan: wedge type of failure. It would be the way II would imagine that in what we’ve seen is expressed in this in this type of monarch\, so we \nMichael Whelan: when we have done those\, we just didn’t show any of them here\, cause they weren’t turning out to be the more \nMichael Whelan: critical values. But II do understand the interest in that. II understand your point about. Might that not\, in fact\, be. \nMichael Whelan: you know\, a a worst case to be looked at\, and \nMichael Whelan: it would seem appropriate to share variations on that with you all as well. So so you see that we did more than the arc failures \nMichael Whelan: the The question about the the young bay mud \nMichael Whelan: thickness\, and the and the point where it changes from young bay mud to older bay mud. \nMichael Whelan: It it does vary from place to place\, I mean\, I think that was Jim. Your your comment was in what you’re seeing. That seems to be \nMichael Whelan: appearing here and and and matching the base of the of the failure sources\, of course\, as less than 10 to 15 feet deep. \nMichael Whelan: O over all. It’s our intention with these was to match really what we see in the borrings from ground surface downward. \nMichael Whelan: And and so II feel like it is\, in fact\, consistent. I mean it does. It does vary from place to place. I do understand the point at the very least\, that you know. Let’s make sure we’re presenting the \nMichael Whelan: a parametric analysis of this\, because that that may be\, in fact\, the the most critical \nMichael Whelan: factor of them all. I mean\, we’ve talked about the strength of the of the young Bay mud\, and and you’ve expressed your concerns about making sure we’ve correctly identified how we \nMichael Whelan: numerically defined those strengths\, but the depth of it is also important. So I feel like what we’ve shown here is representative of the of the borings that we used \nMichael Whelan: and and looked at. \nMichael Whelan: But II understand the point\, and that perhaps a further clarification of that to satisfy you all\, it could be appropriate. And then the the third. \nMichael Whelan: The third question was\, how did we choose our our sections? Our 5 sections? \nMichael Whelan: That was primarily from looking at the Berm heights and the berm geometry from from the Lidar Survey \nMichael Whelan: and to some degree based on the sub service conditions. But II would say it was\, and and then just kind of looking to obtain a reasonable geographic spread. There wasn’t \nMichael Whelan: in any of those conditions whether it’s a lidar or the subservience neither of those really I think\, put up like a flashing red light like oh\, gosh! You know there’s a place we really need to \nMichael Whelan: focusing on at the expense of other places. So \nMichael Whelan: it was\, it was really largely driven\, just trying to get a \nMichael Whelan: spread of different sorts of conditions throughout the the berm complex. \nJim French: hey\, Michael\, let me let me let me jump in if I may. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and I’m gonna snatch green and share mine \nJim French: you. You don’t have to do anything. I’ll just take it over\, I think. \nJim French: and sick. Hello! \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Oh\, I can’t. Sorry you have to. You have to stop\, sure. \nJim French: Oh. \nJim French: oh. \nJim French: okay. So here’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I need 2 monitors. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Here’s the Isapack map from the Gym matrix report that I mentioned earlier. And you could see\, II think our ponds are \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: somewhere right here. \nJim French: Yeah\, it’s 5\, 1015\, 20 2025 years. So we’re kind of in that range of 10 \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: 1520. I wonder if it’d be useful and not too difficult for you to take one of your figures and create. You know \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, this is a \nJim French: as I don’t see. \nJim French: I \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: gis \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: block! It’s been digitized and all that. But if you just \nJim French: even have a overlay\, the location of your Cpt’s or the ideal or boring. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: really quickly answer all of our questions. In about 30 s \nJim French: to heal a longer figure\, but the that would be I think\, really instructive for the critical sections\, and we’re certainly gonna be saying the thickest bay. MoD is gonna be the criticalist sections. Among the ones that need be considered. \nJim French: And I I’m not sure where yours came from. Exactly if you’re using the with just Cpt’s or a little bit preferred for picking the tops and bottoms of bay mud in particular\, because \nJim French: it’s a little transition that boring so often have trouble with \nJim French: automatically mud. You know the the next layer is \nJim French: will start to get any bit stronger\, but it still is stained black\, typically \nJim French: some of your boring thickness of the of the stronger material. \nJim French: So then\, the Cpt’s that you show \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: suggested the thickness of the stronger material is maybe 3 or 4\, or even 5 feet like that\, and it tails off pretty rapidly. And I think your cross section suggests that the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the thickness of you know you call it densified fill\, which is basically\, you know\, they must just had an opportunity to drain and be above water level of a above bay level for a few years. \nJim French: Until it drains enough that it’s strong enough to add another foot\, and then let it drain for month or 2\, and then they put another foot. So densified is kind of an overstated term\, I guess\, but but it looks like from your cpt’s actually\, I think I can. \nJim French: are. \nJim French: do I have that? Yeah. So here’s here’s some of the Cpt’s. \nJim French: I’m not sure exact locations of these. But you can see down in here. \nJim French: You know the these numbers here are something like equivalent to 300 350 Psf\, und sheer strength\, maybe something that range it’s going down to 20 feet\, which is the bottom shown on these plots \nJim French: and it doesn’t pick up at 20 feet. So we’re not sure where it goes. But this is pretty consistent with \nJim French: you know\, some of these actually are starting to get better at 18. This might be the bottom of bay mud here. \nJim French: right? This is the bottom of bay mud. \nJim French: but anyway\, so it looks like they mud\, you know\, at least on the Cpt’s that I have here here. \nJim French: You know lot thicker bay mud than what what is suggested in the \nJim French: in the half dozen cross sections that you show for your stability. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, this is a series that I think pretty consistently reach about 20 feet \nMichael Whelan: throughout these. Cpt’s right\, and\, as you say\, some of them\, many of them can \nMichael Whelan: don’t really show up much of a trend as you get to the bottom of them like this one here on screen. Right? Yeah. Yeah. So this one\, this one doesn’t. This one doesn’t hit the bottom of bay mud. This one\, doesn’t this one doesn’t. \nJim French: This one may be trying to pick up this one\, doesn’t \nJim French: this one? Yeah. Here’s 2\, then that are\, you know this bay\, maybe the bottom of bay mud. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. \nJim French: here’s bottom. They might a little bit higher here. This is you know\, 16 feet. \nJim French: This one doesn’t hit the bottom. \nJim French: anyway. So I didn’t go back and \nJim French: look where each of these individual ones were. But \nMichael Whelan: sure \nMichael Whelan: and no. Then the the iso pack you were shown earlier is is good. I mean. One thing we were pondering was\, how does the presence of these \nMichael Whelan: berms sitting atop the young bay mud effect \nMichael Whelan: what we see today under \nMichael Whelan: the berms in terms of young Bay mud. And in other words\, you know\, we we gave some thought to. Was there some? \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, I think\, probably taken from the old. \nJim French: or they’ve probably started at least with that old \nJim French: Cdm. G. Used to be called California Division of Mines and geologies. I think it’s 1958 green book we call it. \nJim French: That has 2 maps. It has an isopact map when it has a bottom of a mud \nJim French: map\, and the bottom of May. Mud won’t change by adding burns to the top of it and the settlement. It looks like \nJim French: like\, I said from the Cpt’s that I was looking at that were just looking at a minute ago. here! \nJim French: Well\, here\, here it looks like the bay mud is it looks like the it. You’re getting really good strengthening up here. you know. These ones are\, you know\, getting strong down to maybe 10 feet. There’s some improvement. This one here is getting improvement really good improvement\, only down to 2\, 3 feet\, and minimal improvement down to\, you know\, 6 or 10. So in terms of the Isopac. \nJim French: Some of this\, you know\, this is the fill that’s been placed\, maybe\, and this is where it’s consolidating underneath it and getting a little bit denser because it has some dry fill sitting on top of it. \nJim French: Same thing here\, here\, here’s where your your your fill thickness. \nJim French: I think you’re calling densified is really 2 feet thick or or so\, and then there’s a little bit of improvement\, because there’s some consolidation due to the drier berm sitting on top of it. \nJim French: Same thing here\, you know. Here’s you probably got 4 feet of fill placed on top\, and a little bit of densification for the next 4 feet. \nJim French: Same thing you got. You have. you know\, 3 feet of fill with another 3 4 feet of slightly improved material. Incidentally\, the \nJim French: the 1250. Is that what you used for the fill strength corresponds to a value about right in here\, where my arrow is here. So anything that’s to the left of the air left of about 8. This is the A 10 TSF. Line. Here. \nJim French: Converting the tip resistance value into the \nJim French: into the sheer strength. This is about where this sheer strength of of a 1250 lands\, and you know 3 or 400 is down in here. \nJim French: so I think I think you gotta look carefully at how how thick of of a berm you assume over the top of it\, and how deep the bottom\, and and most importantly\, how deep the bottom they might is. \nJim French: And to to Nick’s question about the shape of the circles. The thickness of the berm will absolutely. very strongly influence whether you’re going to get failures that can pass through the toe\, or through the middle of of the crest\, and Alpha \nJim French: little beyond the tower\, whether they try to go deeper to the bottom of payment. So these geometry. Questions\, I think\, are really critical \nhonestly. \nJim French: and maybe maybe you’ve done some of that. But it wasn’t. In the presentation which I understand. A presentation is \nJim French: is a mere an an hour\, so to speak\, a couple of hours \nJim French: which we’ve exceeded\, you know. But \nJim French: But you know\, maybe useful to submit also a geotechnical report along with the alongside the the presentation\, so that we can review where you’ve documented some of your assumptions and methods and search criteria\, and so on. Sure\, sure. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. Well\, I mean\, I would agree. When you look at these\, Cpt’s the the conclusion does suggest that you have very soft young bay mud to a \nMichael Whelan: the depth that exceeds in some cases below the Cpt depths. \nMichael Whelan: The numbers we selected don’t entirely take. They? They don’t take these only into account. Obviously\, I mean\, we we looked at the borings and the bull counts from the various borings that were done. \nMichael Whelan: We looked at the lab testing and the and the the triaxial work that was done on selected samples. The the slide I showed with the stress train curves earlier was \nMichael Whelan: was a large part of our are thinking as well\, and and selecting the overall parameters\, I mean\, I know Jim\, kind of what you’re showing here\, as we as we focus on these\, Cpt’s might suggest that we’re using \nMichael Whelan: or applying strength parameters that are that are on the high side \nMichael Whelan: or or the thicknesses\, thicknesses that are on the low side\, particularly or think this is the ybm on on the low side\, now\, II do\, I do acknowledge that conclusion. And \nMichael Whelan: and and and II would I would say that the reason \nMichael Whelan: that our numbers don’t \nMichael Whelan: completely reflect what you see here is driven in in part by the the results of the of the laboratory testing. \nNicholas SITAR: I would probably believe Cpt’s over. \nJim French: If there’s a disagreement between lab testing and Cpt’s. If there’s there’s a stark disagreement. I would believe the Cpt’s because there’s many ways that you can \nJim French: get lab data have problems with lab data. If there’s a subtle improvement over the lab data that it suggests\, there’s a little bit of\, you know\, there’s still still\, still\, it’s it’s it’s pretty tricky. I think it’s tough to \nJim French: override cpt data like this. \nNicholas SITAR: if I may follow up Anjem absolutely. I averaging data in this kind of situation somehow doesn’t make sense. \nNicholas SITAR: Because you ha again have to\, as we discuss\, as I suggested earlier\, have to look at the critical section. So you cannot just look at the average section. You have to look at the critical section here\, and that means critical section in terms of \nNicholas SITAR: bemot strength. I don’t see any \nNicholas SITAR: strength regain over that distance? Typically does not \nNicholas SITAR: my experience. \nNicholas SITAR: And the other thing is that you know\, that’s going that’s going to govern. So I agree with Jim that gone trumps\, whatever else there may be\, especially older laboratory data\, as much as it may have been done with the you know\, best possible procedure. \nNicholas SITAR: Unless you you can show that you collect that thing. Wall samples test for them within 24 h in underneath tests. Perhaps. \nNicholas SITAR: But con data is very difficult to trump. So my suggestion again\, just to follow up is identify the critical locations. \nNicholas SITAR: either very thin that that is a critical tool\, because then you basically force the slide surface to follow a defined plane or the deeper sections where you\, in fact\, have a much greater chance of getting a circle of failure as you as you analyze. So I think those are sort of the the sort of the end points of what you have to look at in in my view \nJim French: along the same lines. This is jumping ahead a few slides\, fewer slides. I think we’ll get to it pretty soon\, like you’ve proposed 4 borings and one Cpt. And I would probably cut it down to a boring\, or may maybe even one boring\, and for the same for the same price. 2 dozen Cpt. And make sure all the cpt’s hit the bottom of bay mud. It’s you know. It’s an extra \nJim French: $50 per cpt. It’s like it’s it’s nothing. Once you’re down there. \nJim French: they are fast\, actually a close eye on it until the till the strength starts to climb a tiny bit\, and that’s get 5 feet of strength. Climb. \nJim French: and that’s the bottom of bay mud\, and we don’t care what happens. Below the bottom of bay mud. \nRamin Golesorkhi: And to next point I think we talked about before. But the run up analyses. There are critical sections there. How do those areas compare with \nRamin Golesorkhi: the slope stability sections that \nRamin Golesorkhi: that considered. So I think. \nRamin Golesorkhi: need to kind of tie in everything together\, so that we’re not missing \nRamin Golesorkhi: so that everything has a comprehensive look to it. \nNicholas SITAR: Yeah\, to follow up\, basically\, you have to consider a scenario. \nNicholas SITAR: The worst scenario is that you have a maximum credible earthquake at the time when we have a big storm. Now the probabilities of that are pretty low\, but\, as we have learned. \nNicholas SITAR: unfortunate things happen at the worst possible time pretty easily have a major storm within the 2 years. \nJim French: which statistically gets pretty complicated. But I don’t know how fast you’re gonna repair all these after big earthquake. How fast. how I have a priority these berms are gonna have \nJim French: after a big earthquake that everybody’s busy doing and repairing. falling down houses and freeways and stuff. \nMichael Whelan: Well\, the the sl \nMichael Whelan: sections we used here were derived independently from the wave. Run up analysis. So your your observations to that they’re they’re not the same. \nMichael Whelan: They were selected based on different considerations. \nMichael Whelan: That’s not say they can’t be integrated. So they’re presenting or looking at consistent sections\, but \nMichael Whelan: we did consider those independently from the the run up. Analysis. \nMichael Whelan: Is it worth looking for a moment\, then\, at our proposed \nMichael Whelan: our proposal for additional boardings. Jim\, you’ve made a comment about how you would see that being \nMichael Whelan: conducted. \nMichael Whelan: okay\, yeah\, this. This is the Jim. This was the figure you were referring to where we have 4 borings and one co-located Cpt. \nMichael Whelan: We. We do intend to use these to get to greater depth. As I said earlier the the majority of these explorations\, and in fact\, a lot of the ones we’re looking at earlier \nMichael Whelan: go to like 20 feet or so. So this is an opportunity to go to greater depths. \nMichael Whelan: And\, Jim I you were. You were pointing out that you could do \nMichael Whelan: a number of Cpt’s A. A quicker than you could do a number of boardings. That that is certainly true. \nMichael Whelan: Are there any other comments on the on the proposed additional explorations that we’ve put forth here. \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, can we go back just to just for a moment here? I did. Wanna II know we’ve talked in some detail\, or you folks have commented in some detail on the \nMichael Whelan: selection of soul properties\, the the\, the\, the strategy underneath the berms just for the good of the order. Let me\, if there\, if time allows\, if you go back \nMichael Whelan: a couple of slides here. Yeah\, go back one more. Yes\, right there. \nMichael Whelan: This was just W. Some of the reasons we we chose to show. The ones that we show is just show the effects of different parameters. And \nMichael Whelan: this is a case where\, at the same location the the difference in factor safety derived from our analyses \nMichael Whelan: for the the larger 475 year return earthquake\, and then on the next slide is the same \nMichael Whelan: area with the with the 50 year. So it’s it’s just showing some of the parameters selected parameters that we that we ran through\, and a lot of what I’m taking away from this conversation is just the importance of \nMichael Whelan: further presentation of the parametric analysis that we performed\, I mean what these ones show is \nMichael Whelan: affects the water level and affects earthquake size. But there are also \nMichael Whelan: parametric analysis to be presented\, which which we did do\, and I think can be presented more thoroughly in terms of selected thickness of of younger bay mud. I mean\, you see\, some variations as you go through this sequence. But \nMichael Whelan: we haven’t put together like right next to each other. 2 examples. What difference does it make? Because it does? It does make a difference. The deeper it goes\, the \nMichael Whelan: the the the more of an effect it has on factor safety. So I guess one of the takeaways for me is to \nMichael Whelan: present that in a way that everyone recognizes how how it plays a role in our conclusions \nJim French: right? And and to just point out again\, these are about 7 foot thick of bay mud. \nJim French: I \nJim French: from the ground surface to the bottom of bay mud beneath the the berms. It’s a little bit less because the berm is consolidated. The upper portions of bay mud\, although I would say the bottom half of the Burma\, as you’ve shown\, it is probably not full strength there. \nJim French: But if you were to make this bay mud 20 feet thick. say\, or even 15. that Those contours of safety factor \nJim French: would get\, you know\, Oranger and Oranger\, as you move further down\, as the circle gets deeper and deeper. And so I don’t know if it’s gonna hit \nJim French: one or 1.1 or 1.3\, it’s going to become\, you know\, the the the contours of\, of\, say\, 2 factor are going to change. If you deepen the bay mud \nNicholas SITAR: well\, and if I may\, to follow up on Jim. I \nNicholas SITAR: III guess the question is\, how did you select the proposed locations for boreholes? II do not believe that boreholes these days is the way to go. I think Ct. Should be the driving tool\, and the reason you might want to collect deep samples if you have some suspicion of there is something odd about the deep bay\, you know. The old bay mud underneath which\, \nNicholas SITAR: we don’t believe is is an issue. Looking at this kind of analysis\, but tying your cross sections to the critical sections that may be over topped and possibly doing investigations in those areas. Would make sense. So basically targeted investigation that ties this \nNicholas SITAR: and these analyses together in a kind of a consistent and and holistic way\, so that you can convince yourself\, not just us \nNicholas SITAR: that\, in fact\, you looked at the critical problems and and you analyzed them. And you have the data to support your conclusions. So that would be my sort of \nNicholas SITAR: take on what I have seen 400 foot boring. You could do a lot of 20 Cpt’s and one boring. \nRamin Golesorkhi: and Cpt’s don’t need to go\, most of them at least more than 20 or 30 feet. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Maybe you want to put one to a hundred feet to get a \nRamin Golesorkhi: The average shearwater velocity to 100 feet. Yeah. but you but you could do that with a Cpt easier\, faster\, cheaper than you \nRamin Golesorkhi: do a couple of them. If you want to get a range. \nMichael Whelan: Sure. Yeah\, that that depth target is consistent with our thinking about confirming the shearwave velocity with the at least one deep exploration. But I would agree they don’t all need to go \nMichael Whelan: that deep. It’s really a matter of confirming or \nMichael Whelan: or furthering our understanding of how deep does the the young bay mud extend. \nRamin Golesorkhi: and say\, if you were to do any boring. \nRamin Golesorkhi: the intent would be to get some very high quality samples to do consolidation tests\, so that you can understand the settlement characteristics of of the Baymag. The young Baymag. \nRamin Golesorkhi: in terms of \nRamin Golesorkhi: firm kind of operational if you will. \nRamin Golesorkhi: maintenance issues with time to having to raise it\, etc. II don’t see I don’t see any \nRamin Golesorkhi: real value in strength. I think Cpt will do pretty good job at that. and \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think if you do boring\, you should consider at least taking some \nRamin Golesorkhi: d and M type samplers and things like that. To to run some \nRamin Golesorkhi: dissipation would be adequate to give you that kind of information. \nNicholas SITAR: There’s a question. These these terms are. \nNicholas SITAR: how old? 70 years 80 years old. Something like that most are since the 18 sixties and Ms. S. From \nMichael Whelan: shall we follow up or finish up with our \nMichael Whelan: final slides. \nMichael Whelan: Jump ahead to \nRamin Golesorkhi: and yeah\, do do some piston sampler samplers or ramen\, said DM\, DM\, samplers. There’s there’s number of types of pistons that you could use \nRamin Golesorkhi: but I’m not sure you need to emphasize that a lot. I think one or 2 would be great to supplement like Nick is talking about and get poor pressure dissipation tests. you know a a handful of them. At least\, I’m not sure that that’s the the most critical part of the whole of this project\, or the sickness \nRamin Golesorkhi: of the bay mud\, and the and the strength of the bay mud that you can get from correlations on the Cpt’s\, I think\, is. should suffice for this type of project. Mostly. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I agree. II \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think\, very limited. If borings are going to be drilled. then that’s what my suggestion was. \nRamin Golesorkhi: It’s not imperative. But if you are planning to do boring. \nRamin Golesorkhi: then I think that the value of the borrowings are in terms of getting \nRamin Golesorkhi: good samples into Baymont and seeing the consolidation characteristic of the Bay mountain. Yeah\, get get the samples sealed nicely and protected\, and that. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. Get the undisturbed samples \nMichael Whelan: suitable for undisturbed testing of strength and compressibility. Right? \nMichael Whelan: And what there was comment about poor pressure dissipation \nNicholas SITAR: test these days. You can run it relatively quickly\, takes. \nNicholas SITAR: depending on the hydraulic conductivity of the bay mud from less than an hour to maybe a little longer than an hour per interval. \nNicholas SITAR: But you get the consolidation characters. You get the hydraulic conductivity\, get the consolidation\, and it’s in situ test. So you don’t collect any salad. You don’t \nNicholas SITAR: pull any samples. You’re not doing additional testing. It’s it’s been used very successfully\, and all the congratulations on hiring. \nMichael Whelan: I mean\, II missed the tail end of the congratulations. Comment \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the board members. Some of the board members Nick talked about \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know the layer and and the potential\, for \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, wedge type failure. We’ve talked about some of the terms actually have court section where? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah? Actually\, quite true. And then you compacted material \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to minimize the potential for. And I’m wondering whether the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: vertical interface between \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, and the material which is already there introduces another potential for the failure surface created by this interface. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Alright. So I’m wondering whether to be useful to look at one of those sections as part of the analysis. \nMichael Whelan: II understand. Does. Does the the the presence of the of the cord or the keyed interior present? A. I think. What you’re \nMichael Whelan: pondering was\, does that present a \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: an an additional failure. Opportunity. \nMichael Whelan: do you see? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, well\, I think that’s a lot of \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: very expensive consulting that you just received for free. Are there any more? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: It’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay. And so looks. It looks like we’re at the. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: are we? At the end of the presentation\, or \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: well\, I have a \nMichael Whelan: but you know that that says \nMichael Whelan: we\, we conclude sufficient stability. But the commentary here is putting forth some questions about the underlying assumptions I get. That \nNicholas SITAR: may may I make one more comment on this? Throughout the the \nNicholas SITAR: you mean the speaker. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: my microphone is unmuted. Yeah. \nNicholas SITAR: Okay\, \nNicholas SITAR: okay. Throughout the various reports. There are references to 1\,906 earthquake. \nNicholas SITAR: and we’ll upgrade our earthquake. 1906. \nNicholas SITAR: Completely different scenario is nothing to do with the performance in 1906\, the height of these \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: structures and everything \nNicholas SITAR: was so insignificant it really has no bearing. \nNicholas SITAR: what are these \nNicholas SITAR: structures are going for fall. Well\, now. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: in present\, and the same thing \nNicholas SITAR: lower grade. I was \nNicholas SITAR: in terms of magnitude\, a big earthquake. It was about the shortest possible duration earthquake you can have for the magnitude. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: It really is not representative of \nNicholas SITAR: anything that is significant. Typical magnitude. \nNicholas SITAR: earthquake of that size. If it \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: zippers all the way across\, it’s gonna be 20 cents. This. This was offensive. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: We\, we agree. \nNicholas SITAR: patting ourselves on the back\, saying that these things perform well in a 1906\, which I really\, you know\, is a completely different \nNicholas SITAR: lifetime. It’s lifetime away. And and Loma Prieta is not a representative of what we would expect. So I’m I’m simply saying to tone down that time. hey\, we’ve done well in the past earthquakes. Therefore we’re okay. Recommendation. \nMichael Whelan: We we? We do acknowledge that and and agree with it\, and in fact\, I mean \nMichael Whelan: II may have. I know I mentioned their performance. I don’t want to completely ignore that. But no doubt the whole point of this analysis was to say alright\, how are they going to do in future earthquakes? And it does lead \nMichael Whelan: to one question. I guess I I’m interested in in all of your reaction to our use of a 475 year earthquake event I mean \nMichael Whelan: by by to our way of thinking that that right there is the single \nMichael Whelan: biggest element of conservativeness. In this analysis. I mean it. It is true we can. \nMichael Whelan: We can look at the variability of the young bay mud strengths and thicknesses\, and that all play a role. But \nMichael Whelan: is\, isn’t it. Doesn’t it also seem that the application of that particular earthquake sizes itself a significantly conservative assumption? I mean\, never. I agree. Let’s never mind what happened in the \npast 100 years that may or may not be of any relevance. But looking ahead. \nMichael Whelan: that is that is a big earthquake for us to be focusing ourselves on and and part of me wonders if it’s if if it’s above and beyond what really should go into this analysis\, and that the the operating level earthquake may be a little bit more of a meaningful \nMichael Whelan: re recognition of of the timeline towards Cargill’s activities. Is there any commentary on that \nRamin Golesorkhi: on that portion of this analysis. We haven’t really focused. \nRamin Golesorkhi: You know\, before we get along. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Yeah\, yes\, yes\, we know. \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, 25 years now. So \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, in terms of design criteria. And you know\, we’re saying\, comparing \nRamin Golesorkhi: the berms here to marine oil terminal\, or. \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, buildings that are subject to as TE. 7. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Is this appropriate for berms? \nRamin Golesorkhi: You know that that are. \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, retaining \nRamin Golesorkhi: material that is\, you know\, toxic right or not. I don’t know how you characterize it. But \nRamin Golesorkhi: unnatural\, natural. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Okay\, Johnson\, one of our board members is in the audience. Is there a way that \nRamin Golesorkhi: we can get him to \nRamin Golesorkhi: weigh in on this as well in terms of \nNicholas SITAR: you know. What \nNicholas SITAR: with other. \nMichael Whelan: what other side am I? Okay. \nGayle Johnson: yeah\, just just so. Just so. Folks know. The only reason I’m not there in person is because I got Covid last week. So I was told to participate as a public \nGayle Johnson: public participant today. \nGayle Johnson: I. When I when I heard you \nGayle Johnson: characterizing 4\, 75 as like extremely conservative. I \nGayle Johnson: I do \nGayle Johnson: disagree with that characterization. That’s not a a large number compared to what we use all the time in the Bay area. or \nGayle Johnson: any kind of assessments of existing facilities. \nGayle Johnson: So I think that’s that’s \nGayle Johnson: II don’t think I don’t think that’s appropriate \nGayle Johnson: characterize it that way. \nGayle Johnson: However\, having said that one thing that I think is the context that’s missing here. That II don’t know if any of us understand is. \nGayle Johnson: if you can\, you describe the failure modes that occur\, and then what are the actual consequences in terms of. \nGayle Johnson: you know. is is seepage an issue? Does it take collapse of the whole \nGayle Johnson: berm and pouring out of. \nGayle Johnson: you know the water inside \nGayle Johnson: to cause a problem. How how sensitive are we? And that’s something I don’t really have have a good feel for to \nGayle Johnson: identify how conservative this is. I don’t know if that’s something \nMichael Whelan: you’re able to address Michael or somebody else could. Well\, I would. I’ll tell you what I mean. We were looking prepared to look at that exact kind of question. You know. Okay\, how much. \nMichael Whelan: what kind of failure we’re gonna see over. What length of berm are we gonna see it? How quickly is it going to occur? You know those sort of questions that would all feed into a you know\, an evaluation of ecological risk. \nMichael Whelan: But the analysis I’ve I’ve shown you folks\, you know\, I \nMichael Whelan: acknowledging your commentary on the selection of parameters and and and thickness of materials. \nMichael Whelan: The analysis we did here led us to conclude that that isn’t gonna happen. And so it it W. What we came out of this believing was that we have an absence of a failure. And so there wasn’t really a cause for us to go down the road of \nokay. You know how much. \nMichael Whelan: what mechanism of failure. Really\, we came at this from the from the beginning point of \nMichael Whelan: is there going to be a failure. And \nMichael Whelan: you know\, let ourselves to conclude that that isn’t what’s gonna happen. So that that’s really where we ended up with on those kind of questions\, Gail\, I mean\, we were prepared to look at that exact \nMichael Whelan: a sort of evaluation until we came up with the results that we did \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: well\, just and just for a point of reference\, and the charge was\, you know\, in terms of what we are trying to \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: answer\, based on what the Crb had given you. You know. Yes\, to analyze any expected damage that may occur. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and any expected associated release of Mss. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And my question is\, I mean. What you’ve shown us is limit\, equilibrium \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: type of analysis. Don’t you think it would be more appropriate to also do a displacement type of analysis because he might not have a failure. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: But you could get displacement \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that doesn’t result in. If you have\, there is no display. \nMichael Whelan: I mean I right\, I mean III hear you. I mean\, we’ve we’ve done that kind of analysis in cases where we find a low factor of safety\, and we believe me. We’ve had \nMichael Whelan: plenty of projects where we’ve come to that conclusion to say\, Okay\, well\, we got a fatter safety of of one \nMichael Whelan: point 9\, or you know something that indicates failure. And then. \nyeah\, we’ve applied various sliding block or other displacement sorts of analysis to understand. Okay\, what did that mean? What actually moved. How much did it move? And \nMichael Whelan: if if we III would imagine we would have done that exact sort of thing had we been coming up with low factors of safety here. But \nMichael Whelan: we we haven’t at this point. So we did not apply the the displacement analyses. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so if you know\, based on the comments you’ve received. You know\, if you’re looking at 24 thick layout \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: they might. and your factor of safety is lower than what you are currently reporting. Are you going to do a displacement analysis? Then \nMichael Whelan: II would think that’d be the only way to draw a meaningful conclusion about what it’s telling us. Yeah\, I would. I would think so. \nMichael Whelan: I mean\, that would be my intention. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So Michael. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: going back to your question about is 4\, 75. Appropriate. I think that there’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so I guess I have 2 questions back to you or the team. What’s the design line \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: of the project or \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: design criteria\, you know. Do you want to have no room failures? Are you? Life\, safety. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and what is being protected? Are we protecting? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: You’re nice and concentrated salts from getting diluted by a little bit of overtopping waves. You know. That’s worth very much\, Fenbergs to do that. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: If you’re worried about spilling some of your well\, that’s another issue. If there are subdivisions behind your \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: your pawns that would potentially be afforded. then that’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: another issue also. So I’d be interested in\, you know\, having some sort of maybe a simple bulleted list of what’s what’s the design life we want? We want to protect it for \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: 10 years\, 30 years\, 50 years. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: year 2\,100 \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: whatever and what are the things that are being protected\, whether it’s a failure. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: maybe address that last time. Last presentation. A little bit more\, maybe \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Monkey was wondering. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: but but some of that goes into 475 appropriate \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and whether 4 75 is the right number. It’s certainly the right number\, if there’s any consequences\, and maybe you could argue\, the consequences are relatively \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: modest here. I would think that a 72 year return interval is probably a pretty low number. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: living 4 miles from the Hayward fault\, or 6 miles from Hayward. Fault\, or whatever you are down there \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: at Newark. but maybe a 2\, 25 would be an arguable number. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So I think the 225 is something that we can expect in the next 30 years. The next 15 years from the usages reports. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Think we’re gonna get some big events \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: during whatever your design like this. If your design life is 20 years or 30 years\, I think there’s a good chance. We’re gonna get something that’s relatively close to 2\,225 year terminople. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: one person in 50 years\, or \nMichael Whelan: well\, I wonder if the marine terminal guidance \nMichael Whelan: provide some \nMichael Whelan: some \nMichael Whelan: thoughts toward that right? I mean just the very terminology that they apply with the operating level \nMichael Whelan: event\, the ole\, which is essentially I I’m admittedly oversimplifying a bit when I say this\, but the idea being that for a \nMichael Whelan: the\, the\, the\, the operating level earthquake is one that the facility needs to be able to handle and not be \nMichael Whelan: damaged\, whereas the contingency level earthquake\, the Cl. The 475 year event is is one where \nMichael Whelan: it has to be reparable. It doesn’t. And again\, I’m talking about motems\, and I know this is not \nMichael Whelan: well. We’re this project is not a Motems project\, but \nMichael Whelan: I do think the the concepts are useful that there may be damage in a in a contingency level earthquake\, but it can’t be catastrophic. It has to be reparable damage. That’s really the way. \nMichael Whelan: Th\, that’d be my summarization of the way motems \nMichael Whelan: lays those out. And I mean\, II feel like what we’re doing here is we’re applying the contingency\, level earthquake\, 475 year event\, and looking to see\, is there any damage or not? \nMichael Whelan: And again\, the conclusions we’ve been presenting\, or that we don’t see that there is damage. Now \nMichael Whelan: you’ve offered a lot of comments about some of the underlying assumptions that that may change that \nMichael Whelan: it. Maybe they don’t it might. It might come down to the understanding of deflection analysis that might come out of it. Perhaps we end up in the same place. I’m not sure\, but I guess I’m just offering \nMichael Whelan: the the motems example as as one way that that large earthquake can be addressed. \nMichael Whelan: Is there risk\, I mean. Well\, yeah\, I mean\, I don’t know. I’m not an ecologist\, but certainly that’s forefront. The minds of the motems \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: 2 25 is probably not too bad of a number to use. If\, before that presented the reason why you say \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and not enormous dollar value\, wants to gamble their own money on a smaller earthquake\, and that’s \nRamin Golesorkhi: then that’s their prerogative. II think as long as there’s no life safety involved. \nRamin Golesorkhi: But I don’t think 2 25 is probably a better number to use. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Okay. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I tend to think. First of all\, I think the conclusions reached here \nRamin Golesorkhi: are based on the analyses that have been performed. \nRamin Golesorkhi: We have to discuss that there may be \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Hello. \nRamin Golesorkhi: analysis that could be more critical and may not result in the same conclusions. I think the 475 level of shaking in a pseudo static sense \nRamin Golesorkhi: half a G. That’s pretty significant. If the same conclusions can be reached with more critical sections. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Then I think the 4 75 is pretty \nRamin Golesorkhi: good level of shaking that these \nRamin Golesorkhi: firms are being analyzed for. \nRamin Golesorkhi: No\, I don’t know. III suspect we are not looking at the most critical \nRamin Golesorkhi: sections that may result in \nRamin Golesorkhi: other types of conclusions. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think 2\, 25. It’s probably more \nRamin Golesorkhi: appropriate for a Hayward scenario type kind of level of shaking. \nRamin Golesorkhi: And that’s something that maybe deterministically looking at it. That could be. And that kind of \nRamin Golesorkhi: also is consistent with level of hazard that everybody is talking about in the Bay area. that \nRamin Golesorkhi: more than likely all of us will be experiencing it \nRamin Golesorkhi: in our lifetime so hopefully not. But but I think that that puts a little more context in terms of \nRamin Golesorkhi: is this a more appropriate level rather than just saying 72 year or not. \nRamin Golesorkhi: So so I think my suggestion would be for the lower level 2\, 25 kind of makes sense. But I think you can also compare it to a deterministic scenario. Hayward type\, the magnitudes. \nRamin Golesorkhi: 7. Something at whatever distance you are\, and then \nRamin Golesorkhi: kind of considering the amplification of software deposits. And where the site is that sort of thing\, then that kind of gives you a little more \nRamin Golesorkhi: kind of context and perspective of kind of this is more real and how real it is\, and how does it compare with \nRamin Golesorkhi: what everybody thinks that the Bay Area is going to be subjected to in the next. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Whatever number of years near future\, I would say. \nGayle Johnson: you’re not actually referencing motems correctly. \nGayle Johnson: They don’t have Ole and Cl. They have level one and level 2. So just \nGayle Johnson: to be aware of that \nMichael Whelan: I may be confusing port port design with motems and the oily designation. \nGayle Johnson: And then and then one thing about motems that actually could work to your advantage is that \nGayle Johnson: the reason the reason they have \nGayle Johnson: different? They have different return periods for different risk levels. \nGayle Johnson: So\, depending on how much oil you’re exposed to you\, could you could classify it as a low medium or high risk. and the range for the level. 2 earthquake goes from 4\, 75 years for a high risk \nGayle Johnson: to 2\, 24 for a low risk. So it’s 10% and 50 years. Medium is 15% and 50 years \nGayle Johnson: and low as 20% in 50 years. And the O in the level\, one earthquake\, or ole\, as you call it also goes down from 50\, 65\, 70\, 75%. \nGayle Johnson: So I think if you want to use motions as a reference. \nGayle Johnson: it’s probably not a bad reference\, because it’s in the building code\, and it’s risk based. \nGayle Johnson: But I would suggest\, if you have a even a qualitative reason for tying the risk to the return peer\, do you choose? \nGayle Johnson: that that would be \nGayle Johnson: defensible. I think \nMichael Whelan: that makes sense. \nMichael Whelan: That makes sense. \nMichael Whelan: Okay? \nMichael Whelan: Good comment. \nMichael Whelan: Huh? \nMichael Whelan: Well\, it’s a good thing I write fast because I’ve been taking a lot of notes \nJim French: looking at with Cp. Is not only the depth to the bottom of bay mud. But look at the thickness of the \nJim French: berm itself. \nJim French: And the thickness of improved bay mud below the broom. I think you’re gonna find that the fill is gonna have a distinct\, you know\, 1250 might be a pretty good number for that \nJim French: and I think there’s gonna be a rapidly attenuating strength as you get below the actual fill that’s placed because the berm has densified has caused a little bit of consolidation. \nJim French: And \nJim French: and you might take take a look if you can. At what? \nJim French: what the \nJim French: firm geometry looks like beyond the toe. It’s a little bit tough to see sometimes I know\, because \nJim French: these burns were created by reaching out with a long arm backhoe and a scooping up. \nJim French: and so there’s often a ditch in front of the toes of the Bermms that may or may not show up in Lidar\, if it’s if it’s water filled. \nJim French: The \nJim French: the \nJim French: bay mud below the toe of the berm will densify a little bit\, but not as well as it densifies underneath the middle of the berm. So some of that stuff has been looked at in previous reports. I suspect you can find some old\, maybe tow excavations\, or reaching out with the \nJim French: a canoe and a and a and a stick see how how deep things are out there\, but that those are some things \nJim French: can make some difference\, and \nJim French: we should be considered at least\, and see if you can see if you make some estimates. So what you know. If there are any ditches you borrow ditches in front of out beyond the toes of Burns\, and so on. Yeah\, are there still dishes that that still exist there? And I and and I didn’t \nMichael Whelan: feature this in the slide\, but we would expect that as part of the additional explorations we’d also be doing \nMichael Whelan: visual observations of what’s going on at and past the broom toe\, and probably some \nMichael Whelan: shallow may maybe just hand auger type work to understand. Is there a significant difference in in Ybm properties outside or at the toe of the berm than what we see directly underneath it\, because II would tend to think it would be a bit different \nMichael Whelan: without the loading. So that actually is part of our our approach for the additional explorations. Now\, you know\, we’ve talked about various refinements and further parametric analyses that that you folks have put forth\, I mean is. \nMichael Whelan: is\, is it? Is it your \nMichael Whelan: opinion that \nMichael Whelan: that is\, that is \nMichael Whelan: appropriate to do? Following the additional explorations that ha! How? How would you see that fitting? And I mean\, I guess I guess that’s kind of what I would imagine. But I’m I’m not sure what everyone’s opinion is there. \nNicholas SITAR: But it’s fine. \nNicholas SITAR: I may. I think. You know\, we we sort of focus on suggestion suggesting that you identify the critical areas \nNicholas SITAR: and in those critical areas\, then focus your investigation. \nNicholas SITAR: And in that context\, I think Jim’s point is very well taken. Nobody ever documents these borrow areas because the maintenance goes out there\, and \nNicholas SITAR: few years later nobody knows where the pit was dug for this\, for the stuff and vegetation fills it in. So on those sections that you then analyze \nNicholas SITAR: and identify as critical. Try to do\, a really detailed geometry of the of the of the \nNicholas SITAR: of the ground in front of the under. \nNicholas SITAR: say\, base side of the levy\, and on the other side\, and it can be done. Very simple\, as Jim said. You go out there with the boat and measuring stick\, and just get get the actual profile of the ground rather than guessing it from \nNicholas SITAR: you know everything else you have\, and \nNicholas SITAR: if you focus it on series of sections\, it’s not a major problem to do it\, you know\, if you had to do it along the entire section. Of course\, it becomes a problem unless you identify \nNicholas SITAR: ahead of time that you already know where there are some of these borrow areas. You know it’s a classic on river levies that. The borough areas are on the river side and create problems that nobody thought about\, you know. And \nJim French: these firms. Think you might have retired a couple. Pat. What’s Pat’s last name? \nJim French: Yeah\, talk\, talk\, talk to him. \nNicholas SITAR: The idea is to focus your attention rather than disperse it over the whole thing\, and say\, You know\, from overtopping analysis\, you already know. \nNicholas SITAR: Then you can look at it from terms of depth of Bay mud. The geometry get the geometry in those locations\, and I think that can make a very compelling \nNicholas SITAR: case. And then\, in terms of the seismic\, I agree with Jim that you know 4\, 75. We use 4\, 75 routinely for significant earthquakes\, but in terms of your \nNicholas SITAR: performance\, objectives in a kind of more \nNicholas SITAR: expect an you know more likely occurred. Scenario to 2 25 is is a good one \nto look at. \nMichael Whelan: That’s \nJim French: okay. \nJim French: We’ve had a lot of I mean a lot of advice. I think it. We’re kind of. We’re at the point where we should have public comment. \nJim French: So how do we run public comment. Jen. \nJim French: let’s ask \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: ask anybody online if they have public comment to raise their hand. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and we’ll see if any hands are raised \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: for all the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: there are no people from the public in the meeting in person. So I just wanna open it up. Is there. Is there anybody online? Who would like to make a public comment? Please raise your hand in the zoom. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m not seeing anybody. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay. Well. \nBCDC HOST: I think we could get if Gail wanted to make one final comment. \nGayle Johnson: No\, II think I’m good. Thanks \nproposal. \nBCDC HOST: I think there’s one public that’s trying to raise her hand\, but it goes away. It is \nBCDC HOST: Gail. I’m not sure the pro. The last name Ravi\, RABE\, with CCCR. \nBCDC HOST: I will allow her to talk\, cause I think she’s trying to raise her hand. But it goes away. \nBCDC HOST: Do you agree? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thank you\, Grace? \nGail Raabe CCCR: Can you hear me. This is Gail Robbie. \nBCDC HOST: Yes\, we hear you for the record. Please state your name and your affiliation\, and you have 3 min. \nGail Raabe CCCR: You may\, you may proceed. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Alright. My name is Gail Robbie. I’m Co. Chair for the Citizens Committee to complete the Refuge. Good afternoon\, Chairman Iwashita and Board Members. \nGail Raabe CCCR: We submitted a joint letter with\, Save the bay for your November 2022. Meeting. \nGail Raabe CCCR: expressing a number of concerns and questions related to pawns\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2 13. \nGail Raabe CCCR: It appears that some of the questions we raise remain unanswered. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Additionally\, I was unable to locate. The Boudro associates. Cover letter to Bcd. C. Referenced in the staff report\, and I’d appreciate it if you could make that correspondence available. \nGail Raabe CCCR: analyzing the integrity of these specific pond levies under various risk scenarios is extremely important \nGail Raabe CCCR: to make sure. Adjacent wetlands and slews are protected. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Potential future increases in the volume of stored Mss. In these 2 ponds over an extended period of time is especially problematic \nGail Raabe CCCR: and should be factored into the various risk assessments. Citizens Committee appreciates the Board’s time and attention in evaluating the information Cargill has provided. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Please ensure that the final reports answer all questions\, that the studies are sufficient\, and that the conclusions are based on good data. Thank you very much. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Thank you. I wanna acknowledge that we received a letter \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: from save the day this morning the email and it was it was too late to share the letter with \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: everybody in advance. But I did bring a copy of the letter to this meeting\, and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: print it out and circulate it to each board member that was here in person as well as to the Cargill representatives. We will post the letter on the meeting notice \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: on our website for this meeting. Notice? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And we’ll work to answer the questions in it. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Very good. Thank you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Make sure. Your comment. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay\, well\, now\, time for board discussion. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think we \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: this\, and maybe we’ll just kinda go around the Horn. Yep\, you wanna start \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: question first\, I mean. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, I mean\, discussion going to cover both. What Justin presented are we focusing on? I think it’s for both sections of \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: recitation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I have no further comment. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Chris. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think my only further comment\, if it hasn’t already been addressed\, is that \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I know they didn’t address the what the consequences would be of a breach in the sailing water getting out into the environment? Because they didn’t think that was an issue. But it would be good to describe that\, so that we fully understand the the impacts. And that will also help determine that. Yes\, 4\, 75 is \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): is an appropriate earthquake. \nSo \nRamin Golesorkhi: thank you. I think. \nRamin Golesorkhi: her name. No. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think just one other quick thing. In your additional exploration to say you’re gonna evaluate. Among other things in the faction potential \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: reiterate. What we said about Cpt is probably being preferable to emphasize rather than boring’s. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And in particular\, great job. \nMichael Whelan: Was that a question for me? I mean\, II agreed to what you said. That is a good way to assess it. I I wasn’t sure if that was question for me to respond to. But II heard it. \nGayle Johnson: Everyone’s muted. Not sure if anyone’s talking. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, I just said II agreed that Cpt’s are a good way to \nMichael Whelan: further evaluate look of action. Potential. \nMichael Whelan: Fair enough. You and I aren’t hearing anything. Okay? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay? Yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So so you know\, additional information on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: this core construction would be helpful. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and and that maybe \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: also kind of well\, you need to look at if there are impacts \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to the there being\, you know\, kind of a differential different \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: set of material along that plane. And if that causes issues with the berm. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: yeah\, stability. Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I had one more thing also about the Lidar \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think the really useful light Lidar is usually quite reliable in terms of getting shape. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: But in this particular case. It’s not just the shape of the birds we care about this\, the absolute elevation that we care about \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: because we’re talking about sea level fish. It was all a cost specification and your office extensions. It’s still the right shape that might make a difference. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So do a couple. There’s a couple of ways to look into that\, maybe just check and see where is the nearest ground? Truth? Aye. to anchor the Lidar nearby. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: having 82\, or wherever. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: probably preferably to do a couple of spot checks on terms. Just shoot some a couple of phrase after I make sure that the elevations that they’re doing right elevations. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: if they if they get off a little bit on that. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, a little bit. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, I think\, Jen relating to that. I mean\, if you order the light you know\, because down in a few times they would actually give you \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the quality quality \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: report on what the level of accuracy is\, I think in this case they bought \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the lighter data which was flown for some other purpose. So I mean\, you can either approach the vendor who sold you the data and see whether they had well. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the level of accuracy report. II think we we have the reporting and initiative kind of quality \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: report associate with that. Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay\, okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so so make sure you’re checking\, though\, Justin. Not just there. not just the shapes\, but the absolutely width of David. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the actual elevation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thanks. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and make sure that the items are correct. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, I’m certain it is. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I would actually like to see. Like\, where versus channel. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, Jen\, thank you for putting the the questions that we’re \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: we had at the beginning of the meeting back up. I think this is just a good prompt. Are there any other comments or \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: issues that \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: need to be raised here? I think we’re getting down to the the item 7. Any other concerns. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: But \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: from the level of discussion and the questions and the suggestions that we’ve had\, it sounds like we are going to need another \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: presentation from you after you’ve had a chance to work on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: all of these issues \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is that kind of a general consensus. So \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: motion for them. Yes\, please. So moved. Second. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: second\, that. and then all in favor unanimous. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I \nyeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Do you want them to come back after they do the geotech or or before with an updated work plan. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think. Well again\, this is another item for discussion. Then I think a work plan can be distributed \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to the board members for comment. I don’t that we need to go through another one of these sessions at that point. It’s actually problematic to distribute to us for a week. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So having actually be a meeting\, oh. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so hmm! \nNicholas SITAR: May I suggest. \nNicholas SITAR: unless we have a reason to think that somehow the guidance that was offered fell on deaf ears. We\, you know\, professionals\, and I would trust them to proceed with the you know their their take care about making sure that they get \nNicholas SITAR: and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: alright\, it’s too much different. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And they can say\, Yeah\, looks like it’s good\, or you know\, let’s just continue this. But \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I thought that the Board is asking for. I think it’s it’s acceptable allowable \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: month of rest\, and we can do whatever we want. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So he said he was calling in on phone or something. but I but I think it’s possible for Jen to talk a week \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: talk to talk to other staff\, but also talk to. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: She attached it \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: just source of some. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So not really a board meeting. It doesn’t so much time\, but \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: otherwise I’m not. I’m not sure I need the \nyeah. Bye\, bye. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Well\, well\, how about how about this? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, submitted. And Jen looks at it. She can use her judgement as the weather\, and she can talk to Staff Staff\, and then she can use her judgement whether \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: she thinks they’re discrepancies with what got discussed here today. What’s what’s on the paper? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And if there is\, then okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that sounds good. And I will sort of try to summarize in a formal communication. To the applicant. The main points in our discussion today. And I think there were a number \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: adoption. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, well\, let’s see\, where are we now? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think we’re at adjournment. Honestly. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: yeah. Adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn all favor? Okay\, thank you. Everybody. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. thank you. \nMichael Whelan: Thank you. Folks. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Take care. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-30-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230823T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230823T120000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230824T012352Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231012T014123Z
UID:10000026-1692783000-1692792000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 23\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n\nSolano County Government Center675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533\, 707-784-6129 \n197 Palmer AveFalmouth\, MA 02540 \n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83719850693?pwd=MzNsRDhHcm5wSlpSQVZ5bXVVTmZ4QT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID837 1985 0693 \nPasscode123244 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment (PDF)The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the June 21\, 2023 \, Enforcement Committee meeting (PDF)\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Briefing on Actions to Address Shoreline Encampments\, Abandoned and Derelict Vessels and Anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary\, Alameda CountyBCDC staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the actions taken between February 2023 and the present to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov(Adrienne Klein) [415-352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)// Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing by the City of Sausalito – First 2023 Update (Enforcement Case ER2018.018.00)The City of Sausalito staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the City’s progress implementing the Sausalito-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in December 2020 to address anchored out vessels and restoration of subtidal habitat impacts.(Adrienne Klein) [415-352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Settlement Agreement (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)  // City of Sausalito Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing by the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency – Second 2023 Update (Enforcement Case ER2010.038)Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the RBRA’s progress implementing the RBRA-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in 2021. As part of this briefing\, staff will seek the EC’s approval to extend the October 15\, 2023\, date to remove the post-2019 vessels to October 15\, 2024.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Extension Request Provisional Approval (PDF) // Settlement Agreement (PDF)// Staff Presentation (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-23-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230615T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230615T170000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230616T010511Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240127T022513Z
UID:10000039-1686834000-1686848400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 15\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83188598478?pwd=Ri9pQzJSVjYrb0ZBcXVERFQ0V2d4UT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 8859 8478 \nPasscode173712 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of June 1\, 2023 Meeting(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive DirectorApproval of Undergraduate Interns (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on Kilroy Oyster Point Life Sciences Complex\, in the City of South San Francisco\, San Mateo County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2022.003.00 (PDF)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by KR Oyster Point III\, LLC\, to develop an approximately 27-acre Life Sciences Office Campus\, including a waterfront park\, at 385 Oyster Point Boulevard\, in the City of South San Francisco\, San Mateo County.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)  // Staff Presentation (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nA Discussion of\, and Possible Votes Concerning\, Legislative Activity in Sacramento\, Including SB 273 – CANCELLEDThe Commission will consider and potentially take positions on pending legislation\, including Senate Bill 273 (Wiener)\, Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: mixed-use development.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov\nBriefing on BCDC Hiring/ReorganizingBCDC Human Resources staff will give a presentation and provide a briefing with a 10 year overview of BCDC’s positions.(Anu Ragunathan) [415/352-3639; anu.ragunathan@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nCity of Millbrae621 Magnolia AvenueMillbrae\, CA 94030 \nPermit Application No.M2022.027.00; Millbrae Nearshore Outfall Restoration \nFiled on 06/05/23 \n90th Day on 09/04/23 \nLocation \nWithin the Commission’s Bay and Shoreline Band jurisdictions\, at 2-198/1-99 Old Bayshore Highway\, at the intersection of Millbrae Avenue and Old Bayshore Highway in the City of Millbrae\, San Mateo County. \nDescription \nTo restore an existing but unused nearshore outfall to provide emergency discharge capability for the Millbrae Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)\, by (1) replacing the existing 24-inch outfall pipe with one 26-inch-diameter outfall pipe and one 16-inch storm drain pipe; (2) removing the existing creosote-treated wooden outfall structure and installing an elevated\, pile-supported outfall structure constructed of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) with fiberglass supports; (3) constructing an outfall apron with approximately 15 cubic yards (200 square feet) of rock slope protection fabric and 6-inch-diameter rock riprap; and (4) temporarily excavating approximately 400 cubic yards of soil for a 95-foot-long\, 10-foot-wide\, and 10-foot-deep trench\, to be backfilled and restored to pre-existing site conditions. Construction and grading activities will result in an anticipated net fill of negative 18 cubic yards of sediment for the project. Temporary public access impacts during the 12 to 16 weeks of construction include the closure of one lane of the Old Bayshore Highway and closure of the sidewalk on the northern end of the Bayfront Park. The project will be conditioned to minimize public access impacts\, and ensure traffic control\, detour plans\, notices\, and signage are provided. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing June 2\, 2023 \n\nApplication Summary Kilroy Oyster Point Life Sciences Complex (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing June 9\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of June 1\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nApproval of Undergraduate Interns (PDF)\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\nStaff Recommendation on Kilroy Oyster Point Life Sciences Complex Project (PDF)Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \nHow Sea Level Rise Is Posing a Looming Threat to San Leandro’s Underground Infrastructure \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/06/06-15-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon. Welcome to our hybrid BCDC. Commission meeting. My name is Rebecca Eisen. I am the vice chair of BCDC. Our esteemed chairs at Wasserman cannot be here today. \nBoardroom SX80: and Larry and I were reminded of the \nBoardroom SX80: famous Yogi Bera comment that if you can’t imitate them\, don’t try to copy them. So I’m not going to try to copy them today. But before we get started I do want to note that item 9 on the agenda has been taken off. It regards pending legislation. It has been cancelled for the day. \nBoardroom SX80: I also want to thank. thank Prior Chair Randol\, for offering to step\, step in if I were not able to do this today. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: our first order of business is to call the role commissioners. If you are participating\, participating virtually\, please unmute yourselves and then mute yourselves again after responding. Raylina\, will you play? Please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: vice your eisen \nBoardroom SX80: here. Commissioner Aviation Commissioner on here\, Commissioner Oregon\, President. Commissioner Burt\, here Commissioner Ekland\, present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joya. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: here \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Commissioner Gunther\, here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haz. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Peskin\, present \nDave Pine\, Commissioner: Commissioner Pine. Here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph. \nBoardroom SX80: here Commissioner\, show Walter\, here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Beach. \nBoardroom SX80: present Commissioner Kishimoto \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: here. Sorry about that Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: here \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez\, here \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: Commissioner Nelson\, here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: did I forget anyone? \nBoardroom SX80: 19 Commissioners present? \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Really\, really\, we have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next order of business is public comment. If anyone wants to address the Commission on any matter that is not on the agenda\, or has not yet been. The subject of a public hearing. You can do so now. You have 3 min to do so. Are there any members of the public in the room that wish to speak. \nBoardroom SX80: If so\, please come up to the podium. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. So\, Raylina. Are there any on the phone who want to participate virtually. Yes\, we have one public comment from Mark Zephatello. Thank you. You may begin. You have 3 min to address the commission. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: Thank you good morning or Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Mark Sepatello. I submitted written comments and photos concerning the Bay Area Council’s ongoing violations of the public access requirements of the Commission’s permit for the calamit. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: Last year the Commission adopted a comprehensive set of amendments to its enforcement regulations to promote transparency\, consistency and fairness and provide standards for the exercises of enforcement\, discretion. One amendments defines the term significant harm to the base resources or existing or future public access\, as determined\, based on both the context and intensity of violations. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: Considering those factors\, the Council’s continuing violations are causing significant harm to public access. Context is that the violations are occurring in one of the most highly visible and frequently used locations along the entire shoreline. Hundreds or more pedestrians passed by the calamit every day\, but due to the Council’s Ferry to install any public access signage or required amenities on Pier 9. The public has no way to know that the public access exists \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: as to the intensity of the violations. For 9 months the Commission has failed to provide public access for improvements on the main deck for the upper deck\, public access improvements on Pier 9\, \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: or any public access or wayfaring site \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: way of finding signage. For 6 months the Council failed to provide public access to the root deck. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: These violations have precluded the public’s ability to use required public access\, and if encompassed\, all or large portions of required public access. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: where violations have caused significant harm to public access. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: The Commission’s regulations state that the Executive Director Shale commence Commission and Enforcement proceedings by issuing a violation report and complaint for administrative civil liability. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: I know that the Council has not necessarily gotten a pass on enforcement. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: but with a violator that has knowingly disregarded permit requirements for 9 months\, and has been recalcitrant in responding to staff. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: simply allowing more time as a recipe for more excuses and arguments that staff will have to respond to further delay and piecemeal compliance. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: a lesson that I learned in serving as BCDC’s chief council\, and Larry knows this. Is that the best way to resolve an Enforcement investigation is for the Executive director to issue a violation report and complaint and bring the matter to the Enforcement Committee and the commission. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: There is nothing like it to provide incentive for a violator to work constructively with staff\, and the matter will be fully and finally resolved relatively quickly\, under the time springs established by the regulations. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: Thank you for your consideration\, and I urge the Commissioners to review the staff’s excellent June twelfth letter\, which discusses violations in addition to those presented in my materials. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Are there any other commenters there is? There is one more public comment from Lucia luck\, Meyer\, please unmute yourself. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): I am a resident at Oyster Cove\, Marina\, and I wanted to bring up the \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): The fact that that many of us \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): have gone to many of the meetings that the Kilroy Company provided\, and we were never apprised of anything happening with oyster covering until we received eviction notices \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): and we had asked multiple times if there would be any kind of movement or anything\, and they said\, Don’t worry\, There’s nothing. Repeatedly we were told there’s nothing to worry about\, and it’s not. It’s not on the the radar. Just don’t worry about it. We even went to South City \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): planning commission\, and we’re told not to worry from them as well. So essentially\, we were brushed aside\, and I do know that they have an item on the agenda\, and I the the equity meeting that you had several months ago just rings in my ears still\, because \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): this is an equity issue. If there ever was one. There’s so many people there that are elderly displaced in so many ways. One of our residents is now in a homeless shelter\, and has been for the last several months. We have \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): mostly older people\, people of color\, people who live on the margins and don’t have you know education who are differently able and and don’t have the skills to get high paying jobs in the Bay area. They had homes. They had great homes\, and those homes are now effectively washed away\, and I know that there some of their \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): rationale for building some of the things that they’re going to be building in that space. That is oyster co for arena. Is that There’ll be. There’ll be \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): possibly digging up and putting pylons in. From what I saw from one of the plans \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): previously. tidline marine group \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): reported that they would. The water there was way\, too contaminated to be messed with. So \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): if they\, if it was too contaminated to dredge the the 3 docs that we were on\, why is it now okay for them to go building things there. And and I’m just. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): I’m still highly upset about it\, because it just seems so wrong. you know\, to take away people’s homes like that\, and and with minimal \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): care and and effort south\, since the city of San Francisco did a lot. But the the property managers and owners themselves\, they didn’t do it. They did the bare minimum\, if that they did what they were compelled to do. And they’re going to put in something pretty. But again\, this is capitalism. Run\, am up\, and it’s distressing and disheartening\, and I hope that you have some \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): You can say something to address some of those things that that come up. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. There are. There is an agenda item later that people will have a chance to comment on. But are there any more comments regarding items that are not on our agenda today? There is one additional comment from Matt Klein. Please unmute yourself. \nmatt klein: Yes. \nmatt klein: Hello! I I guess for Lucia one of the other activists here trying to \nmatt klein: place people who were displaced by Kilroy. \nmatt klein: I want to restate what she said we were to see we had an an agreement with Greenland Corporation. And is this something that we that I should be later commenting on\, I I don’t think so. And the item on the agenda it was just Greenland Corporation would previously own. This \nmatt klein: was agreeing with us\, we would not be displaced\, and\, as Lucy had said\, we were completely brushed aside. we weren’t answered\, we were deceived so that we would not be active. \nmatt klein: you were told it was okay. And the city of South San Francisco was at the original meeting with Greenland. and I told this everything was going to be fine \nmatt klein: where they had worked to ensure that we were not going to be displaced. Then the individual that was at that meeting now he won’t talk to us. \nmatt klein: there’s been a lot of real good hard work done by Commissioner Pine. and members of the City Council of South San Francisco. But I \nmatt klein: you know this is\, it’s just really unsatisfactory. \nmatt klein: and I want you to keep that in mind in your dealings with Kilroy. \nHmm. \nmatt klein: thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Again. We do have an item later on the agenda that there will be an opportunity to comment on. Are there any further comments about items that are not on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: No further public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. All right. The next order of business\, then\, is to approve our draft minutes from our last meeting\, which was June first\, 2\,023\, I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes \nBoardroom SX80: on seconds. Thank you. Commissioner Randolph moves Commissioner on Seconds. Does anybody wish to abstain from this motion? \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: This is Gunther. I’ll abstain. I wasn’t at the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Peskin\, you’re abstaining also. Thank you. Yes\, as Chair Wasserman often reminds us\, you’re not obligated to have been at the last meeting to vote on the minutes\, but you’re perfectly welcome to do so. If you wish to abstain any objections to the motion to adopt the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. Seeing them\, they are adopted. \nBoardroom SX80: The next item on our agenda is the report of the chair. first\, with respect to our rising sea Levels working group. \nBoardroom SX80: I want to remind the Commissioners and the public that we shall hold a virtual meeting of the rising sea levels working group on the morning of July twentieth. \nwhich is the same day as our regular regularly scheduled commission meeting \nBoardroom SX80: the agenda for that working group meeting will center on how our regulatory program will become more aligned with our planning and with our Bay adap programs \namong other issues. And I’m sure that Chair Wasserman is also going to touch on issues of authority and jurisdiction as well. \nBoardroom SX80: executive director goals. Ban has let me know that he will be describing in general terms the logistics of our Commission meeting starting next month\, as the Bagley keen requirements are now returning to pre-pandemic status. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next Bcdc. Meeting is not going to be held on July sixth. That meeting has been cancelled. Our next meeting will be held on July twentieth. It will be a regular hybrid meeting\, as we now understand that term\, and I\, along with our chair. Encourage all of the commissioners to attend that meeting on July twentieth in person. If you can. \nBoardroom SX80: There will be new noticing requirements for those commissioners who attend. Virtually. Larry is going to describe them for us\, and at that July twentieth meeting the agenda may contain some of the following matters\, or all of the following matters. \nBoardroom SX80: one consideration of legislative positions and possible votes thereon\, to consideration of a permit application for a project at 7 7 7 Airport boulevard in Burling game. \nBoardroom SX80: 3. Consideration of a contract for a facilitator to assist with our EPA sediment\, grant \nBoardroom SX80: for a briefing on the recent Us. Supreme Court wetlands ruling\, which we heard a little bit about at our last meeting. \nand 5 a briefing on compliance at the Oyster Point\, Marina\, in South San Francisco. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to ex-parte communications. If commissioners you have inadvertently forgotten to provide staff with a report on any written or oral exp-party communication commissioners may do so now\, by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any hands in the room. Anybody on the screen. Yeah. \nall right\, seeing none. We will now turn to the executive director’s report. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Chair. \nAlthough our spring weather hasn’t been terribly warm that has not diminished the Bay Area’s demand for ice cream. whether you’re a fan of the artists and products that promote new and innovative flavors. Or\, if you’re like\, I am\, and consistently order a hot fudge Sunday with vanilla ice cream whenever possible. We all need to thank Jacob Fussell of Baltimore. \nBoardroom SX80: Fussle was a dairy farmer who found himself with a surfeit of cream in the spring of 1851. So on this day\, 182 years ago\, he started the first commercial ice cream factory and distribution system\, and for those of you who prefer your frozen dessert in a cone\, and nobody said it better than Charles Shultz\, who once wrote that life is like an ice cream cone. You have to lick it one day at a time. \nBoardroom SX80: as promised. Our 5 undergraduates interns started this week\, and I see at least a few of them in the audience. In many respects they are a very diverse crew\, but I should note that our cohort is made up entirely of women. You each received a memo from me last week listing them\, but just in case you missed it\, let me introduce you to them\, and\, as I call your name\, please do stand up. DC. DC’s diverse undergraduate interns are Olivia Reed\, of Richmond \nBoardroom SX80: and Orange\, from Syracuse University\, working with Angela Noble\, BC. DC’s records manager\, Tolene Cochran\, of Fresno. There you are\, a California Golden Bear is working with Todd Helenbeck in our Gis program\, and Ava Hawkins\, of Anna Cortis. Washington\, also from Cal\, is working with Bcdc’s Environmental Justice staff. \nThe California State University Coast Internship Program is providing us with Roxanne Wilkerson\, of Petaluma\, who is a sea wolf from Sonoma State University\, and is working where they are adapting to rise and tides program and the Gis program. \nBoardroom SX80: Last\, but not least. Alessandra Mohar of Oakland\, is a cardinal from Stanford. She’s working with our E. J. Program as well\, and yes\, they will make a presentation to you in August about their experiences at B. C. DC. They are certainly concerned about that\, but they will before then likely participate in various meetings with commissioners. Speaking of future presentation. Sean Williamson\, our relatively new head of our financial Services group\, will give you a rundown of BCDC’s Budget situation in early fall\, as we usually do. \nfor now I will tell you that the larger than expected staff\, turnover\, and vacant positions has provided B. C. DC. With an extra large buffer of funding this year \nBoardroom SX80: more on that. A little bit later\, speaking of good budget news\, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just announced its plans to distribute almost 3 billion dollars over the next few years to build climate\, ready coasts under the bipartisan infrastructure law. These grants are designed to increase resilience through landscape scale\, habitat restoration\, and coastal ecosystems\, and promote coastal resilience and underserved coastal communities. \nBcdc. Will receive a portion of these monies and a non-competitive award that we shall use to increase our own capacity to move those types of projects forward along the Bay shoreline. \nIn addition\, we and Senior Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy Staff have started to discuss how the California Coastal Zone Management program overall will apply for the competitive portion of these grants. Noah will launch a separate program with other Federal funds that will be made available to non-costal zone management agencies as well. \nBoardroom SX80: It was only a year ago or so that the Commission considered the Bay Plan Amendment proposed by the Oakland Athletics to enable the team to build a new ballpark and mixed use development on Howard Terminal. And may I say? We all know how that went\, how time flies meanwhile\, as promised. Then B Cdc. Is in the process this week of distributing its draft seaport plan update. \nWe have scheduled a meeting of the Seaport Plan Advisory Committee\, chaired by Vice Chair Eisen\, and including Commissioner Haz for the last week of July. I encourage you all to take a look at the draft and see how Corey\, Man and Eric Beaman of our staff have adapted the many lessons that we learned while working on the athletics proposal to the existing seaport planning process. \nAfter both internal and external discussions\, our staff is proposing a host of changes to the current processes and structure\, and we look forward to this facts\, review and suggestions. In addition\, I have a meeting with the Bay Area’s 5 port directors at the end of this month\, so I’ll likely get a preview of their thoughts. \nJust as Peggy at well retired BCDC. Staff completed working with the department of General services to earn our purchasing accreditation. For the next 3 years the Dgs analysts are concluding their review right now. Actually we have submitted an improvement plan to their procurement. Pardon me\, procurement\, office of small business and development and disabled veteran business enterprise services \nto increase our procurement from such organisations\, and we’ll take advantage of various outreach programs to do so. The progress of this review is due to the efforts of Reggie Abbott sitting right over there\, and Janet Williams over the last 4 months BCDC. Looks forward to directing increasing amounts of funds to disadvantage business enterprise in alignment with its strategic equity goals. \nLast Thursday\, B. C. DC. Was notified by the U. S. Fish and wildlife service that at least one geophone block\, the size of a small recreational vehicle had floated up to the surface and rotated along Highway 37. Close to the services Cullen and Restoration project. \nBoardroom SX80: Geophone blocks replaced below the Rod roadway as a lightweight fill to keep the highway from settling on unstable soils. When the Restoration project was undertaken by fish and wildlife \nBoardroom SX80: to ensure that the relatively small portion of the embankment could be restored quickly prior to other portions of the geophone embankment substructure. Failing because they are all connected. Chair washman approved an emergency permit that allowed placement of additional rock on top of the restored embankment. \nNow for the information for which you have all been waiting. Starting on July first. Public access requirements for public meetings held by Bcdc. Will revert to back to pre-pandemic\, badly keen requirements. This means that commission meetings and various advisory boards\, but not for Commissioner. Working groups must include at least one Commissioner present at 375 Beale Street. \nBoardroom SX80: and while commissioners can continue to participate virtually by a zoom. During such meetings the venue from which they are participating must be open to the public\, be accessible\, and it be addressed publicly\, and and it is in its address publicly noticed as part of the Bcdc. Agenda\, no less than 10 days prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: our working groups\, because they are less formal and not quasi adjudicatory\, will continue to be held virtually\, and when we have solid information regarding how we\, along with Mtc. A. Bag and the Air District plan to create publicly available venues in a few different locations around the Bay Area. You will be the first to know \nwe shall distribute a memo to commissioners and alternates next week\, detailing the requirements that B. C. DC. Will follow the it is almost in final form right here. \nBoardroom SX80: Fine\, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Finally\, Chair Randolph\, I have some very good news to report on a B Cdc. Partner. \nPerhaps the greatest legacy of any Coastal Zone management leader is that of Margaret A. Davis. \nBoardroom SX80: Margaret founded Noah’s office for coastal management. \nShe initiated Noah’s climate adaptation work and was a driving force behind countless other endeavors. \nBoardroom SX80: The Association of State Flood. Plain managers recently created the Margaret A. Davidson award for excellence in climate change adaptation. \nand has awarded that first honor to Janelle Kelman\, of the Sasalito City Council. Ms. Kalman\, who was elected the Council in 2\,020\, recognized when she took office\, that Sas Toledo needed to create a comprehensive climate program\, but also discovered that many\, if not most\, other\, elected officials and local decision makers in smaller cities and towns around the Us. Face the same challenge. \nBoardroom SX80: So she founded the center for sea rise solutions\, a nonprofit focused on helping those officials develop and implement coastal resilience plans. Janelle is also a strong champion of engaging women and people of color and coastal resilience. Bcd. She is proud to recognize City Council Member Kelman and looks forward to continuing to work with her and Marin County Supervisor Stephanie molten Peters. As we create a regional shoreline adaptation plan \nthat completes my report chair ice\, and I’m happy to answer any questions. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: I see the generous you chair Joy already\, or or your joy already has his up. I’m one of my favorite subjects. Thanks for that remote participation. As a number of commissioners here know who serve on regional bodies. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: There are already established some sub regional public locations\, and including by by various elected officials themselves or other agencies. And I would strongly recommend that it sounds like you’re doing that. The B Cdc. Reach out and determine those locations. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: because I there\, there is a great interest by regional board members and commissioners to not have to always go into San Francisco\, and I know the North. There’s been a location in the North Bay. There’s been several in the East Bay\, including my office. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: There’s been South Bay\, West Bay\, and I think we should have those in place and options available for people To sometimes not have to duplicate and set up new ones. So sounds like you’re you’re exploring that. And I’m glad to have my office continue to be in East Bay location. \nBoardroom SX80: May I answer? Raelina has already started discussing this with the Mtc. A. Bag and air district folks. and so we hope to have some solid information to you within the next couple of weeks. Certainly. Well\, prior to the July 15 meeting. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: and I apologize. It’s July 20\, not July 15. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Commissioner Ecklin\, do you have a question of our executive director? actually\, also a statement. I have been using our Nevada \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: administrative building. We have a conference room that is accessible to the public. has. It’s all Ada. And as all buildings are now anyone government buildings\, and I’d be very interested in talking with the executive director about \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: using Nevada or some some place in rent\, because I think that we need to have another location \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and it also saves greenhouse gas emissions. And \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: I’ve been really trying to encourage somebody to try to keep track of it. At least\, maybe B Cdc could be the first\, because I think that’s really important for us to. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: We have also the benefit to the environment by everybody not driving in you know\, twice a month. So so\, Larry\, if we could have a chat that would be great \nBoardroom SX80: happy any other comments or questions for our executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And thank you\, and welcome to all of the interns. Thank you for showing up today. It’s very nice to see faces with names. Really appreciate it. Good luck to you. \nBoardroom SX80: The next item on our agenda is consideration of administrative matters. Deputy executive Director Steve Goldbeck is available. If any of you have any questions regarding the administrative listing that we mailed on June ninth. \nBoardroom SX80: Any questions or comments for \ndeputy Executive \nBoardroom SX80: Executive Director Steve Colbeck. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none\, we move to Item 8 on our agenda\, a commission consideration of a permit application at 385 Oyster Point Boulevard in South San Francisco. \nBoardroom SX80: ethan L. Bye\, who is our assistant regulatory director for climate ad adaptation\, and also our former manager of our Bay Shoreline development team\, is going to introduce the item to us. \nBoardroom SX80: Ethan. you ready? Yes\, thank you. Chair and and commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: On June second you were mailed a summary of an application by Kr. Oyster point 3 Llc. For a 27 acre life science office campus. The project redevelops what is currently a low-rise office park\, originally developed under BCC. Permit 1\,982.0 0 4 B. \nBoardroom SX80: That permit also authorized the oyster coat marina\, which is the marina visible to the left of the red outline on the screen waistcoat. Marina is also owned by the applicants\, and is in the process of being closed. \nBoardroom SX80: The applicants are reconsidering the future of the arena\, and they indicate they will bring forward a proposal to be Cdc. As part of a separate application. \nBoardroom SX80: Therefore this matter concerns only the redevelopment of the upland portion of the site within the Commission’s shoreline band\, and beyond the Commission’s permanent jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: The project is located at Oyster Point\, in the city of South San Francisco. you can see Oyster Point called out in blue on the far left of the image above. as this map is oriented with the south to the left and the north to the right. I just want to point out \nBoardroom SX80: we’re seeing an unusual view of the pay. \nBoardroom SX80: Here is a plan view of Oyster Point. The area outlined in red is the extent of the Kilroy Oyster Point Life Science Office campus. \nIt represents phases 2 through 4 of a master planned waterfront district for Oyster Point. \nBoardroom SX80: The Commission previously approved the earlier phase of the Oyster Point waterfront district in 2\,018\, as part of B. C. DC. Permit 2\,017.0 0 7. \nBoardroom SX80: That phase included an office development\, a hotel in a waterfront park adjacent to the Oyster point Marina\, which is the other marina visible on the screen. \nBoardroom SX80: The project site today includes an approximately 3.7 9 acre public access area\, which was constructed in association with the Pcc. Permit for the existing Low Rise Office Development on the site. \nBoardroom SX80: This area would be entirely redesigned as part of the proposed project to accommodate a wider minimum 20 foot wide bay trail segment flanked by a mix of improvements compatible with the waterfront park\, including open lawn areas\, picnic areas terrace seating a perched beach which is a sandy\, beach-like area that\, unlike a natural beach\, doesn’t touch the water. \n15 public short parking access to their parking spaces \nBoardroom SX80: and other public access facilities \noverall. The original 3.7 9 acre public access area will be expanded by 12 to 4.2 5 acres. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s worth noting that a portion of the shoreline carries a bay plan prior to use area designated as a waterfront park. only uses compatible with the waterfront park are proposed within the prior to use area. \nBoardroom SX80: and all the office campus. Oriented areas are located outside of the waterfront park. Pride use area \nturning to potential flood risk. \nBoardroom SX80: the project would raise the grade of the majority of the site to an elevation at or above 13 feet and a vd. 88. The project\, as projected by the medium high-risk aversion scenario in the State of California’s sea level rise guidance. \nBoardroom SX80: Most of the major elements in the waterfront Park would avoid anticipated flooding for the life of the project through 2\,075. One exception is a small area on the shoreline that is built lower\, so that it will intentionally flood over time and become an area where wetland habitat can be established \nwhile not anticipated to be necessary during the life of the project. Adaptive measures could be incorporated to extend the life of the public access to 2\,100\, or beyond such as by building a protective device along the edge of the bay trail for Project shoreline as illustrated in the cross sections. Here \nthe Commission’s community vulnerability Mapping tool shows the project site is within an area of moderate social vulnerability. \nBoardroom SX80: The athletic conducted outreach that included approximately 41 public meetings between May 2\,017 and summer 2\,021. \nThese included in-person events at an office established near the project site prior to the pandemic and online meetings. In the time since the onset of the pandemic \nBoardroom SX80: feedback received in these meetings help to inform aspects of the Waterfront Park design\, such as introducing\, introducing phasing that reduces disruptions to the Bay trail during construction. \nThe applicant informs us that the only requests from the community that are not incorporated relate to marina facilities which are outside of the scope of the project. \nBoardroom SX80: and with that I’m actually going to hand it over to the applicant team to present a more detailed but overview of the project. So just give me a second while I switch slide presentations. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon. Everyone excited to be here at the stage of the project. My name is Verona Ghattiva. I’m with James Cornerfield operations. We’re the landscape architects on the project\, working with Kilbury Realt\, and I’m here with Julian Blanford and Phil Tate\, with Kilver realt in case there’s any additional questions at the end of the presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: you already saw this. But kind of to orient you\, or to point\, is the last peninsula\, basically\, that can breathe\, but reaches out into the bay enough to see the skyline of of the city\, and many consider it to be kind of a hidden gem as you when you’re driving down the highway. You don’t really know that that this little cove is is down there. \nBoardroom SX80: But as Ethan mentioned\, even though there there are these beautiful pockets of of nature and cluster of trees. The majority of it is single-story. buildings and parking lot. So we’ve worked. the design to celebrate the good things that are in the site\, but obviously enhance it to make it a more diverse and accessible water from park. \nBoardroom SX80: and\, as you all know\, it is part of a full master plan\, of which phase one C and one d. Have already been built\, and phase 2 is under construction\, and today we’ll be reviewing the water from park that connects Phase 3 and 4 of of the Master plan vision. \nBoardroom SX80: So here we are today. the the design and documentation\, of course\, of Phase 3 is is ongoing while on its way\, and we hope to commence construction of phase 3 in quarter 4 of 2\,024. Sorry. \nBoardroom SX80: and our concept from the beginning was kind of to bring oysters back to Oyster Point\, making a nod to the historic qualities. And and Oysters that used to be on the site\, and inspired by the arcs and beards and and barnacles of oysters. We established a strategy to kind of unify the full peninsula. \nBoardroom SX80: using those arcs\, beards\, and barnacles as inspirations for a framework of trails\, canopies\, and and park features. \nBoardroom SX80: and not only in plan\, but also 3 dimensionally\, we were inspired by the geometries of of oysters and nature. creating\, therefore\, a playful mix of points and flats so high points to get to get a better view of of the waterfront and flats of program and activity and play adjacent to the bay trail that meanders through the waterfront park. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is transforming the waterfront park edge that is there today. And as you saw in the existing aerial. It’s it’s rather thin and framed by parking lots and expanding it\, deepening it\, increasing the waterfront by more than 55\, and of course incorporating over 12 new amenities along this edge of the peninsula. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, looking at the existing plan of the phase 3 and 4 \nBoardroom SX80: design\, I’m going to be walking\, you basically south to north\, taking you along the series of amenities. \nBoardroom SX80: starting with the east-west link\, which is this prominent that you see right here \nBoardroom SX80: that promenade connects the existing phase\, one C. Park\, that has already been built to this western side of the peninsula. \nBoardroom SX80: and just to kind of summarize some of the project highlights. As I said\, it increases the publicly accessible water from Park by 55%\, increasing the dedicated public access by 12%. \nBoardroom SX80: Of course\, all construction is outside of the mean high high-water line\, and all of the private structures are outside of the Bcbc Jirt section\, and we’re looking at approximately 16 million dollars in waterfront and public improvements for this\, for these phases of of the project. \nBoardroom SX80: and\, as Ethan mentioned\, Covert has hosted a series of public meetings. since May 4\, 2\,018. We’ve been working with them since 2\,016 on this. water from Park. \nBoardroom SX80: and we’ve incorporated the the comments\, not only from the community\, but also the feedback. of the Bcdc. Staff that has been working with us throughout this process. to enrich the experience throughout the waterfront. \nBoardroom SX80: So again\, this is the view of that on that east-west link. It’s an ample 2520 feet wide. promenade that connects the east and the and the west edges of the of the peninsula\, and that aligns you at its end with views through the San Bruno Hill \nBoardroom SX80: and the the this promenade connects you to the bay trail which me Andrews drew the waterfront from south to north\, connecting a series of spaces\, the first of which is the Wetland Terrace\, is overlook. We wanted to celebrate. A a corner of wetlands that exist there today and also create spaces where\, as sea level rises\, we can retain some of that ecology and quality. \nBoardroom SX80: We continue walking north\, and there’s a a necklace of coastal gardens\, obviously drought\, tolerant plantings that are there to kind of celebrate the the windy conditions of the site\, because it is rather windy with clusters of trees to create nuts for protection. From from these winds \nBoardroom SX80: obviously places for recreation \nBoardroom SX80: and enjoying the the the view. These are the marina steps. So now we’re right in front of Phase 3 and a series of boulders will will enhance that edge so you can sit and look out into the bay\, and San Bruno Hill \nBoardroom SX80: places for leader\, just\, you know\, open flexible lawns where you can throw a blanket\, have a picnic fly\, a kite because the winds are definitely amazing for that at Oyster Point. \nBoardroom SX80: but also places for for picnicking and and larger groups and and and families. \nBoardroom SX80: and all the way to the north we have the beach that Ethan mentioned earlier\, as Ethan mentioned\, contrasting with the phase\, One sea beach\, which is a natural beach. This is elevated from the water’s edge\, and it’s almost like a hidden gem. You. You find it within a cluster\, clusters of trees and plantings that protect you from that that breeze coming off of the San Bruno Hill. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is the kind of the series of of spaces that encompasses the access and open space\, as you can see to the everything that is blue is the publicly accessible spaces along the phase stream 4. And then in in yellow\, the the campus\, oriented spaces which have a very similar look and feel\, but sits slightly elevated from the Bcdc. Trail and water from park. \nBoardroom SX80: going a little bit into the math of things. I won’t dive into too much detail\, but the park The park and development is all raised for for sea level rise\, and\, as I mentioned initially\, the strategy was to\, of course\, raise everything for sea level rise\, but but still celebrate the existing wetlands that are in the edge. \nBoardroom SX80: should I? Oh\, I’ll hurry up. Sorry. So there’s no flooding\, truly to the park throughout 2070. The only area that would flood is the wetland terraces and the bottom left side of the screen. And that’s purposeful. That’s part of the design. A series of terraces that will receive that sea love arise as as it comes up. \nBoardroom SX80: and then this would be 2\,100. You start seeing some flooding at the very edge of the park\, and of course\, the adjacent properties\, which I’m sure at some point will be developed and address\, but outside of our property line \nBoardroom SX80: But when that time comes towards 2\,100. We did do a a silverized assessment\, and came up with a series of strategies \nBoardroom SX80: where we we still try to incorporate that coastal field the materiality of the project\, using rustic edges and boulders to hide any sort of parapet or wall that might be necessary to to respond to the to the rising sea level. Elevations! But\, as you can see\, the the. \nBoardroom SX80: the\, the Bay trail and development\, and the majority of the park is above that elevation. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is a a full matrix\, because there’s more obviously more more spaces along along the full waterfront. So we want it to give you a full mosaic of the mix of spaces\, places for play\, places for leisure\, places for relaxation. But all in in the idea of celebrating that coastal kind of hidden gem. experience that exists on the site today. \nBoardroom SX80: and that would that would be all. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you\, Ms. Rivera\, and thank you\, Ethan. I imagine there will be some questions\, but before we get to that I would like to open the public hearing. Any member of the public who would like to make a public comment either line up at the podium. If there’s anybody in the room. \nor otherwise raise your hand in Zoom. \nBoardroom SX80: really\, and I’m not seeing anybody in the room. Do you have folks on? Zoom? I have one public comment from Alice and Madden. Go ahead 3 min to speak. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead and unmute yourself\, Allison. \nAlison Madden: Yes\, I did. Is it unmuted now? \nAlison Madden: Okay\, thank you. So I did try to raise my hand at the general public comments\, because\, I did advise my my clients that the marine itself is not on the agenda here\, and that’s acknowledged in the presentation. \nAlison Madden: and I’m pretty agnostic on the upland\, you know. I’m I’m a a fan of development\, and I’m sure it’s going to be lovely. But I did want to speak to the Commission about a couple of items. \nAlison Madden: respecting the marina. And right now\, you know\, with sea level impact with the crisis that we’re in with the climate. We’re having a lot of more frequent storms and really severe storms\, and Treasure Island. Marina was pretty much devastated. Fifth Avenue as well. \nAlison Madden: And what what’s going on here at Oyster Cov is? It’s a protected Marina. It’s deep water. It’s a sailors\, Marina. It’s absolutely solid and well maintained\, and it really shouldn’t go away. And so that’s what we were advocating for in general public comments is\, you know\, this is State public trust land. It’s not private title that they own. Yes\, they did. build that\, Marina. And now our understanding is they want to rip out to the Marina\, or retain some of it \nAlison Madden: and have a water taxi or a private ferry. And right now the Weedo ferry is really efficient? And There’s been a loss of marinas in Redwood City Dock Town\, in the outer harbor at Pete’s\, and you know there’s just a dearth of marine is south of San Francisco and we really need to keep them The Macintire Petrus Act speaks of desired fill and docks\, wharves\, ports\, airports. \nAlison Madden: They’re all in there. So under the Petras that mean marinas are desired\, and they’re they’re not undesirable\, and they’re few and far between. And when they’re ripped out and damaged now it’s not easy to bring them back. \nAlison Madden: It’s\, you know\, when a lot of these were built it was a long time ago. It was easier to build them\, and this one is in pristine shape \nAlison Madden: and I’d also like to say that we have a motion for summary judgment pending. Mr. Klein is defending his unlawful detainer\, and on Friday the judge will rule whether the Tenant Protection Act applies to voters living on their boats in Marinas\, and that’s of statewide importance and \nAlison Madden: you know\, an issue of first impression\, and either way that it goes you know\, as often happens with \nAlison Madden: litigation and legal issues either side might appeal\, depending what the judge’s ruling is. But Mr. Klein has stayed there on principle. We appreciate what you’ve done before with oyster point. you know\, having the safe harbor over there. And Mr. Klein really feels that he deserves tenant protection at notice\, because they have to state the specific reason for just cause. \nAlison Madden: And \nAlison Madden: that’s what we’ve been seeking all along. So I wanted to mention that our back and you know\, we really think that you should advocate to keep the marina? Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Allison. sorry\, Lucia\, is the next public commenter. \nBoardroom SX80: And and may I just. add that the public comment should be addressed to this agenda. Item\, I know there is some overlap in folks\, mind\, but this agenda item\, specifically\, is what we’re talking about at this moment. \nBoardroom SX80: Lucille\, go ahead and unmute yourself. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): Thank you very much\, and I’m sorry if I was off base with talking earlier. I wanted to point out that with the the concept of sea level rise the whole east side of Oyster Point. If you go walk along there you’ll see humongous chunks of that grassy area that have just been completely washed away\, and that is. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): that’s nothing compared to what will happen in the future\, so that entire land it’s all fill\, we will become more and more unstable. And it’s it’s something to consider when you’re thinking about approving new buildings on this on this swath of land. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): And the the other thing I wanted to point out was in the comments it went The young lady went by really quickly on what public comments were with the little bubbles\, and I just quickly was able to see one of them said\, need area for for voting and and and we do. And that is something that that if we\, if they’re taking that into consideration\, then they need places and faces for people to keep their votes\, as so many marinas have been closed. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): So again\, Just something to point out. I really appreciate how beautiful it is\, and I like that\, they said. They’re bringing oysters back\, but not\, you know. The the visuals of it are nice\, but it’s kind of like \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): that\, you know\, Potemkin village of what is happening here. It’s not really bringing oysters back. It’s it’s doing something pretty and superficial. And you know\, that’s I get it. It’s it’s progress\, but it’s not. It’s not in the service of the humans that live here and have lived here for decades and have been displaced. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s no additional public comment. All right. Thank you very much. \nSo if there is no one else who would like to comment\, I would welcome a motion\, and second\, to close the public hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll move that. \nBoardroom SX80: Who is it? Either stupid? \nBoardroom SX80: And then I’ll second the motion. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Aklin \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner molten Peters moves Commissioner Ecklin’s seconds. Please raise your hand if you are in favor of the motion. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Motion carries all right. We will now entertain commission questions\, comments\, discussion regarding this item. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m looking in here. I don’t see any raised hands in the room for alien. Will you call on the Commissioners who have raised their hands on zoom. Yes\, Commissioner Nelson. \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: thank you. question for staff \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: In light of the testimony we received in this public hearing and and during the public comment period\, hoping staff can talk about the relationship between the marina and this project and the connection\, if any\, between the marina and our our authority of the public access. in the Project system force. \nYes\, thanks\, Commissioner Nelson. so the the project before us today is is really limited to the upland areas of the site. So within the Commission’s 100 foot shoreline band. \nBoardroom SX80: the marina in question. It has the same ownership\, or at least the the same parent company as the applicants who are seeking to redevelop the office campus \nBoardroom SX80: but they haven’t applied to make any changes to be so easy to the permit that governs that\, Marina. They’ve told us that they’re considering its future\, and they’ll bring a proposal to us in the future. But the application before us today is is just within the 143 line band. \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: So unless I mean it. It it does directly that if there was\, if we found there to be something inadequate in the public access proposal in this project\, and we’re pushing the applicant to put more on the table. Maybe there was some sort of a nexus there\, but unless there’s abs of that connection\, there’s no connection between this permit proposal and this permit for stay in that project. Right? \nYes\, I think I think the way to think about it is that the marina itself is permitted under an existing B Cdc\, permit already. \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Show. Walter. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Yeah. I wanted to ask a little bit about the Wetlands section \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: and sort of what’s the status of that? And what restoration? efforts are planned\, if any. \nBoardroom SX80: So the project\, the project is all within mean high water lines. So we’re not touching the existing wetland But therefore\, because we know so once silo arises that one len is \nBoardroom SX80: likely to be lost\, we’re creating a series of terraces going into the property in inland with\, \nBoardroom SX80: that will basically help migrate that ecology up upland as the sea level rises. \nBoardroom SX80: So. And that’s we’re not preserving. What is there today? We’re not touching anything outside of the mean high waterline. But we’re creating terraces to kind of allow that ecology to migrate upland as the sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: rises. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Okay? So when you look at that wetland now\, there isn’t There aren’t things that you see that you could do like plantings to fortify it. it’s in good shape. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s in fairly good shape. and it would be a different permit in area\, because it’s outside of our of our property line. to to work within the water. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Okay? Well\, I just\, you know\, we we see little pockets of of possible restoration projects sometimes with when we look at these other development projects\, and this is certainly one that seems to me that. you know\, my \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: might might be good for some restoration attention. So I just wanted to mention that. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Yeah\, thank you. I it’s It’s great to see \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: sea level rise adaptation being integrated \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: by by landscape professionals. it’s I. I really I really wanted to to thank you for demonstrating that. so we can see. See how how you’re thinking about it. the question I have relates to the Marina. I’m I’m a little confused. We saw lots of pictures \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: of the project\, and the Marina is in like different stages of being sort of grayed out\, and I’m not clear like\, is it? Is it there\, or is it not? There in your as as you’re looking at the construction of this project a year from that. \nBoardroom SX80: The marina is there today\, and that and all of the representations in in this set show it as the the team has shared. \nBoardroom SX80: What’s the status of the marina within a year? I can have the the the team members speak to that. Timeline is not clear that that design hasn’t occurred. So that’s why\, in every and all of the visuals that you see on screen. the the the marina is there\, and and we have designed this project to be able to accommodate if it if it stays\, but also \naccommodate any any changes that might happen in the future \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: when it comes to grading\, and those type of considerations \nBoardroom SX80: accommodates that. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: There are no other comments. \nBoardroom SX80: I have one question about the hidden gem aspect of the project. Is there any effort that is going to be made to make it less hidden to the public\, so that they know how to access it\, or they know about its availability. Yes\, of course\, there is a a signage strategy meeting all of the Bcdc. Requirements of highlighting connections and access points to to the bay\, including also public parking. \nand and of course\, additional tenants. But there’s there’s already some users. There’s always a gentleman swimming in the beach and phase one C. I would love to see more people there so hopefully as as people kind of know that there’s a new park. We’ll see more community members come out and and enjoy it \nBoardroom SX80: specifically\, talking about phase one C\, which is already but of course the the increase in tenants will therefore increase the use of it and start marking it in peoples and people’s mind as a location to go enjoy. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, good. Yeah. Sure\, isn’t that. May I add? just a comment on the overall signage plan? so the the B Cdc permit. that we recommended approval for today includes a condition requiring the applicants to submit a comprehensive signage program. And it’s just something I I I would like to sort of draw some attention to\, because it’s a a similar condition that we’ve included in a number of recent permits over the last year. \ntrying to be responsive particularly to our environmental justice and social equity policies. And what we’ve been doing over the last year with a number of projects is trying to increase the sort of the number of user groups that are served by our signage programs\, by requiring English and Spanish\, and in many cases an assessment of the nearby community needs for multilingual signage\, and also incorporating elements of universal design which could include braille\, tactile elements or others. \nSo with a lot of the major permits that are coming before you. we’re actually we’re having continued staff involvement after their issuance to come up with a signage program which we think is really going to sort of elevate this data. They are compared to what we’ve been doing over the last 50 years. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s fantastic. And you know a lot of these areas. And I notice that Heron Head is not very far from the site that we’re talking about. \nBoardroom SX80: If you try to go into your GPS and say Haron Head or oyster point\, or something\, unless they have some specific designation. \nBoardroom SX80: you can’t really find them. They are really hard to get to. I know Heron Head is a\, you know\, a huge birding area. So burders all know about it\, but it’s also a lovely spot\, and it looks like it’s just around the bend. \nBoardroom SX80: from this project. So I don’t know if we have any capability of asking that it have a sort of designation that could be located on GPS that would help people find it and know that there’s essentially a public access area there. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. Any other questions\, comments Commissioner Kishimoto. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Yes\, thank you. yeah\, I just wanted to. say that I I also found this a little bit confusing with \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: you know the relationship between this and the Marina\, and also Commissioner\, showed this question about the wetlands. And so is this part of that part of like a larger map. I mean\, if you can. To me it feels a little bit like it’s segmenting a project\, or or is it? \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: But this \nBoardroom SX80: can I answer\, yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: this is a phase phase 3 through 4. So basically\, the western waterfront section of a full master plan. So we did the master plan to make sure there was. There was cohesiveness and design and continuity\, and and detailing and aesthetics and experiences\, and also building up the the. \nBoardroom SX80: the\, the array of of public offerings throughout the peninsula that said everything within that master plan is upland right? the the work that has been performed is within the mean high waterline\, both in phase one C\, and in in this\, in this project before you. \nBoardroom SX80: so that’s why there’s a kind of a divide\, not only in property\, but in phasing and in and and and projects between the upland work\, which is what we’re working on. and the the Marina\, the east coast. Marina. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Hmm. So the Marina. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Marina\, decision \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: can and will be be made completely separately. Yes\, that is correct. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and that’s that’s allowed under the the master plan that was already approved. \nBoardroom SX80: No\, the. The the Marina project is separate to the original. master\, plan\, vision\, and it has a a separate design and and timeline to it. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: And and who who would that be reviewed by \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: you all at some point in the future? Okay\, okay. It’s going to come back to us. Okay\, yes\, yes\, I see. Okay\, that’s I guess that’s what I needed to know. All right. Thank oh\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Of course\, Ethan\, did you want to add something to that. I know you’ve already said that that’s permitted. And yeah\, there’s a there’s a permit that covers the existing Marina. And that’s that’s still an effect. And The the previous statement was correct that if there is an action that requires a obesity department or permit amendment that affects the marina going forward that we would have to review that separately. \nBoardroom SX80: And we put. And we don’t have that application. Currently. Correct? All right. Commissioner. Is that okay? Commissioner Kishimoto\, did you have follow up? \nBoardroom SX80: No\, thank you. Thank you. Commissioner\, I Diego\, thank you. Charison. as I wanted to speak to the hidden gem aspect as one of the 68\,000 people that call South San Francisco home. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s my preferred place to walk\, because I like to keep an eye on the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s not so hidden when it comes to people that live locally\, and also the 30\,000 or so people that work in the Bio and Fintech industry. \nBoardroom SX80: so during the week you’ll see a lot of people with their name tags\, taking a little walk in the middle of the day\, and on the weekend it can get quite crowded. We like to think it is windy\, but we like to think of when you’re walking. That wind is refreshing\, and it tends to to motivate you to to keep it warm. And and\, as mentioned\, this area was developed in in the very early eighties. So it’s already 40 \nold. And and really the bay trail is a little undersized and a little ward out around the edges. \nBoardroom SX80: compared to some of the other areas. You move back towards the one on freeway. So it it’s a it’s something that came faster than any of the locals thought. As far as our planning\, we thought that might be one of the last areas to be developed for the industry\, and it is just Exciting to think of what’s going to be there for. Most interested in the local people \nBoardroom SX80: enjoy their hidden gem. But but you’re welcome to charism and the Burders. You’re not. You’re not keeping us out\, are you? No\, there’s any other Commissioner questions\, comments. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Ethan\, would you? present the staff recommendation to us. \nBoardroom SX80: yes. Last Friday we emailed a staff recommendation that recommends that you approve of the staff recommendation with the conditions which include dedicating 4.2 5 acres of public access and requiring a C liberalized adaptation plan in the future. Should one be necessary\, as well as other conditions that are included in the recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: I I do a slide\, but it’s gonna take me about a minute to pull it back up. So I I that I just forgot it. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Ethan is going to pull up the slide. That shows us the staff recommendation. But if any commissioner feels confident that they \nBoardroom SX80: it was in our packet. So if you want to move\, and second\, this particular staff recommendation is a good time to do it and chair it\, it would be my pleasure to make the motion to approve this application with conditions. Commissioner Adiego moves \nSecond \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph Seconds. All right. \nBoardroom SX80: The applicant’s representative. Can you affirm that you have reviewed the staff recommendation and agree with it. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello\, Commissioners Gillian Blanchard with Rhetor Law Group. I represent Kilroy\, and we have read the staff recommendation and fully support it. Thank you. Thank you. Then\, Raulina\, are you ready? You can call the role in this motion. Yes. Commissioner or Diego. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner on \nI \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: Commissioner Oregon. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Burke. Yes. Commissioner Eckland. Aye. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: Commissioner Joya. Aye. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Commissioner Gunther. Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, has \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: bye \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Moulton Peters. Yes. Commissioner Peskin aye. \nDave Pine\, Commissioner: Commissioner Pine. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph. Yes. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Commissioner\, show Walter. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. Yes. Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez. Yes. \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: Commissioner Nelson \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gilmour \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Eisen yes. \nBoardroom SX80: 19 yeses unanimously. Thank you. And no abstentions. \nBoardroom SX80: Right? So oh\, on the vote I the Federal call. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. Thank you. The motion passes as indicated earlier agenda. Item 9 is a longer part of our agenda. So we move to our last item. agenda. Item 10. A briefing on B. C. DC. Hiring and Hr. Issues \nBoardroom SX80: our human resources analyst. Anu Raganathan will provide the briefing. And that\, are you here? The news right here and before. Come on up a new and before a new starts I want to let the Commission know what we’re about to do\, which is \nBoardroom SX80: now for something completely different\, as Monty Python would say. \nI’ve been here for a little over 10 years\, and we have never briefed the Commission on the Hr. Strategy\, and how we actually operate. And that’s because\, candidly\, you all don’t really need to know that \nBoardroom SX80: because we handle it\, we handle it well. And if we ever have an Hr problem that requires commission work. We work in the way that we’re supposed to\, and most of you don’t even know about it\, anyway. And that doesn’t happen\, because it’s a great staff. \nBoardroom SX80: at least not very\, very often\, but it has become clear to me as executive director. It has become clear to my peers as Executive Directors of the Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission and other places in State government\, that life has changed over the last 4 years with regard to human resources and staffing and people and needs\, and what is going on. And \nBoardroom SX80: I have made it a a a consistent question. Whenever I talk with other people who lead non-profit organizations or for-profit organizations about how their workforce is doing and how they are doing with their workforces. And many of you \nBoardroom SX80: are part of leaderships of very\, very large public organisations and some private nonprofit. And my bet is that you have faced challenges over the past few years\, and they are coming home to roost in a number of different ways. \nSo what Peggy and I thought about 2 months ago is that we should provide you with an overview of Bcdc’s Hr. Organization and staffing\, and what we are now facing. \nBoardroom SX80: and how we view what we are facing\, so that you have some information about that. We provided this as a rough draft on \nBoardroom SX80: Monday. Thank you. Anu\, on Monday to Chair Washerman\, who had a number of really good questions\, whose answers we’ve incorporated into this\, and who’s done a great job? And he predicted that a few of you will have some questions as well. So that’s why we’re doing this. And as far as I know\, this is really the first time that this has really happened at B. C. DC\, we do a budget one every year. \nand I don’t know if we’re going to do this every year\, but I I hope it provokes discussion about from you all\, as you all think about what we’re facing and what you all are facing as leaders of your organizations. So with that I’ll hand it off to a new. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Larry. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, Chair Commissioners\, and everyone. thank you for joining me today and welcome to my presentation on Bcdc’s Hr. Review for the past 10 years. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m happy to be doing this presentation the first ever Hr. Overview like Larry mentioned\, and in this presentation I will share a comprehensive Hr. Related information on various aspects of Hr. And provide an overview of how Bcdc. Has evolved from the Hr front. \nin light of time. I have put together some slides with hr information department by departments\, and I do have a question and answer slide at the end. So\, looking forward to answer that if you may have \nBoardroom SX80: I’d like to keep it simple and stay within the schedule time. So\, moving on next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So these are the overview topics that we are going to be discussing today in today’s presentation. the positions that B Cdc\, Since this is a 10 year. Hr. Review\, we have the position starting from 2\,012 to the current year\, and we have actually broken it down into the \ndifferent department. Like the different units within our department\, like the regulatory planning\, legal and administration\, and how we did with the hiring during pandemic. how the composition of our staff with regard to the tenure\, and also demographic and ethnicity data of our staff. in 2\,023 and of course\, The recruitment challenges that we have faced\, and how or what the accomplishments are so far\, and our ongoing objectives last\, but not the least\, we do have a takeaway slide \nwhere we have for the Commission\, and we are looking for some inputs\, guidance and feedback. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So BCDC. In 2\,012 we started with 40 of our positions\, and 2\,01647\, and in 2023\, with the Opc. Sec. And the EPA grants\, including the limited term positions\, we are at a total head count of 61 currently \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is actually a breakdown of the head counts as per the different units that we have in our in B Cdc\, we? I’m going to be getting into the details of specifics. of each department in the upcoming slides. \nBut this one to kind of\, you know\, give a statistical and also a pictorial representation of how Or the headcount and regulatory planning. Legal administration and executive staff looks like \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So in the regulatory department we started with 17 permanent positions in 2\,012\, in 2\,016. We were at 18 permanent position and one limited term between 2\,022 to 2\,023 we have The enforcement unit \nwith 4 positions which moved into the legal unit. And yet in 2\,023 we have 16 permanent positions\, one limited term\, and 2 positions that we received \nthrough the Opc. Sec. Grant\, even though in here\, between 2\,016 and 2\,023\, the numbers appear to be the same. But even with the move of the enforcement unit into the legal. We we’re still at 19. So which means we gained\, or we had increased positions from between 2\,016 to to 2\,023 \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Planning unit. We were at 9 in 2\,012\, 2\,01611 and 23. We were at 17 positions. Again\, the 17 positions where we are at 11 permanent one limited term\, one position\, even though it’s a two-year limited term for the EPA. Grant and 4 positions on Opc. Sec. Grant\, which is for 3 years \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please \nBoardroom SX80: the legal unit. there is a spike from 2\,012 and 2\,016\, we were at the same numbers\, but there is a big leap between 16 to 2\,023. This reason\, as mentioned in my previous slide\, was due to the enforcement unit which moved from the regulatory into the legal department\, and also in 2\,023 we had\, like \n2 of the compliance positions which were added\, and also to enforcement attorney and manager positions. which were part of the 10 head count and on the existing 3 permanent positions that \nBoardroom SX80: the enforcement unit previously had. So that brings us to a total of 10 \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please \nAdministration Department\, we have actually lost a position between 2\,016 through to 2023. And this is the Ot or the office technician position which was reclassed into the associate government program analysts position. So even though we lost one\, we still are \nkind of\, you know\, able to manage and get things done for our extra head count\, and the growing numbers with the you know the hiring that we have at B Cdc. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please executive staff. This department has remained consistent\, and discomfort comprises of our executive director one deputy director\, and the allocated executive secretary staff\, \nBoardroom SX80: which is which leads to the total of 3\, and there are no changes. that has happened from 2\,012 to 2\,023 \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this slide is to kind of\, you know. Give a summary of the \nBoardroom SX80: total hiring that we did during the pandemic\, which is from 2020 to 2023. to kind of\, you know. Break it down. We Not only did we do new hires\, but those 19 positions are 7 internal promotions also happen? so\, which is about\, you know\, close to 40% of our\, you know the hiring. So that \nBoardroom SX80: leads us to the 19 new hires that we did during the pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this table here just wanted to shed some light on the total tenure of our current staff at B Cdc\, \nBoardroom SX80: so we the less than 5 years. There are about 28\, which \nBoardroom SX80: is including you know which includes me. which is like less than 5 years\, and also with all the attrition and the retirements. And you know the back full of positions and the transfers that happen. So the new hires. So that kind of you know that that’s the reason for the highest. In or less than 5 years 28 employees account \nthat we have here\, and 5 to 5 years\, and about is 13 and 10 years and about\, you know\, we have staff who have been with Vcdc. For over 12 years\, and this I wanted to leave a note that of course\, as the footnote says\, and on my slide. this does not count the 8 waken positions that we have currently and we are in the process of hiring \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So here we wanted to kind of\, you know. Give some information about the total demographics. and of the different classifications. that we have amongst you know\, in B Cdc. And to put some extra spotlight on the last 2 rows. \nwhere the B Cdc permanent staff. It’s about 49% of millennials that explains\, you know\, that’s because of our new hires. you know\, who are like millennial millennials and 34\, our generation eggs and baby boomer\, 7 in person. And we are closer to the States employee person edges. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, which is like 36% of the millennials\, 41\, and baby boomers\, 23 person and a quick Victoria representation\, or a bar chart on the side \nBoardroom SX80: representing the table next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: ethnicity data. there are about 59 of us\, like\, you know\, representing the like women in B Cdc\, and 41% constitute men population which is closer to the Bay area’s total percentage of women and men and also to kind of\, you know\, compare it with the State personages. \nIt’s not too much of a difference\, but we are closer and kind of in or representing the bay areas. \nBoardroom SX80: representation of women and men\, and also. I thought it might be helpful to kind of give a little breakdown of the different ethnicity data with respect to our staff. at B Cdc. \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is actually a a very interesting slide\, and the challenges are like and ongoing and these are just the top 8 that we kind of\, you know. we wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: have for our today’s presentation\, which but which is something that we have been like\, you know\, hearing from The applicants\, or you know the challenges that we have been pacing at the time of the hiring during the hiring process. So look\, pay scale. the kind of in a bureaucratic process that we have with the civil State\, the States and on the hiring procedures. the competencies\, skills that we’re looking for when it comes to\, you know\, specific classifications and the hiring \nBoardroom SX80: knowledge\, transfer professional development. and succession planning and examination process are are some that we thought we would kind of\, you know. use it for today’s presentation \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: even though we have faced with all those challenges\, we do have our accomplishments. one of the greatest or the accomplishments that have been like\, you know\, ongoing for many years\, but finally accomplish between in 2\,022 to 2\,023 is \nhaving the coastal program analyst\, the examination series online. And just not that. But we were also able to get the approvals from Kali Cha regarding the increase in salary for the Cpa series\, which is a coastal program Analyst series. Because\, as we know\, as you know\, there are\, like\, you know\, different levels in the Cpa series\, and also our leadership \ndevelopment plans and the hybrid kind of in working culture that we are trying to make it as a selling or a selling point for our new applicants. \nBoardroom SX80: and you know\, document successes and goal achievements. cultivate growth mindset and also improve and primarily and lower the attrition rate. \neven though we have accomplished all of this\, we do. We are also of been faced with and ongoing objectives. and we wanted to address that in every part of the hiring process. so we wanted to kind of have the recruitment based more on\, you know\, increasing diversity\, and also that would enable us to kind of increase the strength and the retention rates \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. So this is the slide that I wanted to present to the Commission specifically here\, where we are looking for some help. And you know\, from all of you to advocate for us to increase the positions at B Cdc\, and also to kind of\, you know\, spread the word for hard to fill positions and to create the\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: create more awareness about in the public for all the meaningful work we do at PC. DC\, we meaning\, you know\, I’m representing all these staff here at Dcdc. And all all of your tireless efforts in the Commission \nBoardroom SX80: and next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is our\, our our current vacancies. right now\, and we have about 8 vacant positions. \nBoardroom SX80: so. And I just wanted to. you know\, give an idea as to how long we have been posting these positions from\, and how you know we are faced with all these challenges. to kind of\, you know. Give you a fair idea about the midpoint salary\, like I said\, like I mentioned in my previous slide in the challenges. \nthe low pay scale and the the process in the hiring \nBoardroom SX80: in the State service\, and our hiring process is one of the biggest challenges. So just to kind of\, you know. Give some \nBoardroom SX80: information about the vacant positions\, and also why we are kind of\, you know\, looking for the support from all of you to kind of spread the word and help us with filling up these positions. \nBoardroom SX80: And I next slide\, please. That brings us to the final slide\, and I’m open for any questions that you may have. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you so much. And that was a really full body presentation. And I know there are going to be lots of questions. But before we get to that\, I would like to invite anyone from the public who would like to make a public comment regarding this item\, to come to the podium \nor to raise their hand at Zoom. \nBoardroom SX80: I see nobody in the room\, really\, no public comment online. All right. that then\, brings us to the Commissioners who would like to make a comment\, ask a question. \nBoardroom SX80: Question. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Randall. when you\, when you’ve lost candidates on who to other \nBoardroom SX80: other opportunities. Have you been able to have \nBoardroom SX80: kind of like an exit interview like? Do you know where they went? What the competition was? And I’m thinking a little bit about Federal positions in particular. I remember many years ago\, but I kind of I’d been in Federal service. There was gap worked for the State. It was really struck with how abysmal State pay was compared to Federal. So does the Commission tend to lose potential staff to Federal agencies in particular\, or \nBoardroom SX80: what? What are you competing with? \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Commissioner\, for your question. yes\, to We do have. exit interviews. connected at the The time when we\, you know the candidate \nBoardroom SX80: gives us the notice during the notice period\, one challenge\, or one of those repetitive reasons for people transferring or moving out of \nBoardroom SX80: the position has been the lower pay scale and the benefits part because benefits in the State service. In the long run it is\, it is definitely a yes\, but people are looking for currently\, you know\, the higher base salary. That’s one of the reasons the primary reasons people move out. \nBoardroom SX80: and we have been addressing that with\, you know our trying to have them. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’ll stay if \nBoardroom SX80: we would not be able to do anything with the salary structure\, because that has to go through the Cali Chs process. But we have been accommodated\, and they have \nBoardroom SX80: actually shared that the hybrid working was one of those you know\, advantage advantages where other\, not all departments or all companies offer like one day\, right? Currently\, that we do right now. So we\, you know\, that’s one of those\, the lower pay scale and the long process. The hiring process is one of \nBoardroom SX80: the reasons that we hear most often. \nBoardroom SX80: but just as a follow up for the category of of positions that you hire. For what other agencies or entities are you typically competing with? So if if we losing the B Cdc\, do you have any idea where they actually end up going. \nBoardroom SX80: it’s outside of the State service. So it’s private and public sector\, firms and companies majority. \nBoardroom SX80: And if I can add to that local governments and regional governments totally destroy B. C. DC. And State and State government in terms of salary\, I I want to say\, is Ethan still is Do I see Ethan? Is he being head by\, hidden by a new Ethan. Was it you who a few years ago put together the schedule comparison between local government pay scales and the State? I’m trying to remember who did it. I want to say you were part of it\, or at least you and I looked it over. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, yeah\, we We did collect job postings for the course of about a year or so\, and compared them to local salaries and and even other positions within the State. And and that’s absolutely correct. And and basically\, the difference was upwards of 30 to 50% \nBoardroom SX80: And so we have lost over the past 10 years numerous people to different counties\, special districts\, and the like\, not as much to the Federal Government\, but certainly to locals\, and so on. In addition\, one of the things that has reduced some turnover recently has been the ability to have upward mobility. \nBoardroom SX80: and the fact that we have the State\, the the Coastal Conservancy\, and Opc. Grants\, which then opened up a very senior type of position that’s allowed our people to move up into those. And we’re back filling now with less less experienced people\, because we know that one of the reasons people leave is they essentially Max out? And so and and I’ll I’ll name one. I’ll name one \nright now\, and that’s Onik and Leiden\, who was the manager\, you’ll remember\, of the Bay Resources Section and Onikin had moved south and didn’t want to come up once a week\, or twice a week\, or whatever it would end up being\, and she found a marvellous position in the private sector down in San Diego\, and is making an awful lot more money down there than she ever would \nhere in the public sector. And because there was\, and and she had decided ultimately that she was not going to try to become the regulatory director. So she wasn’t interested in moving up in the State service. That’s just one example. Eric has faced that more than once. His Eric Nods has had as head of long-term planning\, and when when he was also a a permit manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gilmour \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: mine is just more of a comment. I’ve seen this particularly right now at at the county level\, so it’s not only the low pay\, but it is the length of time that the process takes to hire somebody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: So you have people leaving for all sorts of different reasons. You don’t have enough staff to do. \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: you know\, to basically do your day to day business. \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: And \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: if somebody walks in the door tomorrow and applies\, at least in in some counties it can take 8 min to almost a year. just to go through the process. and I don’t know what BC. DC’s hiring process is like or how long it takes. But I’m wondering if that is also part of the difficulty. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you\, Commissioner Gilmour\, that’s also one of the reasons. But it’s not specific to \nBoardroom SX80: B Cdc\, it’s just The state in general. The hiring process is an outstidious\, it’s long\, and it takes various steps and the tenure. So The applicants are \nBoardroom SX80: impatient when it comes to \nBoardroom SX80: waiting like a month month and a half before the entire process gets completed\, and a final offer is made. \nBoardroom SX80: So yes\, that that’s one. That is also one of the reasons and the challenges\, as stated in one of the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: and if I can add to that and I don’t know how this works on the county level. But I’d love to find out\, or the city level. If I if if if if Joe Schmo decides to apply to 2 different B. C. DC. Positions. \nBoardroom SX80: he\, she they has to do that twice separately. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s no way that you can actually apply for a position that Eric has open and then basically create what we would argue would be an indeed account. \nBoardroom SX80: and then be able to transfer all that information with a stroke of a pen or the stroke of a keyboard key to the other position. Instead\, you have to go back to the beginning and and apply once again with everything else you’ve got to do. And candidly\, you know\, if I have the choice between doing that or going on\, indeed\, and have doing it once I know where I’m going to go. \nso that so that it is a really difficult process\, and that 6 week to 8 week period that the news talking about isn’t from the time that you start it’s from after the interview. \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, if you’ve got\, if you’ve interviewed\, and and Eric\, or Ethan\, or Jessica\, whoever wants to hire you\, you have to go through a process that Cal Hr has\, which not not only\, and of course everybody has to check references and all that\, but you’re probably going to. If if they’re coming in from outside. They’re they’re probably going to ask for a higher rate of pay than what we would ordinarily do\, because it’s the \nbecause it’s the Bay area which means you have to go through an entire Cal Hr process on that\, and then you have to go through the hiring process itself\, which is not terribly \nBoardroom SX80: How should we say speedy? And so just getting that offer letter out to somebody as part of our process in Calhr takes an awful long time. \nI also want to. But I also want to point out a couple of different things that a new\, that\, a new point that a new talked about that\, I think\, are really important. The first is that about a third of the people now working at B. C. DC. Are in positions. They were not in 3 or 4 years ago. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s something really to think about. I mean\, we have a young staff compared to the State \nBoardroom SX80: and and you saw the tenure of less than 5 years\, basically half the folks at BCDC. And that has huge ramifications for our managers and our senior staff. I’m sure you’re starting to see that other places as well. and \nBoardroom SX80: we mirror to a great extent the Bay Area in terms of demographic information which is really really interesting in terms of the ethnicity and the like\, but it’s not candidly uniform. \nBoardroom SX80: So so And and certainly\, when you have yours truly\, and Steve as the executive director and deputy director\, who are\, and I will say this proudly in our 60 s. And white males. You know that then also contributes to the idea that it’s not an even process \nBoardroom SX80: with or it’s not evenly distributed\, or the ethnicity is not evenly distributed throughout the way. B Cdc works. And that is candidly because historically\, environmental Protection green has been white and only really in the past 10 to 20 years has there been a real \nBoardroom SX80: effort to try to diversify that movement. We thankfully are working hard at that\, but it’s going to take a while to really move it through the system. And so that also is something that I want to make sure that that people that people talk\, that people notice. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner show. Walter. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Yeah\, I have to say. I got a little check\, a lot of you saying you know white males and and working for diversity and racial diversity because I I was part of a cadre of people who tried to just work on gender diversity. And if you look around this room\, you can see we’ve done pretty well actually\, in that\, although there’s always room for improvement. But anyway\, \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: I wanted to ask you you you mentioned the need for advocacy and we always need to know what to ask for\, and so I wondered if you have a number of positions you think we should be lobbying for and or generally\, it seems to me the other take home. Message is that the state process for hiring is too cumbersome and long\, and it needs to be streamlined. \nAre those the 2 messages we’re supposed to have gotten? And what’s the number? \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll take that one a new\, because\, as we\, as we had discussed. So B. C. DC. Has historically worked within the administration\, we will continue to do so. We’re we’re not going to ask you to go out and lobby the halls of the State Assembly to ask for more people. That is not what BC. DC. Does\, and I don’t think it’s what Bcdc. Should do. \nBoardroom SX80: But as we move forward\, and I think the the great example is\, you will start hearing in the next couple of months about the Mission-based review that the Department of Finance is doing on the permitting side. One thing that that Anu did not mention\, but Ethan is probably simmering about a little bit now is that while you saw there’s been a little bit of growth in the regulatory side. \nBoardroom SX80: the permit staff has not grown over the past X number of years\, except for one person\, which is the print person\, and yet the number\, the demand for permits\, the complexity of permits that has grown. And so one of the things we hope the Mission-based Review will help us do is figure out how to do permitting better\, and it may well be that the Department of Finance looks at us and says\, You know\, maybe you do need a few more people we don’t know. \nBoardroom SX80: But that’s why you have an Mbr. Process. and and and so we will keep you informed of that with regard to the actual number. Well\, I mean\, sure\, I’d like some more people on the regulatory side. But we’ll see again what the Mbr process does. And \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: With regard to what was the second question\, Commissioner Shelter? I forgot the I was so so so they come right. Yes\, the minute you want to try to take on the State Government Civil Service process \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: I will be behind you in massive amounts of armor\, all 7. I don’t know\, because that is controlled\, not. And and this is a really interesting thing\, and the the Coastal Commission and the Coast of Conservancy\, and we feel this a lot \nBoardroom SX80: that is controlled in Sacramento by Sacramento people. \nBoardroom SX80: whether it be\, you know\, because that’s where state government is. \nand the. And and we are really fortunate \nBoardroom SX80: to get Raelina. And the reason we’re in addition to her being really nice and good. One of the really nice great things about having Railina is. She has worked within that system. \nBoardroom SX80: And so she’s learned within that larger context of Sacramento how to get things done. \nBoardroom SX80: And it’s different than working in the Bay area where you’re essentially satellite from Sacramento. And so that will help. But it is the Civil Service system and all of its great stuff that we all really think is really marvelous. And I don’t mean that in any snarky way. It’s marvelous that also has with it. It’s it’s cumbersome nature\, and that’s that’s the issue. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Well\, I bring it up because in in local government we are. You know\, we are facing these issues quite severely as well. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: And one of the things that we’re doing. Of course we have more control over our own Civil service requirements. is trying to you know\, make them to modernize them. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: and which hopefully will streamline them. So talking about\, I I. I do not have any desire to talk to my legislature about You know a a grand scale redo of the State Civil Service system. On the other hand\, in the umbrella of improving state processes. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: thinking about hiring processes and talking about how that’s something they should worry about\, as well as something that I certainly can’t see as a reasonable thing to bring up. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: So \nBoardroom SX80: any other comments or questions. I have just a couple \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve asked Larry to just tell. \nBoardroom SX80: those of us who are not intimately familiar with it. A little bit about the terms of these Opc. Scc. Grants\, and my second question \nBoardroom SX80: is really a follow up to Commissioner showalters it. It sounds as if there are many barriers. \nBoardroom SX80: There are many difficulties\, and virtually none of them are within our control. And if there are some that are within our control\, and I think \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, maybe. as you were saying\, I knew\, put the word out about positions that we are recruiting for. \nBoardroom SX80: and If there are others very specific like that\, I I’m sure that the Commissioners will be happy to help in the ways that we can help. But it sounds to me like the those ways are fairly limited. I think the structural ones probably are. So 2 responses. Thank you. Chair Eisen. First\, you’ll remember that the Ocean Protection Council and State Coastal Conservancy grants that were awarded to us \nBoardroom SX80: are upwards of between 2 and a half and 3 and a half years\, depending upon how long they go\, how many we have\, and so on\, and those are providing us with. I’m looking at Jessica 6 new positions which we have all filled at this point. We’ve \nBoardroom SX80: I’m pretty sure we’ve all thought we we have 5 out of the 6 is that I’m trying to remember. Go ahead\, Jessica. We’ve hired 5 out of 6\, and maybe 6 out of the 6\, but depending on whether an offer that was made yesterday\, that’s what that’s what I was one\, and and I hadn’t received words. So it’s either 5 out of 6 or 6 out of 6. And then the the great thing about that is that many of those have been filled by \nBoardroom SX80: existing Bcdc. Staff\, which has allowed for new staff to come in\, and that upward mobility so and so\, but but they will expire\, and so we will be working with the department of Finance and Cnra to make sure that they don’t expire. And that’s that that’s on us\, and we will do so\, and we get we. We certainly hope that because rising sea level isn’t going to stop that support will not stop. \nBoardroom SX80: We have never sent around to commissioners a list of open positions\, saying\, Please spread these around to your people. At least we don’t do it very\, very often we’re happy to do so\, but at the same time I’m cognizant that you\, as 13 local elected officials\, don’t want us poaching your people as \nthis Commissioner on Diego not shakes his head. And so we haven’t done that. But what we will do is and what I will. What I will say that we will do is\, we will certainly consider sending you\, for example\, a few that we think are key\, especially on the senior side\, that you may be interested in seeing\, and\, you know\, sending off to folks whom you do. And of course we do use the Linkedin. \nand you know all of the different ways that we can. We can get people anew is working closely with a corporate. I’m not going to\, I said a corporate recruiter\, because that’s the way I tend to think about this. An Hr. Recruiter for the regulatory director position. So we’re paying extra for that. And we do that on on certain occasions for the senior positions. Just so the word can get out there even more. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, good. That was a wonderful briefing. We all appreciate it very much. We don’t have to take any action with respect to that today. \nSo that brings us to adjournment. I need a motion and a second to adjourn. The meeting \nBoardroom SX80: on moves to adjourn a Diego seconds. Anybody opposed raise your hand\, otherwise we are adjourned. Thank you very much. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-15-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230601T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230601T170000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230602T053444Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T210851Z
UID:10000038-1685624400-1685638800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 1\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83188598478?pwd=Ri9pQzJSVjYrb0ZBcXVERFQ0V2d4UT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 8859 8478 \nPasscode173712 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letter (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of May 18\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on 557 East Bayshore\, in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2023.004.00 (PDF)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for BCDC of a 14-acre mixed-use residential and commercial development\, including a public access area\, within the 100-foot shoreline band at 557 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Exhibits (PDF) //  Staff Presentation (PDF) //  Presentation (PDF) //  Revisions to Staff Recommendation (PDF)\nA Discussion of\, and Possible Votes Concerning\, Legislative Activity in Sacramento\, Including SB 273 (PDF)The Commission will consider and potentially take positions on pending legislation\, including Senate Bill 273 (Wiener)\, Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: mixed-use development.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Cargill\, Inc. Maintenance and Operations Project\, in Portions of Alameda\, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties; BCDC Permit Application No. 2021.003.00The Commission will receive a briefing on Cargill\, Inc.’s permit application for continuation of its solar salt system maintenance and operations activities for which BCDC is acting as CEQA lead agency.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nClosed Session on Pending Litigation: Greenberg v. Goldzband et. al. (Super. Ct Solano County\, 2022\, No FC058917)\, Commission Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order CCD2022.002.00 – CANCELLEDPursuant to Government Code Section 11126(e)\, the Commission may hold a closed session to consider this matter.(Greg Scharff) [650/686-9303; Greg.Scharff@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nAmports Inc.2000 Center Street\, Suite 303Berkeley\, CA 94704 \nPermit Application No. M1985.019.07 (Non-Material Amendment No. Seven) \nFiled on 04/24/23 \n90th Day on 07/23/23 \nLocation \nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at AMPORTS Benicia Wharf\, 1100 Bayshore Rd\, Benicia\, Solano County. \nDescription \nTo replace an approximately 10\,500-square-foot section of a concrete wharf and an approximately 14\,200-square-foot wooden wharf with a 13\,340-square-foot concrete wharf. The existing structures were damaged in a fire in April\, 2022\, and require replacement. The new structures will use concrete\, steel or HDPE piles to replace the creosote treated wooden piles of the old structure\, and will result in a net decrease of 248 square feet of in water fill. To ensure that the new structures are safely designed\, the applicant arranged for an independent review of the plans by qualified engineers. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \nApplicant \nPacific Flyway FundP.O. Box 907Concord\, CA 94522 \nMarsh Development Permit Application No. M2020.023.00md \nFiled on 04/07/23 \n90th Day on 07/06/23 \nLocation \nWithin and along the north-western edge of the Primary Management Area (PMA) of the Suisun Marsh\, in the City of Fairfield\, Solano County; along Ramsey Road parallel to Highway 680 and within the Garibaldi Unit of the Grizzly Island Wildlife Area. \nDescription \nThe Pacific Flyway Fund proposes to construct a 280-acre Pacific Flyway Center development project partially within the PMA and partially in the Secondary Management Area of Suisun Marsh (SMA). The majority of the project is located in the SMA and includes 15 ponds\, an education center\, parking\, public access paths\, interpretative signs\, and plantings. The project will be conducted in two phases. This permit is for Phase 1 of the project that is taking place in the PMA and includes: excavating three managed wetland ponds and an intake swale; installing outflow and intake water control structures and pipelines; constructing public pathways atop the pond levees; and planting native vegetation in the 200-acres located in the PMA. Approximately 26\,000 cubic yards of soil will be excavated to create the ponds and swales in the PMA. The excavated soil will be reused on site to construct public pathways and managed wetland features throughout 76 acres of the site. Once constructed\, the three ponds will be filled with a combination of water from adjacent managed wetlands\, partially treated wastewater from the City of Fairfield\, an on-site well\, and rainwater. Initially\, a lift pump will be used to fill Pond A which will supply water to the rest of the 14 ponds in both the PMA and SMA via gravity flow through connecting intake and outtake lines. The ponds’ water will eventually return to the on-site seasonal wetlands through 5 outflow lines and swales located in the PMA. Phase 1 construction is projected to begin this year (2023) and completed within two years. Phase 2 would be constructed within the next 10 years and is not included in this permit. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Pascale Soumoy; 415/352-3669 or pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov \nApplicants \nSonoma County Regional Parks2300 County Center Drive\, Suite 120aSanta Rosa\, CA 95430 \nPermit Application No. M2021.006.00 \nFiled on 05/04/23 \n90th Day on 08/02/23 \nLocation \nWithin the Commission’s certain waterway jurisdictions\, at 28000 Skaggs Island Road\, in the City of Sonoma\, Sonoma County. \nDescription \nReplace an existing public boat ramp\, dock and gangway with a new ramp\, dock and gangway and restore tidal marsh habitat. The project will result in a net increase of Bay fill of approximately 406 square feet. The project will mitigate for the increased Bay fill by removing creosote treated wood from the Bay and by restoring 800 square feet of high marsh on-site habitat through plantings. The restored marsh area and the temporarily disturbed tidal marsh around the boat ramp site will be monitored and adaptively managed to ensure success. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing May 19\, 2023 \n\n Notice of Revised Date of Public Hearing for Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19\nApplication Summary 557 East Bayshore\n\nCommission Mailing May 26\, 2023 \n\nStaff Recommendation 557 East Bayshore (PDF) // Exhibits (PDF)\nStaff Report on Senate Bill 273 (Wiener) Tidelands and Submerged Lands City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: Mixed-Use Development (PDF)\nDraft Minutes of May 18\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nHow does sea level rise challenge modern notions of property lines?\nHistorical moment’ for California surf schools in wake of shake-up at one Bay Area beach\nNew Map Exposes Critical Gaps in Bay Area’s Readiness for Sea Level Rise\nNew Flood Protection Standard for the Peninsula – KneeDeep Times\nCalifornia Surf Schools\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/06/06-01-audio.mp3 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-1-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230518T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230518T170000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230519T035529Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T185552Z
UID:10000037-1684414800-1684429200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 18\, 2023 Revised Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83188598478?pwd=Ri9pQzJSVjYrb0ZBcXVERFQ0V2d4UT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 8859 8478 \nPasscode173712 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes of May 4\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nA Discussion of\, and Possible Votes Concerning\, Legislative Activity in Sacramento\, Including SB 273The Commission will consider and potentially take positions on pending legislation\, including Senate Bill 273 (Wiener)\, Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: mixed-use development.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Document Translations and Interpreter ContractThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $90\,000 contract to provide services for translation and interpreter services. Presentation.(Peggy Atwell) [415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on 777 Airport Boulevard in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2022.004.00 (PDF)Postponed until June 15\, 2023The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for BCDC Permit No. 2022.004.00 on a proposal by Lincoln Property West to develop a 3.08-acre former hotel site into a life sciences campus with improvements to the existing Bay Trail and shoreline public access area at 777 Airport Boulevard in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of BCDC’s 2021 and 2022 Annual ReportsThe Commission will consider approving both the 2021 and 2022 annual reports.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov] \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing May 5\, 2023 \n\nApplications for Permits\, Federal Consistency Actions\, and Amendments and issued Permits and Received Permit Applications\nApplication Summary 777 Airport Boulevard Life Sciences Redevelopment Project\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/05/05-18-audio.mp3 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-18-2023-revised-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230504T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230504T130000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230505T034541Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231020T045110Z
UID:10000036-1683205200-1683205200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 4\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83188598478?pwd=Ri9pQzJSVjYrb0ZBcXVERFQ0V2d4UT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 8859 8478 \nPasscode173712 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes of April 20\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative MattersThere are no administrative listings (Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nA Discussion of\, and Possible Votes Concerning\, Legislative Activity in Sacramento\, Including SB 273After a public discussion on the April 20\, 2023 Commission meeting\, the Commission appointed a small\, short duration\, ad hoc committee to pursue modifications to Senate Bill 273 (Wiener)\, Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: mixed-use development.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on BCDC/MTC/ABAG’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding and Investment Framework (PDF)The Commission will receive a briefing on the Funding and Investment Framework\, a joint initiative between BCDC and MTC/ABAG to (1) update and improve regional accounting of anticipated sea level rise adaptation projects\, (2) study how revenues for sea level rise adaptation can be raised most equitably\, and (3) explore how existing and future funding mechanisms can advance adaptation planning and implementation.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald @bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on the California Natural Resources Agency’s Pathways to 30×30: Accelerating Conservation of California’s NatureRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency will present the Newsom Administration’s efforts to conserve 30 percent of the state’s land and coastal waters by 2030 (commonly known as 30×30).(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Strategic Plan (PDF)The Commission will be briefed on the final version of the 2023-2025 Strategic Plan and its Action Plan.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Strategic Plan Action Plan (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of BCDC’s 2021 Annual Report – POSTPONEDThe Commission will consider approving the 2021 annual report.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Enforcement Program improvements and developments that will include an update of the first quarter 2023 progress on resolving cases. This item was continued from the April 6\, 2023 Commission meeting.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing April 21\, 2023 \n\n2023-2025 Strategic Plan and its Action Plan (PDF)\nBriefing on BCDC/MTC/ABAG’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding and Investment Framework (PDF)\nBriefing on the California Natural Resources Agency’s Pathways to 30×30: Accelerating Conservation of California’s Nature\n\nCommission Mailing April 28\, 2023 \nDraft Minutes of April 20\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF) \nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nCalifornia Overhauls Its Sea Level Rise Plan as Climate Change Reshapes Coastal Life\n‘Bay Area Sports Guy’ Analysis / Costs of Sea Level Rise / New Series “Have you met…?”\nCalifornia Today: What Makes California the Most Biodiverse State in the Nation\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				  \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/05-04-audio.mp3 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-4-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230406T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230406T170000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230407T040607Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250221T234333Z
UID:10000104-1680786000-1680800400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 6\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83188598478?pwd=Ri9pQzJSVjYrb0ZBcXVERFQ0V2d4UT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 8859 8478 \nPasscode173712 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of March 2\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Peggy Atwell) [415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nClosed Session on Possible LitigationPursuant to Government Code section 11126(e) the Commission will hold a closed session and confer with and receive advice from its legal counsel regarding possible litigation and the possible resolution of such possible litigation. Further identification of this matter might jeopardize the commission’s ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage.(Greg Scharff ) [415/352-3655; Greg.scharff@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with Resources Legacy Fund for Environmental Justice Advisors (PDF)The Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $74\,000 contract with the Resource Legacy Fund to administer funding to BCDC’s Environmental Justice Advisors as payment for their services related to implementing Bay Plan Environmental Justice and Social Equity Policies\, and Bay Adapt.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Strategic Shallow-Water Placement Pilot Project\, in the City of Hayward\, Alameda County; BCDC Federal Consistency Determination No. C2022.011.00 (PDF)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on a request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for concurrence on its consistency determination for a proposal to take up to 100\,000 cubic yards of sediment dredged from the Port of Redwood City\, and place it in shallow Bay waters to test whether the tides and currents will transport the sediment to the marsh and adjacent mudflat\, to assist them in adapting to sea level rise. The approximately 138-acre placement site is a subtidal area approximately two miles from Whales Tale Marsh lying offshore of the City of Hayward\, in Alameda County.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation (PDF) //  Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)) // Public Comment (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility (FERRF) Levee Improvement Project by West Bay Sanitary District in the City of Menlo Park\, San Mateo County; Application for BCDC Permit 2022.001.00The Commission will hold a public hearing and possible vote on an application for the West Bay Sanitary District to place approximately 3\,700 linear feet of shoreline protection around the existing Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility (FERRF). The proposed shoreline protection project involves installing sheetpile walls around the entire facility and raising the grade of the perimeter berms from the current elevation of +10 feet NAVD 88 (North American Vertical Datum 1988)\, to an elevation of +15 feet NAVD 88\, in order to remove the site from the current 100-year flood zone and protect it against future sea level rise. In addition\, the proposed project includes placing Bay fill for some nature-based shoreline protection elements\, including (1) constructing an ecotone levee along the northern perimeter and over approximately 1.12 acres of existing tidal habitats\, and (2) installing oyster reef structures on the mudflats near the northernmost point of the project site. To offset impacts to existing habitats\, the proposed project will also setback a portion of the northern perimeter levee to create 0.65 acres of new tidal marsh habitat. The ecotone levee is intended to provide migration space for the tidal marsh habitats as sea level rises. The project includes installation of new public access amenities – one bench and an interpretive sign – at the adjacent Bedwell Bayfront Park to create an overlook area of the Bay.(Anniken Lydon) [415/352-3624; anniken.lydon@bcdc.ca.gov]Vicinity Map (PDF) // Site Plan (PDF) // BCDC Jurisdiction (PDF) // Public Access Detour Plan (PDF) // Public Access (PDF) // Habitat Post Project PDF) // Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)  // Presentation (PDF) // Public Comment Letters (PDF) // Revisions to Staff Recommendation (PDF)\nBriefing on Funding and Investment Framework (PDF)The Commission will receive a briefing on the Funding and Investment Framework\, a joint initiative between BCDC and MTC/ABAG to (1) update and improve regional accounting of anticipated sea level rise adaptation projects\, (2) study how revenues for sea level rise adaptation can be raised most equitably\, and (3) explore how existing and future funding mechanisms can advance adaptation planning and implementation.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Enforcement Program improvements and developments that will include an update on the first quarter\, 2023 progress to resolve cases.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications\nApplicantsSailGPOne Liberty Plaza – 165 BroadwayNew York\, New York 10006 \nAND \nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94111 \nPermit Application No. M2023.001.00 \nFiled 03/29/23 \n90th Day 06/28/23 \nLocationIn the Bay and within the 100-foot shoreline band\, at Pier 80\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \nDescriptionThe permit would allow for the temporary use of Pier 80 as a technical base for the 2023 Sail Grand Prix event\, which is scheduled to take place at various locations near St. Francis Yacht Club in San Francisco on May 6 and 7. Pier 80\, an industrial waterfront parcel held by the Port of San Francisco\, will serve as a staging area for the event for approximately 1.5 months\, from April 17 to May 28\, 2023. The technical base will provide space for offices\, boat storage and maintenance\, and related equipment. \nActivities at the project site would include temporary installation of: \nIn the Bay: \n\nEleven moorings\, spaced approximately 150 feet apart\, to secure race boats after they are placed into the water and before they are craned back onto the pier.\nThree floating docks and a gangway\, covering an approximately 6\,000-square-foot area\, to accommodate 26 chase boats within an approximately 35\,000-square-foot area\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band \n\nTwo cranes\, with a maximum height of 250 feet and a maximum working radius of 197 square feet each\, to hoist boats in and out of the Bay.\nShipping containers\, cabins\, tents\, a boom lift vehicle\, and other small structures covering approximately 2\,792 total square feet.\n\nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Jessica Finkel\, Project Manager; 415/352-3614 or jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov \nEmergency Permits\nThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \nApplicant \nSt. Francis Yacht Club700 Marina BoulevardSan Francisco\, CA 94123 \nEmergency Permit No. E2023.002.00 \nEmergency Permit Request Received 01/13/23 \nEmergency Permit Approved via E-mail 01/19/23 and 03/09/23 \nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, at 99 Yacht Street\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \nDescription \nConduct emergency repairs to pilings and decking at the St. Francis Yacht Club that were damaged by storm activity on December 14\, 2022. Without repairs the dock and pier structures were in imminent danger of breaking loose and causing damage to all other docks\, piers\, vessels and persons within the larger marina basin. Repair activities include: \n\ninstallation of two new 12-inch-diameter\, 60-foot-long piles at the edge of the East Pier;\nremoval and replacement of four damaged piles;\nremoval of a concrete section of the West Pier; and\nplacement of two temporary wood supports for the remaining wood portion of the West Pier. Replacement of the pier deck at the West Pier will take place at a later date and new authorization. The project will result in a net removal of approximately 237 cubic yards (35 square feet) of Bay fill resulting from placement of new piles that are slightly smaller in diameter than the existing pilings. All described work has been completed\, with construction activities occurring over a total of 11 work days. During this time\, the only closure to public access was a 50-foot-long section of the eight-foot-wide walkway adjacent to the East and West Piers. The walkways both east and west of this area were accessible and a detour was provided along the driveway 40 feet to the north. The project will have no further public access disruptions or closures. On January 19\, 2023 and March 9\, 2023\, BCDC staff granted email approval to St. Francis Yacht Club to conduct the work\, upon receiving approval from the BCDC Commission Chair and Executive Director.\n\nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding\, Project Manager; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \nMarch 30\, 2023 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing March 24\, 2023\n\nApril 6\, 2023 Commission Meeting\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for Permits\, Federal Consistency Actions\, and Amendments\nConsistency Determination Summary Strategic Aquatic Sediment Placement Pilot Project No. C2022.011.00 (PDF)\nFlow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility Levee Improvement Project Permit Number 2022.001.00 Application Summary (PDF) // Vicinity Map (PDF) // Site Plan (PDF) // BCDC Jurisdiction (PDF) //  Public Access Detour Plan (PDF) // Public Access (PDF) // Habitat Post Project PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing March 30\, 2023\n\nStaff Report and Recommendation on a Contract with Resources Legacy Fund for Environmental Justice Advisors (PDF)\nSea Level Rise Adaptation Funding & Investment Framework: Project Conclusion (PDF)\nSea Level Rise Adaptation Funding & Investment Framework: Project Conclusion (PDF) // Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\nDraft Minutes of March 2\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nStaff Recommendation West Bay Sanitary District Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility Levee Improvement Project (PDF)Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nCounty’s Largest Public Works Project Ever ‘Passes With Flying Colors’\nAlameda Harbor Seal Haul-Out inspires research in NY\nThis floating community is a rare Bay Area spot for affordable living. Can it survive?\nMarin air tour operation battles mounting state fines\n$1.3B plan to fill last empty pier on Embarcadero may get boost from state\nRodanthe\, North Carolina sees rapid rates of erosion\, rising sea levels – Washington Post\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording First Part \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/04/04-06-audio-part-1.mp3 \nAudio Recording Second Part \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/04/04-06-audio-part-2.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nBoardroom SX80: It’s a village to raise a chair. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you all. \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy. Will you call the Role Commissioners? Will you unmute to announce your presence? And then we mute yourselves. When you have \nBoardroom SX80: indicated you are present. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Cheer Wasserman here\, Vice Chair Eisen. Here\, Commissioner Annieo here. \nEddie Ahn\, Commissioner: Commissioner on here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, her \nPat Burt\, Commissioner: here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Atland. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: I’m. Here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther \nAndrew Gunther: here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, has here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Molten Peters. Here Commissioner Peskin\, present Commissioner Pine here Commissioner rancho. Here. Commissioner\, show Walter here\, Commissioner M. Mule. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimono. \nBoardroom SX80: Here\, Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Here. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Kitchener. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Van Hughes Vancouver. \nLenny Mendonca\, Commissioner: been down here. \nBoardroom SX80: You are Thank you \nBoardroom SX80: and Commissioner Gilmour here. Did I forget anybody. \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: Commissioner Ergy is present. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Jessie! Thank you. Anybody else. \nBoardroom SX80: We have 22 Commissioners present For Forum. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. We have a quorum\, I think\, half of which are present in this room. I thank you for that\, and I\, as I said before\, I do recognize the the difficulties of \nBoardroom SX80: scheduling transportation\, distances and and potential illness or actual illness. \nBoardroom SX80: But I also want to observe\, I think the meetings are more robust. \nBoardroom SX80: Better things happen when we are in person. and to the extent we can do that as we move forward\, I encourage you to attend in person. \nBoardroom SX80: The next item is public comment on items not on our agenda or not matter of public hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: and I think we have 2 speakers for public comment\, one here and one in the \nBoardroom SX80: remote audience\, like counting no 2 in the remote. And \nBoardroom SX80: to here I think you have 2 remotely\, and I believe \nBoardroom SX80: i’m not sure if the ones that are here are associated with an agenda. Item. \nBoardroom SX80: So there’s a gentleman. Are you associated with a particular agenda? Item. \nBoardroom SX80: just general public? Will you come down and fill out a card\, please. We’re going to start with the people in the room. \nBoardroom SX80: and i’ll start with John Coleman. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello\, Executive Director and BCDC. Commissioners. My name is Barbara Tassa. I live in Bayview\, and I live close to Candlestick Point State recreation area. \nBoardroom SX80: I love the State Park\, and I regularly would take my dog there for walks. My 2 kids. We’ve even participated in the first fund run. 2 years ago \nBoardroom SX80: I run\, walk bike\, and sometimes just go there to sit\, watch the water and the ships in the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: The park is an important asset for my family and the nearby community. \nBoardroom SX80: Now the park\, as you may or may not know\, has been plagued by years of disinvestment. The public bathrooms have been replaced by portopotties. There is no running water to grab a drink when me or my kids are out there. \nBoardroom SX80: The parking lots are closed\, because the flooding on the road outside the Park has effectively shut down the access to the Park\, and that since December. \nBoardroom SX80: This means that parents with strollers have a hard time getting to the park. It means that seniors who can’t walk long distances to the park cannot easily access the waterfront. It means it’s harder for families to hold their birthday parties at the picnic sites and have a hard time taking their supplies there. \nBoardroom SX80: Everybody nearby is impacted. \nBoardroom SX80: So I am here today to ask BCDC. In its power to help re-establish access to this park and get it funded properly. \nBoardroom SX80: It was 2015 when the nearby candlestick stadium \nBoardroom SX80: was torn out\, and since then the area has fallen by the wayside. It seems the park and the surrounding community have been forgotten \nBoardroom SX80: for the health and recreation of our community. Please put this issue on your priority list\, and with the agencies with responsibility in this area to re establish access and fund it to the standards that we see in more affluent parts of San Francisco. \nBoardroom SX80: And one last thing pictures of the area just Don’t\, do a justice. \nBoardroom SX80: Take the time to go. See for yourselves what we are asking for \nBoardroom SX80: when you experience it for yourself\, trying to get to the waterfront and put yourself in the shoes of the person trying to access the park for outdoor recreation. I think you will quickly see what we are talking about\, both the lack of access and disinvestment. \nBoardroom SX80: but also the beauty of the sight\, and why it should be your priority. Thank you. \nYes. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. John Coleman. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman\, Commissioners\, and B. C. D. C. Staff\, I’m. John Coleman\, of the Bay planning Coalition. So nice to be here to see many of you in person. I think that’s great. The reason I’m here is really twofold. \nBoardroom SX80: I have a fault. I My one introduces the team at the Bay planning coalition. One time I was able to introduce Cameron car. I think this is an early \nBoardroom SX80: a year year and a half ago\, Cameron\, Carr and Sophie Douglas. So you probably receive emails from them. I wanted to put a face and a name with who they are\, and know that we enjoy working with you. \nBoardroom SX80: We may not always agree\, but we enjoy working with you\, and have a very collaborative approach to problem solving\, which I really truly appreciate that B. Cdc. Has\, and how they operate. \nBoardroom SX80: And just the real quick thing is going also going to say that we have our spring summit on May 20 fourth at the David Brower Center in Berkeley\, and it’s going to be on emergency planning \nBoardroom SX80: and funding. So that’s applicable to all what you do in all the communities around the San Francisco Bay area. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you \nBoardroom SX80: our remote public speakers. We have 3 chair. David Lewis is first date after Davis. David is Alison Madden. \nBoardroom SX80: David? Go ahead and unmute yourself. You have 3 min. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Thank you and thank you. Commissioners David Lewis\, the executive director at\, say\, the Bay. I want to reflect 2 issues today that are not on your agenda that deserve \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): your urgent attention. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): One is an issue we’ve been raising with you for the last 6 months or more. The ongoing concerns about the 6 million tons of toxic\, bitter and material that Cargo Salt Company is storing \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): in open ponds within the National Wildlife refuge just south of the Dum Martin bridge. and despite this winners intense storms\, adding record precipitation to the ponds \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): and the issues that \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): engineering Criteria Review Board addressed back in November \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): around seismic stability of the burns holding this material from the Bay \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): B. Cdc. And the regional water board is still not directly inspected. These pawns. or the shallow mud firms that are separating this bitter and from San Francisco Bay and a toxic spill\, there \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): to be catastrophic to endangered bay wildlife. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Recently ABC. 7 news documented this problem with an excellent report\, and I think we’ve shared the link with all of you will do that again. I don’t believe that there has been any Commission consideration\, or \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): any information shared with the public from B. C. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Your Engineering Criteria Review Board met last November\, so it is definitely time for action and at minimum an update \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): to the Commission. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Secondly\, you wanted to alert you to very dangerous piece of legislation that’s been introduced and was amended this week to specifically target B. Cdc. And this is a bill that Senator Scott Weiner has introduced it’s sb 2 73\, \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): and this is specifically to RAM through the legislature approval for the proposed development on Pierce 32. This is the third or fourth time that the legislature would have directly mandated a development \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): the previous 3 times it didn’t occur. But the specific danger to BC. DC. Is a provision that’s been added. It basically exempts this project from Bcdc’s \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): review under the Macateer Petrus act for fill considerations\, and the project is proposing to put hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): not on the existing peer\, but to actually rip out the entire existing peer and replace it with a new Peer\, which certainly constitutes Phil that BC. Should be able to review under your statute. So we’d urge the Commission to take a look at this legislation and express \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): it’s opposition as soon as possible. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. David. \nBoardroom SX80: Next is Allison\, Madden Allison\, Go ahead Unmute yourself. You have 3 min\, and after Allison will be Dean Stanford. \nI thank you. Can you hear me? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nAlison Madden: Okay. Thank you very much. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Allison men. I’m an advocate for people being able to live on their boats and for houseboats and houseboat communities. \nAlison Madden: I would like to speak about 3 things today\, so I hope I can segment that to fit it. In the first thing I would like to do is in September fifteenth of last year. You all approved what we kind. We’re calling a safe harbor to allow people leaving Oyster Cove to go over to Oyster Point\, Marina. \nAlison Madden: and at the time there was a pretty \nAlison Madden: lively and vigorous discussion\, and it was really good to hear\, because it seemed like there was some openness to considering raising the 10% cap on liver boards\, and I would like to advocate that you have a public process that involves at least 2 public hearings \nAlison Madden: where people can show up and speak a lot of times. I think that I understand that perhaps the staff might be looking at this and in the background\, just as part of its workload\, and maybe going to \nAlison Madden: make some kind of port back or recommendation in terms of amending the Bay plan\, which I very much \nAlison Madden: appreciate\, and bottom bottom line. Everyone really appreciates the safe harbor\, too\, by the way. And so i’m just advocating that you make that a public process\, and that you prioritize it. \nAlison Madden: I’d like to say i’m i’m a refugee from Doc Town. I didn’t want to leave Redwood City close. Many Marinas and I \nAlison Madden: provided some public comments before the B. C. \nAlison Madden: Played a large role in the outer harbor at Pete’s\, going away as a marina at all\, and it’s completely gone. and it’s very very difficult. I cannot even find a spot \nAlison Madden: for a non-level board i’m living on the upland in Sausalito. Now\, where this I have a World war\, 2 Higgins landing craft. \nAlison Madden: It actually is a \nAlison Madden: moves around a marina with a high-powered electric outboard. It’s a really low impact. It’s visually beautiful. It was built in Sausalito before I was born\, and I cannot even find a non liverboard slip \nAlison Madden: for it. I’m just experiencing real hardship. And \nAlison Madden: so i’m advocating to actually raise the percent to harbor master discretion\, not to exceed 25%. \nAlison Madden: But even if you do 15 or 20 that would be great. But really I would like a public process\, and i’d also like to say that the roll out of the oyster point \nAlison Madden: not below your level like after you approved it. It was. It was quite bumpy and really confusing\, and I really\, I appreciate it now of South City\, and helping recently to clear that up\, but I want to make sure that compliance\, as of October 30 first. \nAlison Madden: If people move their boots over\, compliance is just not staying on it more than 3 nights a week. \nThese displacement scenarios people end up living in alternative scenarios\, and they need a safe\, secure spot for their boat. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Allison \nBoardroom SX80: Dean Stanford. Go ahead and unmute yourself. You have 3 min. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Dean Stanford \nDean Stanford: going to read the comments that I emailed to you hopefully. If I go over you want me to extra minute. \nDean Stanford: So I submitted a park proposal during the San Jose Santa Clara. Regional waste water facility\, Master Plan Process in 2\,010. \nDean Stanford: The proposed park includes miles of paved multi-use trails and dirt trails \nDean Stanford: for E. Bikes\, mountain bikes\, 0 Mission recreational vehicles and a new home for display. Santa Clara. \nDean Stanford: I’ll be you next track California State Parks and San Jose Parks\, or it talks for a 1.5 million a year\, Grant for a pilot park. and the larger park is in consideration for 30 million dollars in funding\, and Sb. 155 \nDean Stanford: for a New California State Park \nDean Stanford: for the past 13 years. The Park proposal is included a 3 and a half mile bay loop trail around a former salt pond owned by the cities of San Jose Santa Clara. Although Pond\, a 18\, was initially not part of the South by shoreline Plan Restoration Project. \nDean Stanford: The shoreline Plan intends to remove the Levy Berm surrounding Pond a 18 pending the sale of the Pond to Santa Clara Valley Water district. \nDean Stanford: that’s the gating option of the three-file bay of parks real. I propose that if the sale of popper seeds of these men\, including the levy Berm. All around palm a team is retained by San Jose and Santa Clara. \nDean Stanford: The water district will have the Restoration Acreage desire for the shoreline plan\, and the park trail can be preserved. I support the option of breaching and bridging the levy Berm to restore tile flow \nDean Stanford: as desired. \nDean Stanford: because mitigation for allowing Park users access to 3 and a half mile. Bailey\, for your Habitat Islands going to be constructed within pond to eighteenth \nDean Stanford: I’m. Not asking for the water district or shoreline plant stakeholders to fund construction or maintenance of the pond. 18 levy\, Burm Trail. Habitat Islands\, or bridges. \nDean Stanford: All I ask is that the preservation of the levy Berm\, except for breached. \nDean Stanford: and to be breached in America like you later be bridged. \nDean Stanford: I believe that allowing pond to 1835 mile trail will be proper mitigation for loss of the mind by a bailiff trail of the we’re going to County Park. \nDean Stanford: due to the restoration efforts of the shortened plan. \nDean Stanford: Under the nicotine Petr sack. The B. C. DC. Requires locations for water\, Oriented land uses and increase public access. \nDean Stanford: The shoreline and waters\, and encourages the provision\, maximum\, feasible public access to the bay and shoreline the San Francisco Bay plant and things policies that encourage the development of waterfront recreation facilities \nDean Stanford: and linkages between existing shoreline parks that requires the provision of these opportunities in relation to the biological species. Habitats \nDean Stanford: confused the restoration of \nDean Stanford: although I am enthusiastically in favor of the environmental restorations effort of the shoring plan. I believe the plan is unbalanced and lacking in the maximum feasible public access and recreation \nDean Stanford: disappointed that parts of the shoreline plan are specifically meant to discourage access to the bay and limit public linkage on the new base site. Real segment to exist existing segments of the Patreon. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, sir. If you haven’t already\, you can also submit a a public comment known as as well. \nDean Stanford: Yeah\, I me all this and a couple of catchments. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. No more public speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. That concludes our general public comment period. But we will have public comment on specific items as they come up. And I would note. \nBoardroom SX80: because I think there are some people here who may not be familiar with our procedures in State law \nBoardroom SX80: for items that are discussed in public comment that are not on our agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: We can’t respond because they are not agendized\, and therefore the general public is not aware that we may be considering anything regarding them. \nBoardroom SX80: and the executive director wishes to amplify. I don’t want to amplify that I just want to note that Supervisor Gallagher\, who is the alternate for Supervisor Ramos has joined the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Welcome \nBoardroom SX80: all right. That concludes public comment that brings us to item 4\, which is approval of our minutes of march. Second\, 2023. We have all received copies. Of Those I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes \nso moved. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Second \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Molds Eaters move\, and Commissioner No. \nBoardroom SX80: Gilmore moved. Oh\, Commissioner Gilmore moved. Sorry my ears are not Working Commissioner Gilmore moved. Mr. Kitchimono seconded. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: You second \nBoardroom SX80: Eklin seconded. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you. I didn’t think you heard me. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any who oppose the approval of minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: Know anybody wishes to abstain. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nI \nBoardroom SX80: every now and then I say this: you are fully entitled to abstain. You are not required to abstain \nBoardroom SX80: if you were not here. \nBoardroom SX80: All right\, one \nBoardroom SX80: you\, Mr. Mendanka\, abstains as well. \nLenny Mendonca\, Commissioner: I was not present. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you \nJohn Cota\, Court Reporter: all right\, with those 2 exemptions. The minutes are approved. Sure this is John who’s seen that I have then\, Johnson. Who else? \nJohn Cota\, Court Reporter: You? \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to start my remarks as chair \nBoardroom SX80: with a \nBoardroom SX80: somewhat longer comment that I normally make. which I think will become self. The reasons for it will become self evident. \nBoardroom SX80: In late January \nBoardroom SX80: 2 members of B. C. DC’s Environmental Justice Advisers program and an alternate E. J. Advisor sent an email to the Commission and various members of the public in which they announced their resignations from B. C. DC’s. E. J. Advisors program. \nBoardroom SX80: and accused B. Cdc. Staff of racism against black women. \nBoardroom SX80: We took that very seriously \nBoardroom SX80: and in response our executive director and I asked our general counsel\, Gregg Sharp\, to perform a fact\, finding review to determine \nBoardroom SX80: whether any actions by B. C. DC. Staff working with the E. J. Advisors program Warrant. A formal\, Independent Human Resources Investigation. \nBoardroom SX80: Greg and Peggy Atwell\, B. Cdc’s Administrative Director\, interviewed B Cdc. Staff members. the 4 remaining E. J. Advisors \nBoardroom SX80: and representatives of the Resource Legacy Fund\, the philanthropic organization that has provided funding for the E. J. Advisors program. \nBoardroom SX80: After making several requests to interview the 3 former E. J. Advisors who had made the complaint. \nBoardroom SX80: Greg was able to interview them\, and they were joined \nBoardroom SX80: in that interview by an attorney of their choice. who was present\, but did not formally represent them. \nBoardroom SX80: The executive director and I have carefully reviewed Greg’s report of this review. \nBoardroom SX80: Greg and Peggy found that the former E. J. Advisors charges that PC. DC. Staff committed. Acts of racism against black women \nBoardroom SX80: are unfounded\, and are not substantiated by any evidence. \nBoardroom SX80: That conclusion is supported by statements made to Greg and Peggy by the remaining E. J. Advisors. The report itself is confidential\, because it discusses human relations matters\, and is subject to attorney client privilege. \nBoardroom SX80: Therefore\, under State law\, it cannot be shared. \nBoardroom SX80: Well. I am certainly reassured \nBoardroom SX80: by the findings of the report that our staff did not act in a racist manner\, and did act professionally with the E. J. Advisors. It is also important to keep in mind that we live in a world in which people of color face\, discrimination in a variety of forms. \nBoardroom SX80: that there is institutional racism in our country\, our State and our region. and that as a government agency. \nBoardroom SX80: we need to understand that certain actions made by an institution or its representatives can be perceived as discrimination by people accustomed to experiencing racial oppression from institutions. \nBoardroom SX80: We are carefully reflecting on these accusations \nBoardroom SX80: and examining ways that our agency might have behaved differently. \nBoardroom SX80: and learn from what occurred as we move forward. \nBoardroom SX80: I think it is also important to understand that our E. J. Advisors program is new. \nBoardroom SX80: and that there are very few models of State agencies working proactively to involve the voices of historically and currently under represented and socially and environmentally vulnerable communities. \nBoardroom SX80: to help us in this regard the executive director\, and I believe very strongly that B. Cdc. Needs to strengthen our E. J. Advisors program in a number of ways. including. \nBoardroom SX80: we need to better align the expectations of this Commission and B. Cdc. Staff and the expectations of the environmental justice advisors. \nBoardroom SX80: As an example\, our E. J. Advisors should not be expected to act as professional consultants\, but instead\, as advisors who are paid a stipend for their participation \nBoardroom SX80: and advice to selected B Cdc. Activities. \nBoardroom SX80: their meetings should be managed in ways to ensure that their experience and recommendations are provided and considered in a serious\, professional\, and collaborative manner. \nBoardroom SX80: and P Cdc. Staff \nBoardroom SX80: need to adjust their expectations. as does the J. Advisors \nBoardroom SX80: about the balance of work involved. As the representatives of these communities. \nBoardroom SX80: Pcd. Staff also needs to work with the E. J. Advisors to enable them to better understand how California\, State policy and administrative procedures work \nBoardroom SX80: and staff needs to communicate with the advisors more clearly in ways that in gender respect\, and are more culturally sensitive. As an example. \nBoardroom SX80: as much as B. C. DC. Wishes to\, and is trying to increase. The E. J. Adviser’s stipends. \nBoardroom SX80: given the work that they are eager to perform. \nBoardroom SX80: Doing so requires approval of a contract by State control agencies whose policies and processes are out of our control. \nBoardroom SX80: There is a contract on today’s agenda that does provide for some increase in those stipends\, but it still needs to be approved by the Department of General Services. With regard to policy. I want to note that B. C. Staff \nBoardroom SX80: are developing ways to provide the E. J. Advisors with more real time information about work that is being done at B. C. DC. To enable \nBoardroom SX80: them and their community to become more communications with their community to become more robust\, effective\, and efficient. \nBoardroom SX80:BCDC Staff and the E. J. Advisors should continue to learn from other California State organizations that are using community members to assist in policy development. \nBoardroom SX80: As an example\, the Natural Resources Agency has just published a very comprehensive inventory of ways in which State organizations can embed equity in their systems \nBoardroom SX80: Staff are hard at work on developing a racial equity plan for BCC. Which will lay out specific actions and metrics. \nBoardroom SX80: For how B. Cdc. Can continue to address institutional barriers to equity across the agency not limited to the E. J. Advisors program at all \nBoardroom SX80: staff. \nBoardroom SX80: We expect that Staff will expeditiously complete that effort\, and the Commission will adopt such a plan \nBoardroom SX80: as part of this effort. \nBoardroom SX80: The executive director and I believe that B. C. D. C. And the E. J. Advisors. and the interest that they represent would benefit from our hiring and experienced organizational development\, consultant and facilitator \nBoardroom SX80: with relevant experience in the environmental justice field to help our staff and the E. J. Advisors \nBoardroom SX80: learn ways to move our shared goals forward. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, we had planned to start this process. In the summer. We actually want to move the date forward and begin the process before the end of April. \nBoardroom SX80: We will involve the E. J. Advisors in the process of selecting such a consultant. \nBoardroom SX80: We will agendize this issue as soon as possible\, so the Commission can fully discuss the Ej Advisors program \nBoardroom SX80: going forward \nBoardroom SX80: on a different note. \nBoardroom SX80: This morning we held an interesting and robust and thought-provoking \nBoardroom SX80: meeting\, a combined meeting of our financing the future and rising Sea Level Commissioner working groups. \nBoardroom SX80: The first part of it was on financing we expected the second part to be on the rising sea level piece. The first part was indeed so robust that we didn’t get to the second part. \nBoardroom SX80: So we will have another joint meeting of this group next month. and continue to report to you what we have done. The slide presentation \nBoardroom SX80: you’ll get some sense of\, and will be posted on our site \nBoardroom SX80: this Morning’s effort\, I think\, marked a significant milestone in our efforts \nBoardroom SX80: to understand what we need to do\, how we need to do it. how we’re going to pay for it. \nBoardroom SX80: and as you will see in in some of the slides. That is a very great challenge\, but it’s a challenge. I think we can meet\, as we all work together. \nBoardroom SX80: not only us. \nBoardroom SX80: but our partners in this \nBoardroom SX80: other elected officials. \nBoardroom SX80: and ultimately the public. We have a big challenge to educate the public on what we need to do \nBoardroom SX80: to address rising sea level\, so that we\, in fact\, do not become inundated by the waters that are inevitably going to rise. \nBoardroom SX80: Last month our Commissioner\, working group on sediment and beneficial reuse held its second meeting. and I’m going to ask Commissioner Show Altar to give us a brief report on that meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, it was my pleasure to chair this meeting on Saint Patrick’s day\, which is always a great time to talk about green things\, and really\, in a very broad sense. What we are doing is trying to green the policy of sediment and beneficial reuse. \nBoardroom SX80: The first meeting we had\, I think. \nBoardroom SX80: about 34 participants\, and this meeting we had 34 participants\, and they spanned upwards of 15 organizations or agencies. I’m. Really impressed by both the caliber and the breadth \nBoardroom SX80: and the quantity of participation we’re having in this\, I think that it really is a testament to how important this subject really is. The first the first thing we we did was to welcome Maya Mcinerney\, who is \nBoardroom SX80: a new BCDC. Staff\, who will be leading the beneficial Reuse project\, and she shared \nBoardroom SX80: the Bay plan\, amendment process and the work plan and the project goals with this quickly\, and then Eric went over the second phase of the work plan\, which is the Bay Plan amendment. But the thing that I really want to bring to your attention is the presentation that was given to us by Brenda Gayden\, and the reason I want to bring this to your attention is because you want to have a good background about kind of \nBoardroom SX80: what this process is supposed to be\, and what’s the you know what’s the need of the issue? I would urge you to go to her presentation\, and you can go there. You go on the B Cdc website click on on our homepage. You click on public meetings and go down to a sediment and beneficial reuse working group. Click on that\, and you’ll see all the you know\, all the presentations for the March seventeenth meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: I I would urge you to take a look at that. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: we did have a robust discussion about it\, and we decided at the end that it would be a good idea to vote on the goals and accepting the accepting the proposed goals of the the reuse working group. So we had kind of a decision on that. So we did take a vote on that. \nBoardroom SX80: And and then I wanted to just share that. This is one of those situations where I think probably the more the merrier. So if you are interested in taking part. Please Tune in our next meeting will be \nBoardroom SX80: May nineteenth\, and typically our meetings are the the third Friday of odd numbered months. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: It’s going to take us about \nBoardroom SX80: 2 years to get to the end of this process\, which does seem like a long time\, but it’s a very meaty topic\, and we have a really well thought out way to get there. We will be having a workshop \nBoardroom SX80: later this year. I think it’s in October\, where we’ll be asking as many people as possible to participate. So next next meeting is May nineteenth. It’d be great for as many people to join us as possible. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Pat. The \nBoardroom SX80: sediment\, and particularly beneficial reuse is one of the many important \nBoardroom SX80: and challenging issues that we need \nBoardroom SX80: to address. But it is also a very significant part of how we are going to adapt to rising sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: The next meeting of this commission will be held in 2 weeks on April twentieth it will be a regular hybrid meeting. But\, as I have said\, I encourage everyone who can to attend in person \nBoardroom SX80: at that meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We expect a public hearing and vote to update the resolution that sets the priority use areas in the Bay plan. \nBoardroom SX80: Consideration of legislative matters in Sacramento. \nBoardroom SX80: Excuse me \nBoardroom SX80: a briefing on compliance at Oyster Point\, Marina\, in San Mateo County\, and a briefing on implementation of our strategic plan \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to the exciting time in our agenda\, where\, if anybody has had ex-partate communications concerning and matter of \nBoardroom SX80: hearing\, not simply policy\, that you have not previously reported in writing\, you may report. You do need to report it in writing under any circumstances. But again\, this is on \nBoardroom SX80: adjudicatory or hearing matters. not simply \nBoardroom SX80: constituent discussions. Any ex-party reports. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none that brings us to the report of the executive Director. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Chair Washington. Let me first say how delighted we all are\, all of us and staff to see so many of our Commissioners sitting here at Metro Center. For those of us who have been sparsely populating this Board room for the past year or so we welcome you with open arms \nBoardroom SX80: on an even more personal note. You all know that I firmly believe that to morrow baseball’s opening day at Oracle Park should be declared a Bay area holiday at least. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition. I also believe that to day April sixth should be declared a national holiday every year throughout America\, if not the world. \nBoardroom SX80: You see\, on April sixth\, 1772\, Catherine\, the great Empress of Russia. ended. Russia’s tax imposed on men with beards \nBoardroom SX80: that was enacted 74 years earlier by Peter the Great for defensive and military reasons. \nHaving worn my beard since I was a junior in college. I now realized that the subject of one of my senior theses at Pomona College should have been on the policy discussion surrounding Catherine’s selfless and noble act \nBoardroom SX80: with regard to budget and staffing on behalf of our overworked human resources team. I am pleased to announce that we have no personal hiring announcements Today\, however\, I want to introduce you to Railina Ruiz. \nBoardroom SX80: who is sitting next to Peggy Atwell Rainless. Put your hand there. You go. \nRailina is transitioning into our director of administration\, as we have but 2 months before Peggy retires. \nBoardroom SX80: and I want to assure you that just as you have recognized that it is Peggy who is in charge of organizing these meetings and all they go with them. Realina has experience in doing the same with the State’s Medical Board. We will all be in great hands. \nBoardroom SX80: I also want to note that we are very\, very sorry to lose Onik and Leiden our Bay resources. Permanent manager. After this meeting Onikin\, whom you will see later this afternoon\, has been an outstanding staff member of B. C. DC. For a decade. We wish her well down in San Diego as she enters the private sector and uses all of that wisdom she gained here to further her career. \nBoardroom SX80: For those of you who keep track of the Bay trails progress. I want to let you know that we have updated our representation on the Bay trail board and the Bay trail steering Committee. You remember that Ethan Levine has taken on the new role of assistant regulatory director for climate change. \nSo we’re replacing Ethan\, who has represented B C. DC. So well for so long with Ashley Tommerlin\, our Senior Bay Development design analyst. \nBoardroom SX80: given her work as our technical advisor on public access for both regulatory and planning staff\, including offering design\, guidance and Plan Review for Bay trail sections required by BC. DC. Permits. It’s a natural fit. \nBoardroom SX80: and we’ve asked Catherine Pan\, our shoreline development Program manager\, who has succeeded Ethan to become Ashley’s alternate. \nBoardroom SX80: I had the good fortune before our family vacation to attend Secretary Wade Crowfoot’s Second Resources Agency Directors meeting down in Los Angeles. We were all very pleased to meet in person many of the C. And R. A. Staff department\, directors and board and commission executive directors. For the first time \nBoardroom SX80: the executive officers of the Coastal Commission\, Coastal\, Conservancy\, and the State Lands Commission\, and I sat in one corner of the large conference table set up in a show of coastal solidarity\, which was remarked upon by Secretary crowded \nBoardroom SX80: indeed. Last week the secretary hosted a panel discussion\, featuring those 3 awesome leaders to showcase how women are now leading just about all of our coastal and shoreline state activities. \nAs Wade commented at the meeting. However\, I am the outlier \nBoardroom SX80: this week. I was pleased to distribute to our staff 2 slide decks from that meeting that will definitely assist you and Staff\, as we move forward with our new strategic plan and our in-process racial equity action plan \nBoardroom SX80: i’ll distribute the C. And R. A strategic planning presentation to you next week. It is clearly aligned with our strategic plan\, as you will see\, during our next commission meeting\, when we present our strategic plan’s implementation scheme. \nBoardroom SX80: and I expect that we’ll update you on the B Cdc. Racial equity action plan later this spring or in the early summer\, and we’ll use the Resources Agency’s operationalizing Equity Plan as one of those guide posts. \nBoardroom SX80: During the last couple of meetings you’ve heard about public access issues related to the Klamath the former ferry\, now being used as headquarters for the Bay Area Council that the Commission permitted a while ago. \nBoardroom SX80: The good news is that the Clamis elevator is now working\, and the vessel is finally open to the public. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, we continue to receive reports that there are serious continuing public access issues at the clamour. So Staff will conduct a formal site\, visit\, and be prepared to initiate an enforcement action within the next 30 days\, based upon what they find. \nBoardroom SX80: Finally\, Mr. Chairman\, because it is that time of year \nI have in my hand \nBoardroom SX80: the list of Commissioners alternates Dr. B. And Ecrb. Members who have not yet filed their F Ppc. Financial disclosure formed 700 forms. \nI believe that you all know who you are. \nBoardroom SX80: As usual\, i’ll hand this list to chair\, washerman for a formal reading in our next meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Not today. So you have time. That concludes my report chair. Washington and i’m happy to answer any questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any questions for the executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none. \nBoardroom SX80: I want to go back to my remark for just a moment\, because I forgot something. I want to announce the appointment of Commissioner Karl has to the seaport Plan Advisory Committee. Thank you for your agreement to serve that committee is going to be fairly active over the next \nBoardroom SX80: 6 to 9 months\, as they process the amendment to that plan which is \nBoardroom SX80: only about a year overdue. but for good reason. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 7 consideration of administrative matters. Anakin Leyden is here. If you have any questions on the administrative and emergency permit listing which we have received. I note\, as our executive director said\, this is Anakin’s last meeting\, and I \nBoardroom SX80: join in the executive directors. Thank you for your service here\, and wish you well in your future career. \nBoardroom SX80: Yours? \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, sorry any questions. See? She stands up so i’m expecting her to say something. \nBoardroom SX80: There are no questions do you want to ask. There\, there’s no hands raised\, but I just want it on the record. You want to ask if there’s any public comment on administration. No\, I want you to tell me. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, there is a hand grease. \nBoardroom SX80: Dean Stanford. This is more related to administrative manners. \nBoardroom SX80: So go ahead and unmute yourself. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. I just wanted to talk about the beneficial reuse of bridging material. \nDean Stanford: The \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think that’s an administrative matter. I think that’s item number 10. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s item Number 10. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: No hands raised here \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 8\, which is a closed session item\, and I apologize to the public that we are doing this in the middle of a meeting. We try \nBoardroom SX80: not to do that to leave you waiting\, but for procedural reasons. We had to do it now\, so we will temporarily pause this meeting. Well\, the Commission \nBoardroom SX80: adjourns into closed Session Commissioners who are participating remotely. \nBoardroom SX80: When I ask you to do so. and not before. \nBoardroom SX80: Please leave this Zoom Meeting\, as you normally would at adjournment. \nBoardroom SX80: Go to your email in box if you’ve not already done\, so find the email that was sent to you during this meeting from Reggie\, abod of our staff. It includes a zoom link that will take you into our closed session. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioners who are here will move to the Clermont room \nBoardroom SX80: after the closed session has ended. Commissioners who are participating remotely will leave that meeting \nBoardroom SX80: Come back by zoom here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioners\, participating remotely\, should now leave this meeting and join the closed session. Thank you very much. We’ll get back as soon as we can. \nBoardroom SX80: We are back in open session. \nBoardroom SX80: The Commission held the closed session and took no reportable action. So there is no further further action on this matter \nBoardroom SX80: today \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 9 on the Commission agenda Consideration of a contract for Environmental justice advisers \nBoardroom SX80: with resource\, legacy fund. \nBoardroom SX80: Phoenix\, Ourmenta\, our senior manager for climate equity and community engagement will present the staff report and recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Phoenix\, Ourmenta\, and I’m. The senior manager for climate\, equity\, and community engagement for B. C. DC. \nBoardroom SX80: Today I’m. Coming to you with the staff report and recommendation to approve a contract with the resource legacy fund in order to fund our E. J. Advisors program. \nBoardroom SX80: But before I get into the presentation I would like to introduce our new environmental justice specialist\, Lita Bridey \nBoardroom SX80: Lita joins us. Welcome. Lita joins us from the Delta Stewardship Council\, and has over 12 years of community outreach experience in Northern California. They have been with us just over a month\, and have already shown incredible leadership on a variety of Ej projects. We’re excited by this expansion of our Ej program. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you \nBoardroom SX80: slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t know. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Our Ej advisor program was launched in 2021 with generous funding from the Resource Legacy Fund\, a leading philanthropic nonprofit organization. The Ej Advisors program was created to help Bcdc. Implement its environmental justice and equity policies which the Commission adopted as a bay plan amendment in 2\,019. \nBoardroom SX80: The Resource Legacy Fund originally provided 6 E. J. Advisors with annual stipends of $6\,000 per year. \nBoardroom SX80: Our left committed to funding for 3 years of the program. \nBoardroom SX80: with the understanding that B. Cdc. Would gradually take over funding from them and 2022. They provided stipends for 5 advisors\, and in 2023. They plan to provide stipends for 3. E. J. Advisors\, with Bcds received\, making up the remainder of the funding. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide \nBoardroom SX80: we currently have 4 E. J. Advisors with 2 open seats. \nThey are Hula Garcia of rise up South City \nBoardroom SX80: Violet Siena of climate resilient communities. \nBoardroom SX80: Selena Feliciano\, of Sf. Consulting Company\, and Anthony Khalil of the Baby’s 100 Point advocates. \nEach of these E. J advisors have been with the program\, from the beginning\, and they are about to start their third year with V. C. DC. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Early in the project the Ej. Advisors collectively created the foundational values. Of the program they include respect and protect communities whose voices have not been and still are not included in policy conversations \nBoardroom SX80: ensure that B. Cdc’s Decision-making processes are robust\, meaningful\, and equitable. \nBoardroom SX80: prevent harm before it starts and honor the work that has been accomplished and learned from previous mistakes. \nBoardroom SX80: We have worked to follow these values throughout our activities\, and even utilize them as part of our racial equity. Action\, plan process. Next slide \nBoardroom SX80: on this slide we have the overarching goals of the E. J. Advisors program created with the Ej Advisors. They include\, advance and recommend to the Commission how best to embed equity and environmental justice principles throughout Bcdc’s\, programs\, policies\, and processes \nBoardroom SX80: work with the B Cdc. Staff and Commission to develop metrics\, to track the implementation of such changes. \nBoardroom SX80: encourage commission of pointing authorities to select Commissioners and alternates who reflect the diversity of the Bay shoreline and inland communities. \nBoardroom SX80: increase strategies for a more diverse Workplace at Vcdc\, and develop a permitting and planning model that better incorporates meaningful and robust community engagement during development and permitting processes\, especially in areas most vulnerable to rising sea levels. \nBoardroom SX80: These goals are also aligned with our Ej and social equity principles\, our racial equity plan and our strategic plan. Next slide \nBoardroom SX80: over the past 2 years the Ej. Advisors have advised us on a variety of topics to achieve the aforementioned goals. \nBoardroom SX80: They hold monthly meetings and regularly participate in the Commissioner E. J. Working group meeting. They participate. \nBoardroom SX80: participated in a workshop on environmental justice concerns and the permitting process. Their advice on the permitting process continues. As we are working to implement some of their suggestions. \nBoardroom SX80: They also participated in drafting some of the original objectives in the racial equity plan participated in our October racial equity workshop\, and are expected to review\, and the updated draft when it comes out. \nBoardroom SX80: their activities included\, commenting on and making recommendations for the Cbo mapping tool and their most recent project has focused on planning a series of toxic tours for B. Cdc. Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: the plans for which we will\, we will be bringing to the next Commissioner E. J. Working group meeting. These projects are just a few examples of the work that they have done since the program’s inception next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: This contract allows us to pay our part of the contribution for the E. J. Advisor \nBoardroom SX80: program from the grant that we received from the State Coastal Conservancy for Bay adapt work. As I mentioned before\, the Research Legacy Fund is paying for 3 E. J. Advisors this year at a rate of $6\,000 per Advisor \nBoardroom SX80: B. Cdc. Is contributing an additional $74\,000\, which will allow us to pay for the additional advisors\, as well as raise the adviser\, stipend to $10\,000 per year. \nWe decided to raise their stipend to acknowledge that the amount and rate that they were compensated the first year was not adequate for their time and expertise. \nBoardroom SX80: With this contract they will be paid a $125 an hour for 80 h per year. In addition\, there is an opportunity for them to be compensated to participate on various bay adapting committees and host community events \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. This. \nBoardroom SX80: as I mentioned before\, the contract helps us to align the Ej Advisor program with Governor Newsom’s executive order to embed equity into State Government operations. Our strategic plan and the forthcoming racial Equity Action Plan. \nBoardroom SX80: As Chair Wasserman noted in his chair report\, we will be contracting with a facilitator to continue the development of the Ej Advisor program next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: In conclusion\, the staff recommends that the Commission authorized its executive director to enter into a contract of up to $74\,000\, with the Resource Legacy Fund to administer stipends to Bcdc’s\, Ej. Advisors pending approval from the Department of General Services. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. And i’ll take any questions \nBoardroom SX80: any questions from Commissioners \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy\, do we have any \nBoardroom SX80: public comment? No\, I see no hands for his chair \nBoardroom SX80: with no questions and comments. I would entertain a recommendation. Sorry \nBoardroom SX80: you did it all right \nBoardroom SX80: multi- \nBoardroom SX80: motion\, and a second to approve \nBoardroom SX80: of Commissioner Peters and Commissioner Kishimoto beats out commission\, on \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy. Call the roll\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner an enhanced Yes. Commissioner on \nEddie Ahn\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: Commissioner Erin. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner her \nPat Burt\, Commissioner: Yes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Jo. You \nJohn Gioia: I \nBoardroom SX80: Krishna Horn. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Hurry. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner has. Yes. Commissioner Moulton Peters. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: hey\, Commissioner Pauline. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, yes. Commissioner Shelter. Yes. \nCommissioner M. Mule. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner T. Shinoto. Yes\, Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Pascal\, Yes. \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: Commissioner Gallagher Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Manhattan. \nLenny Mendonca\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Hilmore. Yes. Vice chair. Eisen. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Wasserman. Yes. Did I miss anybody? \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Commissioner Gordon? Both. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. Thank you. And hold on a second \nBoardroom SX80: 21. Yes\, no\, no\, no abstention\, as \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Thank you. That brings us to item 10\, which is a public hearing and vote on the Us. Army core of engineers\, strategic\, shallow water placement \nBoardroom SX80: pilot projects that will place dredge materials in the bay to feed a marsh. Brenda Gayden\, our sediment program manager will introduce the item. Good afternoon\, Chairwasherman and commissioners. I am pleased to be here today to present to you the staff recommendation for Federal consistency\, determination\, c. 2\,022\, \nBoardroom SX80: 11 0 0 to pilot the placement of dredge sediment in the bay to support title marshes and the flats next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I \nBoardroom SX80: slides\, please \nBoardroom SX80: pardon. Okay\, perfect. And as described in the staff Summary and recommendation\, the pilot includes placing 100\,000 cubic yards of dredge sediment in 138 acres of subtitle habitat\, with the purpose of testing the ability of tides and currents to move the sediment upshore onto the whales tails\, marsh\, and mudflats. \nBoardroom SX80: The technique is considered a potential tool in sea level rise adaptation over time \nBoardroom SX80: mit Ctl and the Us. Army corbin designers will present the project in further detail\, but I also wanted to mention that this project has been several several years of the making. It began with Sfi and the Us. Army core of engineers\, along with the Ltms program managers working together 150 \nBoardroom SX80: on a strategic placement framework\, a document which outlined several techniques for supporting existing and restored title marshes with drug sediment. \nBoardroom SX80: The first technique was supported by the 2\,016 section 1122 word or Resources Resources and Development Act Beneficial Reuse. Pilot Project Proposal submitted by the State Coastal Conservancy and Bcdc. \nBoardroom SX80: The Us. Army Corps of Engineers accepted the proposal as one of 10 in the United States\, and the project team has moved forward. Since then \nBoardroom SX80: I have had the honor of working with the army core of Engineers team over the last year to make this project reality. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: The Commission’s mission today is to consider whether or not this pilot project is the minimum amount of fill necessary for the project under the Macintosh Act. \nBoardroom SX80: Whether the project is consistent to the maximum extent practical with its fish\, wildlife\, suspicion. Loud light sees the other organ\, or other aquatic organisms and wildlife \nBoardroom SX80: love that title marshes and mudflats\, water quality\, subtitle areas and dredging policies regarding pilot project and sufficient monitoring activities. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition\, whether or not the impact to the subtitle\, habitat and wildlife is justified by the need to understand this technique. \nBoardroom SX80: And lastly\, whether the project is consistent with the climate change policies regarding adaptation of natural areas next slide. I think that’s my last. So with that I’m going to introduce Rier Jan off with the army for of engineers\, and he’s going to present the project further. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello\, everyone! My name’s aria\, John\, often with the army\, for I’ve got a slide deck. I’m not sure if it’s you that. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I am a planner and environmental manager with the core with the San Francisco district \nand I’m. The planner on our strategic placement project. As Brenda mentioned\, we’ve worked closely \nBoardroom SX80: the Pcdc coast of Conservancy Water Board\, on developing and designing this project. \nBoardroom SX80: So if you could go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This is our project team\, thanks to our project team at you say at the Water board for our sqlite or non-federal sponsor. The coastal conservancy\, as well as technical support \nBoardroom SX80: and contracting support from anchor Qa. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So what is the problem that we’re trying to address. We have a sediment deficit. We have too little sediment in the bay currently in order to help supply ecosystems with needed sediment. To maintain pace with sea level rise \nBoardroom SX80: compounded on that climate change is worsening. Sea level change and sea level rise. So we have a number of marshes and mudflats that are drowning and eroding\, and we need to supply those \nBoardroom SX80: those marshes with sediment. So that’s a great opportunity. We\, the core. We dredge a number of Federal navigation channels. We have a large quantity of sediment that we can supply to help with clients and climate change. Adaptation across the bay \nBoardroom SX80: go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is a graphic to show how much sediment is needed. Moving forward over the course of \nBoardroom SX80: the next 7\, 70 or so years\, and how much sediment in the dark green in the pie chart we can supply\, based on current practices versus how much sediment would be needed\, and how much we can supply with changing management practices in trying to maximize our beneficial use of dredge sediment. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, taking that sediment and trying to adapt to climate change\, how much sediment is required \nBoardroom SX80: If you move forward on that side\, please \nthe \nBoardroom SX80: so. As Brenda mentioned\, this pilot project was \nBoardroom SX80: authorized under Section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act 2\,016. \nBoardroom SX80: The original proposal was put forward 50 million dollars for both direct and strategic placement\, and we’ve been funded to do both of those things. So this particular pilot project that i’m presenting on right now is the strategic placement portion. But we also have money available for the direct placement to directly \nBoardroom SX80: reconstruct ecosystems and wetlands across the bay. Go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the idea in a natural system is that we have a subtitle and intertidal environment where waves and currents can suspend and transport sediment up onto mudflats and onto marshes. \nBoardroom SX80: and that is\, in in a natural system that can maintain pace with sea level rise. Given that there is enough sediment that’s being supplied to the bay. But as I had mentioned. The problem is that we’re facing a lack of 7 supply. \nBoardroom SX80: So what we are proposing to do in this project you can go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: is because we have this sediment supply limitation. We’re going to be taking material from a navigation channel dredged nearby and placing it in the near-shore environment\, the subtitle environment \nBoardroom SX80: and timing it with the tides to take advantage of those waves and tidal currents. So it’s an engineering with nature approach\, and the idea is that that sediment will be able to make its way up onto the mudflats and marshes and help augment those by flats and marshes that are currently eroding or drowning. \nBoardroom SX80: As a result of sea level rise increased wave action\, erosion. \nBoardroom SX80: So this can help us build resilience \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of climate change\, resilience for these vital ecosystems to the day\, and also strategic placement. We’re we’re hoping to test this as a pilot to be a tool in the toolb so to complement direct placement to complement marsh spraying to \nBoardroom SX80: implement sediment column seating. Those are other types of engineering with nature techniques that we’re hoping to employ in the future to try to maximize beneficial use to the extent possible. If you can go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, since this is a pilot project\, we need to be able to determine how successful it is. So it’s a proof of concept. It’s a science experiment. \nWe’re trying to see if we can \nBoardroom SX80: deliver material from a navigation channel to a near-shore site\, and ultimately\, as I had mentioned\, up on to those mudflats and marshes\, if we can do so while minimizing environmental impacts\, minimizing impacts to biological resources and and \nBoardroom SX80: ecosystems\, endangered species\, and so on and so forth. \nBoardroom SX80: We also consider this to be successful if we avoid taking sediment out of the bay system this day that requires sediment in order to maintain pace with sea level\, rise rather than take into the ocean\, if we can keep that sediment \nBoardroom SX80: in San Francisco Bay and be able to reuse it and leverage natural processes; also a a big challenge that we’re currently working through is but successfully\, so far is being able to contract this. \nBoardroom SX80: So to build this into a contract and have it actually \nBoardroom SX80: be executed. It’s it’s been a really exciting process. I will say I’ve been with the court for a year\, and it’s been really exciting to see this moving forward. \nBoardroom SX80: And ultimately\, if this is a successful project\, then it can be\, as I mentioned\, a tool that we can use moving forward as we’re planning out for sea level\, rise adaptation for climate change\, adaptation that hopefully this can help augment those ecosystems that need that that sediment as a resource \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the the project phases some of the things that we’ve we’ve done. We started out with an initial site selection screening phase. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we moved into\, based on that\, and i’ll run through how we screened out about a dozen sites around the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: We had a sediment modeling exercise where we analyze 2 different locations determined what would be the most successful location for this pilot project. We have undergone all of our environmental compliance and permitting requirements. \nBoardroom SX80: and worked closely with the regulatory agencies. We’ve also had a number of of different outreach meetings\, meetings with stakeholders\, the dredging community with resource agencies\, also with tribes as well as community groups\, and we’ve gone out into the community and discuss this project as well and gathered feedback. \nBoardroom SX80: We have a monitoring plan that was developed alongside us\, Usgs\, as well as a contractor. I’ll get into that in a bit\, and then ultimately looking forward. We’re going to be contracting \nBoardroom SX80: the contracting process\, the solicitation and the bid will be the summer and the implementation the actual placement of material we’re hoping for this fall. So this dredging season in September \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So we started out with these 12 sites around the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and we used this list of criteria in order to screen down to 2 sites and reveal Crescent Marsh and Whales Tail marsh at Eden Landing\, Ecological reserve\, and our proposed action is \nBoardroom SX80: the whales tail near Shore placement offshore of \nBoardroom SX80: So we looked at whether there were marshes that were existing marshes\, whether those marshes were eroding and drowning\, and and left sediment supply \nBoardroom SX80: lacked the sediment necessary to keep pace if it was open to tidal exchange. If it had waves that were sufficient to transport material up onto those mud flats and marshes\, those near a Federal navigation channel. So\, getting to the point of of beneficially using that dredged material. If we could actually get \nBoardroom SX80: those scows that you know\, we’re transporting the dredged material close enough to the mud\, flat and marsh for it to be successful. If we can avoid any impacts to critical species\, endangered species\, biological resources. \nBoardroom SX80: including gale grass beds in your shore reefs\, and also protection for disadvantaged communities and her environmental justice. Considerations next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So when we narrowed down based on those screening criteria to Emoryville\, Crescent\, Marsh\, and Eden Landing Whales tail. Then we employed a modeling framework anchor\, Qa. We our contractor employed a modeling framework where we were looking bay wide at sediment transport processes\, and we \nBoardroom SX80: we tested 100\,000 cubic yard placement at different locations in these placement \nBoardroom SX80: grids that we’re showing here so shallow location\, medium-depth location\, and a deeper location \nBoardroom SX80: and the idea\, of the first round of of of modeling was to determine whether Emoryville Crescent or Eden Landing\, was the more potentially successful pilot for implementation\, and we determined that Ian Landing was going to \nBoardroom SX80: have a higher chance of success. So then we got into the details even further at Eden Landing\, and we looked at what if we have different volumes? If we tested 50\,000 75\,000cubic yards\, 100\,000. 125\,000We looked at seasonal differences. What if we place material in the winter versus in the summer\, based on differences in wind waves. \nBoardroom SX80: We also looked at different sizes of the place of footprint\, and also different source channels which affect the the grain size determines how the sediment is transported. So we looked at taking from from Oakland Harbor versus Redwood City Harbor. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can move to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a a sense of behind the scenes of the modeling. So we we had different bins on the left figure. I’m not going to go through all of the different bins. But we were tracking. Where is the sediment going from these placements? Is it going on to the title Flats? Is it going into the marsh areas. \nBoardroom SX80: Is it going into flood control channels? Is it going back into the Federal navigation channels that we’re dredging right? So we’re trying to maximize certain \nBoardroom SX80: metrics\, and then try to minimize other metrics here and then on the right you can see this is an output after 2 months of the model\, and it’s showing the thickness of deposition\, the thickness of that sediment that is depositing on the bay bottom. \nBoardroom SX80: And what we’re seeing is that a lot of the material is spreading out from the placement footprint\, and some of that material is going. \nBoardroom SX80: This is after a 2 month simulation. So if you extend it out. More\, even more material would make its way up onto those tidal mudflats and and the the salt marshes. And importantly\, the scale here is millimeter to centimeter scale\, which sounds small\, but it is on the \nBoardroom SX80: order of magnitude of the natural process\, and the way that so we’re not going to be entirely blanketing these ecosystems. The idea is that we are mimicking nature here. It’s an engineering major approach \nBoardroom SX80: So ultimately the the proposed action is placing in the near-shore environment. \nBoardroom SX80: as Brenda had mentioned\, between 9 and 12 seat and depths \nBoardroom SX80: tidally timed\, coming from Redwood City \nBoardroom SX80: Federal Harbor Navigation Channel\, placing here at the the the shallowest site possible in the summertime. \nBoardroom SX80: and 100\,000 cubic yards the next side\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and that was determined to be the most successful based on these different criteria. So we have Here we are tracking what percentage relative to the actual placement volume is making its way onto our target mudflats and marshes. So those are our maximizing metrics\, and then reducing how much sediment is making its way into flood control channels. \nBoardroom SX80: making its way back into the source channels. And ultimately we. as I had mentioned\, the 100\,000 cubic yard\, shallow eaten landing site\, showed the best chance of success for this pilot project to be implemented \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, of course\, as part of this as I had mentioned\, You know\, we’ve gone through all the environmental compliance and the permitting. We wanted to minimize impacts to endangered species and critical habitats. So this figure on the left here shows \nBoardroom SX80: the area over which we assume we expect from the modeling that they would be more than a millimeter of deposition. So we use that to help determine effects to physical resources and biological resources\, and so on and so forth\, you know\, across the board\, for all of our different compliance pieces \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And you know one of those just to zoom in eel graphs very important. Our placement footprint relative to where the eel grass resources are off of whales tail marsh\, surrounded by those 45 meter buffers\, so in green there\, and \nBoardroom SX80: the the placement footprint is approximately 2 miles west of the marsh\, and the water depth it’s super shallow there again between 9 and 12 feet when we’re at our highest high tides. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as you can see here\, the placement footprint is is pretty far away from those illegrass resources\, but we will be doing pre and post placement dealgrass surveys in order to ensure that we don’t \naffect these eel grass resources\, and that’s part of a broader monitoring effort. \nBoardroom SX80: So if you go to the next slide\, please. so our monitoring plan\, we don’t\, we don’t anticipate having \nBoardroom SX80: significant substantial environmental impacts as a result of this project. But in order to ensure that we don’t\, we’re going to be monitoring for Ill grass we’re going to be monitoring with Usgs \nBoardroom SX80: a a a number of different metrics\, in order to also help determine whether this project is successful. So we’ll be looking at how much suspended sediment\, what are the wave conditions. What are the existing mud\, flats and marshes? You know what? What’s the background? Erosion or deposition rate? And then ultimately\, what is this project helping \nBoardroom SX80: to do? Is it? Is it helping these mudflats and marshes to gain elevation? Or is there no impact? And then we also will have a magnetic particle tracking study in order to determine. Because we’re we’re trying to find a millimeter to centimeter scale \nBoardroom SX80: deposition here which is obviously going to be challenge challenging. We have a magnetic particle track and study that will determine where that sediment is going to see if we are actually getting it to our target. My. \nto go \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, in terms of our some of the coordination that we’ve done\, we’ve had stakeholder meetings with the dredgers. We’ve had resource agency meetings. We’ve had public meetings as part of our sequel scoping process\, and Nepa. We’ve worked with Cdf. W. South\, by Salt Ponds Statelands Commission. \nBoardroom SX80: Flood control districts city of Hayward. I was fortunate enough to go out to the city of Hayward Street Fair back in August of last year\, and talked to community members\, and there was a lot of excitement\, and is really awesome to get feedback from the local communities as well. \nBoardroom SX80: and we tabled with South Bay salpons. We’ve also conducted tribal consultations\, and we had a site visit in October of last year\, and they’re very excited about the project. \nBoardroom SX80: So go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So in terms of where we are in the environmental compliance. Timeline\, we have \nBoardroom SX80: most of our environmental permits in hand and we’re moving forward and targeting mid-april to have all of our environmental compliance \nBoardroom SX80: and and look forward to to your vote. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: where that fits in the broader scheme of things. We had gone out for public comment on our Nepa. \nBoardroom SX80: our National Environmental Policy Act\, and secret documents. Last fall\, September\, October. The consistency\, consistency\, determination\, request\, was submitted earlier this year. And \nBoardroom SX80: now you know\, we’re we’re here for a vote\, and our final approvals will be needed by April May in order to fit into the contracting timeline and actually executing this project. So\, as I had mentioned\, solicitation and bid for this contract will be the summer June\, July\, and ultimately implementations in September\, October\, November. \nBoardroom SX80: monitoring as part of that monitoring plan. They’ll start this summer in August\, and they’ll be doing pre surveys and then post-placement surveys after the project is implemented\, and then technical report and post data analysis reports will be produced \nBoardroom SX80: as a result to determine how successful this project is\, and whether we can use this as a tool in adapting to climate change and sea level rides moving forward. So with that I will take any questions\, and thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it. \nBoardroom SX80: Questions \nBoardroom SX80: from Commissioners\, Mr. Shaw. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. Well\, first a comment\, i’m just really delighted that this has gotten to this point. I served on the project management team maybe 10 years ago\, and I know we talked about this then\, and so\, seeing it come to \nBoardroom SX80: almost fruition this September. That’s that’s pretty exciting. One of the questions I wanted to ask you\, though\, is is about the shallowness that this equipment can work in\, because we also\, you know\, have a lot of salt ponds that are south of the Dunbar and Bridge\, where the bay is considerably less deep. I mean\, I think \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t know if there’s anything 10 feet deep below Dunbarton Bridge\, but most of its \nBoardroom SX80: more like 4 to 6 isn’t it. I think. Yeah\, it’s it’s quite shallow down there. Yeah. So so with this methodology\, if we’re successful here\, how we\, how would you adapt it to using to to further south in the bay\, where we have a lot of salt plants that need to be restored to marshes. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I I think that that’s where. If we\, if it is too shallow\, and we are unable to get scows in that close\, then that’s where we start thinking about other techniques. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s where we start thinking about. Maybe marsh spraying or water column seeding\, or there are other engineering with nature techniques that are\, you know\, being developed. I would also say\, just because I’m also working on our regional dredge material management plan looking day-wide 250 \nBoardroom SX80: the further south you go. There’s also less of a capacity for wind and waves to transport that material. So it’s also challenging on that front. \nBoardroom SX80: So I think that we have to look at like the whole portfolio of options\, and maybe strategic placement isn’t for every location in the bay. Right? It’s. It’s \nBoardroom SX80: strategic in terms of where we want to locate it. And You know we we have to adapt our methods based on the different sites. So I I do think south of Dumbarton Bridge will will probably be challenging. I wouldn’t rule it out. I think it just. It becomes more costly if we’re we’re operating in in very shallow water\, because we have to \nBoardroom SX80: have enough draft for the the tugs as well as the scows. Or maybe we have to consider a different way of getting material over\, maybe by pipeline. But then we also have to look at the environmental impacts of those different alternatives. Right? \nBoardroom SX80: Right? Well\, the other thing I I like to say is\, you know\, this is really augmenting a natural geologic process\, which is what you mentioned\, and I just want to share this story of \nBoardroom SX80: of observing the the the title flow in and out upon a 8\, which is the the pond that is pretty much at the bottom of the bay. So you know the for the south one\, and it was breached all\, maybe 10 years ago\, 8 years ago. I’m not sure. But anyway\, it was breached. \nBoardroom SX80: and the thing that I was so struck from \nBoardroom SX80: all measurements aside\, are the water that goes through that breach when the tide comes in and pushes it into that pond. It’s kind of the color of cafe o lay. \nBoardroom SX80: and then the water that goes out is pretty much crystal clear. So you know that process is bringing in a lot of sediment\, and and it’s just really. If you ever get \nBoardroom SX80: a chance to go down to Alvizo County Park\, you can. You can go and see that it’s it’s just remarkable \nBoardroom SX80: how you can really watch Mother Nature filling in those ponds so. But we\, you know we know that mother and a. There’s a lot of subsidence\, Mother Nature Isn’t necessarily going to fill them in as fast as we need them to be filled in. So you know\, these methodologies to augment are\, are really important. So \nBoardroom SX80: thanks for that answer. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you\, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this presentation. I’m very excited. This project. Isn’t: go forward. It is 2 questions. First\, you did. I understand you correctly to say that the implementation of this project. \nAndrew Gunther: which I assume means the actual deposition of segment will begin in this this fall if everything goes on schedule. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nAndrew Gunther: So. And and the wind and wave environment is fundamental to the distribution of the material Right? That’s where you get the erosion when you have the strong winds of waves. \nAndrew Gunther: And so i’m. I’m wondering about deposition if you deposit it during what is really one of the most classic periods in the bay. Then \nAndrew Gunther: are you counting on winter and spring wins to be then moving the material\, and you’ll be monitoring all the way through like next summer to see what happens. \nBoardroom SX80: I believe that at Usgs. So the monitoring efforts here are pre and post. I don’t recall from my head how many months post\, but I know that it’s part of a broader monitoring effort \nBoardroom SX80: around Eden Landing for Usgs. So I know that also\, like I’d mentioned for our regional dredge material management plan. Usgs monitoring will also. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, help to to determine how the sediment is moving\, especially at strategic placement locations here and potentially around the bay. But in terms of your comment on the the wind and wave action. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s true. You know it’s it. It was a a challenge. \nBoardroom SX80: This is this goes to the challenge of the contracting process\, the Dmo sediment\, so suitability\, determination will be coming in toward the end of May. So we need to\, You know. We needed to make sure that the testing schedule\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: delayed as a result of the atmospheric rivers. So some of these things had pushed the project back that were not exactly what we had planned\, because the windiest time of the year\, as you had mentioned in that part of the day. You know\, summertime \nBoardroom SX80: has sufficient wind and wave action. So our modeling effort was built around summertime\, and it was summer versus winter\, as one of\, as you recall\, one of the sensitivity analyses that we did in the second round of modeling. \nBoardroom SX80: and I \nBoardroom SX80: it’s it’s starting in early September\, so I think we can still catch some of the the windiness of summertime \nBoardroom SX80: to transport the material. But the modeling effort only looked 2 months out. \nBoardroom SX80: and the transport of material doesn’t stop after 2 months\, so the material will continue to be reworked\, especially into the winter months. \nBoardroom SX80: so I think it’s. It’s not the the you know. The ideal obviously would have been like earlier in the summer\, but as a result of the the the dredging and contracting schedule. It pushed it out a little bit. Yeah\, yes. And and I’m: I I recognize you’re dealing with multiple factors. I just the reason I asked\, is that \nAndrew Gunther: it is important\, I think\, for you to to help\, as we see the results\, help as we interpret the results that it. There’s a possibility\, given the fact that wind and waves\, and therefore our weather is really what’s going to be very important if we just have one year of \nAndrew Gunther: of of monitoring there will be. It’ll reflect\, whatever the weather was\, and I think that that when we evaluate this\, I want us to be as bold as we can in terms of understanding what’s happened\, so that we do not make \nAndrew Gunther: a a decision about strategic placement \nAndrew Gunther: simply based on a single year’s weather. When really a much more robust program over several years will help us understand the role that this technique can play in adaptation going forward. And I know that you’ve got one year\, and you’ve got all these other constraints. I’m not trying to say that\, should some different. But it’s. I just want you guys to anticipate this\, and I want all of us to understand there’s likely still to be some uncertainty when we \nhere back about the results of the project. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ecklin\, then Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: and then \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: thank you very much. Chair Rosterman. First of all\, Nevada at Hamilton. I watch and participate in the process all the way through the planning as well as the actual preaching of the levy. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: We got a lot of judgment here for the Court of Oakland that we used to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: make a wetland out of the runway out of Hamilton\, and very successful\, very successful. And they use pipes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: They\, because Sam Saint Pavlo Bay is pretty pretty shallow. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: My My question here\, though\, is\, Have Have you engaged the San Francisco at estuary partnership in in this experiment? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, we we have met with San Francisco for a partnership. \nBoardroom SX80: In this I would say it \nBoardroom SX80: again. I I wear a few different hats\, because i’m on a few different projects that probably on the the regional a project that I had mentioned to the Judge material management. \nBoardroom SX80: which I think you know this this is like a subset project of that broader effort. \nSo we have engaged with Sfp\, and \nBoardroom SX80: also a number of other nonprofit \nto the \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and you’re going to keep them involved in the project. As this moves along. \nBoardroom SX80: I think. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I think that’s that’s a great idea\, and i’ll certainly take. Take note and take it back to the core. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: I I really would encourage that because this this is going to be a good experiment\, and to see how much of the material does \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: actually help create some wetlands\, so I think it it could be implemented other ways as well in the bay if it is successful. Thank you. Great project. I’m. Looking forward to see it completed and brought back to us. Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you for the clarity of your presentation for the late persons among us. It was really helpful. \nBoardroom SX80: You mentioned direct placement as a sort of an alternate technique to this shallow water placement project. \nBoardroom SX80: What can you just sort of describe? Maybe it’s obvious to everyone else. But what is the benefit of shallow water placement over direct placement\, or or is it just a matter of direct placement? Will work. Some places \nBoardroom SX80: shallow water placement will work better other places. Yeah\, that’s a great question. I so direct. Placement is\, you know\, that’s very efficient\, and it’s great\, especially for areas that are subsided or below sea level that we need to rebuild marsh plane. And in those cases \nBoardroom SX80: strategic placement wouldn’t be a viable option \nBoardroom SX80: if you\, if you have an open water lagoon\, and you are trying to supply sediment to a marsh\, if the marsh doesn’t exist right the way that I see it. I like to think it analogies. It’s like a garden and a hose\, and direct placement is \nBoardroom SX80: building and planting your garden. \nBoardroom SX80: and then you have strategic placement to help it along the way to help supply it with sediment and maintain pace with sea level\, rise in areas specifically where there’s not natural sediment supply right? So it’s it’s a both approach in certain places. In some places direct placement is \nBoardroom SX80: the necessary option. In some places where marshes already exist you wouldn’t in. In that case\, maybe\, like a thin layer placement is another approach that we could take if the march is having trouble maintaining pace with seal. Arise. \nBoardroom SX80: or you can do the a strategic placement approach so as not to bury the existing marsh plane or marsh plants. So in that case\, if there’s a Mars cetera exists\, that’s kind of where strategic placement comes into play is. Now you’re watering your garden. \nBoardroom SX80: because if you don’t have enough sediment and sea levels rising\, and there’s wave action. You could ultimately lose that that marsh. But then the direct placement is important. \nBoardroom SX80: so I I don’t know what percentage of our bay coastline is mudflats and marshes\, but it sounds like to the extent that we have them\, and they are drowning as you described it. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s still a lot of you know where where the eel grass is. You know other things that would stand in the way of using this shallow water placement technique\, even if we \nBoardroom SX80: have the proof of concept that we’re trying to look for right. Is there a lot? If this turns out to be a good technique. Is there a lot of edges to the bay where this is going to be beneficial? \nBoardroom SX80: I I think that there will be\, but we would certainly avoid places where there are large ill-grass beds. That wouldn’t be a viable option. And we actually in the screening Of those 12 sites there was one. \nBoardroom SX80: I forget the name off the top of my head. But in North Bay that had a large ill grass bed\, and that was not considered \nBoardroom SX80: as a strategic placement location \nBoardroom SX80: moving forward for this particular pilot project. And then what techniques would we use in those places? \nBoardroom SX80: I \nBoardroom SX80: I I will admit. So\, coming from New Jersey. I don’t know that part of the day as well\, so I don’t know I can’t speak intelligibly to that particular location. I think if you give me 5 years I might be able to. \nBoardroom SX80: But but you but you think that if we can establish this proof of concept\, there is enough edges to the bay\, where you could use it successfully to improve the drowning situation. \nBoardroom SX80: I: yeah\, we that we do believe that. Okay\, Thank you \nso much. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Hawes. \nThank you. \nBoardroom SX80: This is following along on Commissioner Gunther’s seasonal question. Did I hear you correct? Is there a dredging season? \nBoardroom SX80: September through November? \nBoardroom SX80: Our Our work window ends at the end of November. Okay\, June to November tune in November\, 2 to November. Okay? And is that just because water flow out of the Delta\, or is it contractual? It’s just the impacts to species. And when species\, I think\, are migrating and responding\, okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Gotcha\, just because it did. It does make sense to place it during your window of dredging right because you’ve already got it loaded\, but it \nBoardroom SX80: going forward next year. Let’s say \nBoardroom SX80: I would agree with Commissioner Gunther like the earlier the better. Like as a Windsor for right it’s this: the constant wind every day it would seem like June July placement. You’re going to get a lot more out of right. So okay\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: As a surfer\, I can say\, yeah\, we. I we like to avoid the the summer season because of the way. But maybe I should take up kites from here Winter. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Mold and you you. You may have included this in your marks\, and I miss it. But when might we here\, back from you with results? Are we talking about a year or 2 years\, or what? Just what’s the timeframe? I believe that the the staff recommendation has \nBoardroom SX80: a year and a half. Yeah\, there\, there’s a timeline built in staff recommendation about reporting \nBoardroom SX80: requirements great. I’m. I’m. Very supportive of these kinds of \nBoardroom SX80: innovative ways to reuse sediment and to reduce judging costs\, and I hope that we help with \nBoardroom SX80: speeding permits along for you\, too. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I just have a couple of quick questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Did I hear correctly that included in this is one year of monitoring is Pre. And post monitoring. Yeah\, what i’m talking about post with i’ll do is that yeah \nBoardroom SX80: post is one year \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think that it’s one year later. I think so. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s one year I’ve monitored. So the monitoring plan\, which is currently in draft yet to be finalized\, has 3 months for certain portions of it\, and up to a year for one. \nThat’s the \nBoardroom SX80: okay \nBoardroom SX80: that there there’s a different period of time. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s not longer than a year ago for any portion. \nBoardroom SX80: And \nBoardroom SX80: in the same context of Commissioner Eisner\, I’m. Clearly a layman at this \nBoardroom SX80: it is. Is that really sufficient? I mean\, given what you’re talking about about the the course of wave and wind movement. \nBoardroom SX80: This is an experiment \nBoardroom SX80: We in the past have seen some experiments \nBoardroom SX80: where \nBoardroom SX80: monitoring a was not paid for. I’ll get to that in a moment\, and these certainly didn’t go on long enough so that we could get sufficient data to say. \nBoardroom SX80: how \nBoardroom SX80: replicable is this experiment? So I guess I could phrase it another way. Why was this range from 3 months to a year chosen for monitoring? Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: The modeling showed that most of the sediment moves in the first 2 months\, which is why the sediment modeling was within the first 2 months\, and we worked closely with Usgs\, and they have been working in that part of the bay for years now. So so they have a sense of how the sediment moves that that part of the day. \nBoardroom SX80: Excellent answer. Thank you. And I assume the cost of that monitoring is included in the budget. Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: if a question in Mr. Gilmour. Okay\, now\, I’m confused. \nBoardroom SX80: So I thought I heard you say that the modeling occurred for placement during the summer months\, when the the wind and the wave. Action was the strongest. \nBoardroom SX80: and then\, for reasons beyond everyone’s control. It’s going to be placed in September when the when and wave action isn’t quite as strong. \nBoardroom SX80: So how do we know at that later date \nBoardroom SX80: that it’s going to move within 2 months\, and not 4 months\, because the win in wave action is \nBoardroom SX80: not as great. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, but I mean it’s. It’s a fair question we did summer versus winter modeling. So in in the winter time. \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, winter is obviously different than fall\, but we did have at least a range of different modeling scenarios in terms of seasonality\, and I think that it’s \nBoardroom SX80: most of the material that is placed at a location. First of all\, it’s very fine-grained material. So when it comes out of the scal it will drop out\, and it will kind of pancake out. But that bump that is on the the bay bed\, which will be\, I mean. \nBoardroom SX80: you know. \nBoardroom SX80: centimeters to a foot high\, will \nBoardroom SX80: did in the scientific term\, diffuse it. It. It will spread out most when the gradient is highest. So I think so. The 2 months\, the assumption that most of the material would move \n2 months. \nBoardroom SX80: It will be affected by season. But some of those things are just related to the nature of placing material in a diffusive system that it wants to disperse the sediment \nBoardroom SX80: and and and get it back to an equilibrium state. \nBoardroom SX80: Does that make sense? Or did I get too technical there. \nBoardroom SX80: you know it. It makes sense. \nBoardroom SX80: But I guess my overall question is. \nBoardroom SX80: shouldn’t the monitoring be longer? Which is what I think a lot of people are trying to get at. Yes\, we know that whenever you place it for the reasons you state it\, it’s going to try to get to equilibrium. But if you’re talking about \nBoardroom SX80: when it’s going to spread the most to get to where we hope it’s going to get shouldn’t\, we be monitoring it a little bit longer. \nBoardroom SX80: So i’m going to just jump in here for a minute. So I think there’s a couple of things. So one the prevailing conditions in that area are land. \nBoardroom SX80: even if it’s not a high season so later in the year\, is not necessarily better\, but it’s not absolutely a failure for. \nBoardroom SX80: And then\, as far as \nBoardroom SX80: the monitoring period\, I think what you guys worked on was how much funding you had. So overall \nBoardroom SX80: the project got 3.6 million dollars from the Federal Government for the development\, the planning for permitting \nBoardroom SX80: and execution. \nBoardroom SX80: including the monitoring. And so \nBoardroom SX80: i’m sure that the army core worked out what needed to where\, as far as funding. But I think part of it\, the limitation is how much funding was allotted for the project overall. So I think that’s probably where the end goes. I’m sure longer. Monitoring would be better for sure\, because we don’t know exactly when all the sediment will move. \nBoardroom SX80: But there is a limitation on the funding\, and \nBoardroom SX80: no\, that’s that’s fine. Thank you. Thanks for answering my question. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haj: Thank you. Just to follow up. Is there timing on spending the funding\, and the question would be\, Why not just do it next? June? Just push it right forward and be at the absolute height. Probability of success. Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: I I. The project manager\, would be the person to answer about whether the funding will expire. \nBoardroom SX80: But what I would say is\, I know that it’s been delayed a year already. This is before I was at the quarter; but I think that \nBoardroom SX80: if if we don’t expend the funds\, and we’ve gone through spending all this money to go through environmental compliance\, environmental permitting coordination with resource agencies\, the modeling \nBoardroom SX80: and all of these components\, and then also building it into a contract currently that \nBoardroom SX80: you know it’s not that the money would be wasted because we’re learning things along the way. And this is a pilot program. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s it’s really it’s challenging. It’s a challenging environment to work in and to actually execute. This is this type of thing has been done like on the outer coast coming from New Jersey. They’ve done this. We’ve done this in the near-shore environment in the ocean\, but in the bay is so challenging. \nBoardroom SX80: I think\, like in an ideal world\, it would be great to delay it\, but I think that it would be challenging to justify. Having spent all of the money that we have spent on it\, which has not\, has been a not insignificant number of amount of which is part of the reason why\, as Brenda was saying\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: with the monitoring we were constrained\, and we had to fit it in. And actually\, I I think\, with the monitoring\, we’re actually getting like a \nBoardroom SX80: a great great product for the amount of money that we’re paying and a great time span. But to answer your question\, I think\, in an ideal world it would be great to postpone it. But I don’t think that that we can do that \nBoardroom SX80: at this stage. \nBoardroom SX80: If if the the project manager\, I know that you had meant to come to the meeting. If there is any limitation on when we can expend the money. \nBoardroom SX80: Then I can certainly check with him\, you know\, and that would be a reevaluation. \nBoardroom SX80: But I I know that there the also the attitude is we we would like to like if if you’re trying out something new. \nBoardroom SX80: it If you can’t do it even once you can’t like\, execute it. Get it into a contract and do it once\, then it’s it’s very likely that when you \nBoardroom SX80: be able to be won’t be as an option on the table in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: whereas if we do it once\, and then we learn from it. And we say\, actually\, you know\, we should do this instead. We should improve in this way\, then that makes it easier to to improve on our\, you know. \nSet back in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I just I would. I would say. \nBoardroom SX80: doing it at the height of probability of success. \nBoardroom SX80: So that you do get funded \nBoardroom SX80: right? Right? That’s yeah\, like \nBoardroom SX80: i’ll let you go. Yeah\, okay\, that’s my comment. Thank you. Bre Brenda also just mentioned. An important note is that Redwood City currently is getting dredged by annually. \nBoardroom SX80: so we might have to wait 2 years\, but I know that we’re. I think that the court we’re going to be transitioning to annual at some point. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: i’m going to entertain a short question from Commissioner Show. Also in the short question. It’s it’s just sent. I’m an open the public here. Okay\, it’s just it’s just a short comment\, and my comment is that if for some reason\, you see that the monitoring needs to be extended. \nBoardroom SX80: please let us know\, and we will. We will work on that. I don’t think anybody suggests. Well\, maybe they are. I I certainly am not suggesting that you put this off. I know how much trouble you’ve gone to to go through this laundry list of permits. It’s a huge task. So get going as soon as you can. But if you get to a point\, and you realize that the monitoring needs to go on longer. You know Don’t\, be silent on that. \nBoardroom SX80: Please share it with us\, and that’s what I would like you to take back as a comment from this commission. I hope that there are other people who feel that way is that\, you know\, if scientifically. You know. You see that you know you need to monitor for another 6 months. Let us know. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. I I was just asking about the \nBoardroom SX80: the purpose of this\, I guess there was some discussion of it. So one is that it isn’t working with Nature’s nature based. But is it also to save money as well. It it would be. It’s less expensive to \nBoardroom SX80: to deposit it. You know it rather than during during a direct deposit. \nBoardroom SX80: I I think \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s part of what’s going to come out of this pilot project is. How expensive will it actually be to place the material? And would we be able to realize the cost savings. So I think that would be a lesson learned and potentially be able to reduce costs in the future or not\, and we need to wait for the data to come back on that. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to open the public hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I have 2 public speaker cards. One is from John Coleman \nBoardroom SX80: appears to be ready. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m not eager\, thank you. Chair Watsman and commissioners. I’m excited about this\, and I hope that you do pass it today back in 2\,016. When we were working on the Water Resources Development Act. \nBoardroom SX80: It was a coalition of Epc. B. Cdc. The Coastal Conservancy. \nBoardroom SX80: the Pacific Institute\, and saved the bay that helped write the language for Section 1122\, which you’re going to be voting on right now. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, it’s a test\, but it’s a test to. We need to to look at doing things differently\, and I applaud the staff from B Cdc. And the agencies such as the core of engineers to be willing to look at\, doing something a little different \nBoardroom SX80: and hopefully it is successful\, and something that we can do more of in the San Francisco Bay. So I encourage your support for this. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Former Commissioner James\, with wrath. \nBoardroom SX80: The only time I could called James is when i’m in trouble\, and \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think i’m in trouble today. So\, Jim. Okay\, good good afternoon. I’m. I’m here in support of this project. \nBoardroom SX80: I I am not representing anybody but myself. I no longer spend my days thinking about sediment and dredging. \nBoardroom SX80: but some of you know that I had something to do with Cinema Baylands and the Hamilton project. \nBoardroom SX80: and before I started working on that I had hair\, and it wasn’t much darker. So \nBoardroom SX80: this is a good day. This morning at the coast of Conservancy\, they gave a grant to Valley transportation to take \nBoardroom SX80: the excavation material from the \nBoardroom SX80: digging of the tunnel and putting it on the bottom of the of the salt pawns. So it’s kind of like we’re trying everything\, and I was here at the beginning\, and I want to remind you just a little bit about the history of this \nBoardroom SX80: back at the state of the Estuary Conference about 30 years ago. I don’t remember exactly when Phil Williams came\, and he said\, we’re in and out of setup. \nBoardroom SX80: and you know I mean that was kind of a gobsmack to me. I i’m a sediment\, Guy\, said I’m a transport civil engineer you if if we’re running out of sediment we need to use it. \nBoardroom SX80: And his observations were followed up by really fine work\, by Usgs\, by Bruce Jaffe and David Shulhammer. That showed\, indeed Phil was right. \nBoardroom SX80: and and that for that \nBoardroom SX80: that was my mental outlook for 16 years at the Board of Oakland. How can we use the sediment \nBoardroom SX80: after we not throw it away in the ocean? How could we make it \nBoardroom SX80: ultimately not just a one off. That depends on Federal funding\, but something that could be done more routinely. \nBoardroom SX80: but it wasn’t just them. I’ve been in the job about 2 years\, when Jeremy Low\, and I think that was before he was at the Escort Institute and Michelle\, or suggested something not entirely different from this. But if if you\, if you recall the leading edge of the whale tale \nBoardroom SX80: is erosion. \nBoardroom SX80: and so what they suggested is placing near shore about the same area\, sandier sediment that would move \nBoardroom SX80: towards the shore and form a beach and slow down the erosion. So you know it’s time. It’s really time to try this and work on and and to the point of figuring out a way to do this\, so it can be done routinely \nBoardroom SX80: rather than requiring special authorization \nBoardroom SX80: by Congress\, which was required for the 42 foot project in the 50. \nBoardroom SX80: And then that final point I want to make. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I want to give kudos to the core when we did Sonoma Baylands I worked with Laura\, Marcus and Lee\, halterman of of Dylan’s office\, and the core was so difficult. It was like \nBoardroom SX80: like that. That old joke about about golfing\, you know\, Hit the ball drag Joe\, who died on the fourth hole. It was hit the ball and dragged the core. They are so different today. \nBoardroom SX80: The presentation was stunning. They hired Julie Beagle\, you know we didn’t have to get anybody replaced at the division office to make enough that which is what it required to make. Sonoma bail hands work\, so they’ve come across\, and they are truly your partner\, and then the final point I want to make is\, we know the physics. \nBoardroom SX80: I remember my old professor talking at at a beach nourishment kind of countries about waves. Certainly the waves are more significant in the summer. \nBoardroom SX80: but they’re always there\, and\, as Joe said\, they just pecked Joe Johnson\, they just pecked \nBoardroom SX80: to pick away edge. So the movement of the sediment is not going to stop. \nBoardroom SX80: and by that kind of monitoring with magnetic\, you’re going to find whether or not the sediment moved not precisely how much it’s hard to do that. But you’re going to find proof of concept. But we really know the physics. That’s how they can model it. \nBoardroom SX80: We know that the waves drag the sediment towards the shore. That’s how it works\, so I hope you approve this\, and I hope it works really well\, and \nBoardroom SX80: that’s why I’m here. Thank you\, Sir Peggy. Do we have any speakers remotely? Yes\, we have 2\, \nBoardroom SX80: Dean Stanford. Thank you for hanging with us now ahead and unmute yourself. Team. You have 3 min. \nDean Stanford: Thank you like Jim. I also wanted to bring up the \nDean Stanford: plan of dumping something like 3 million cubic yards of the Bart tunnel \nDean Stanford: soil into the bay. and i’d also like to know what’s the timeline on that is that going to be delayed until this pilot study is done. and i’d also like to suggest that the \nDean Stanford: proposed park on the bay in San Jose \nDean Stanford: could also use the beneficial use of the sediment. They are going to be restoring something like 800 acres. the sledge drawing pawns. \nDean Stanford: and could use the sentiment or the or the Vta tunnel dirt to cap the \nDean Stanford: sled ponds and create some kind of train for the park \nDean Stanford: to be used to raise the levy Berm\, around Pondy\, 18 for the park trail. \nDean Stanford: and also create Habitat Islands within the pond. \nDean Stanford: Also\, the park is located in the official disadvantage community. \nDean Stanford: Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: The we have 4 more now at \nBoardroom SX80: Karen. Hi! You’re next. Go ahead\, and you have 3 min \nCarin High: that afternoon. My name is Karen High\, with Citizens Committee to complete the refuge. I just want to say\, in light of the sediment deficit that exists for San Francisco Bay\, and with the threat of sea level rise to tidal Wetlands Citizens Committee is happy to support the proposed project. \nCarin High: We are encouraged to see reuse of suitable dredge material for the benefit of the bay ecosystem. We also feel that it is \nCarin High: vitally important that there is a robust monitoring program. We think that that would be crucial to our understanding of the impacts of the proposed project on the Benthic community fisheries and adjacent eel beds\, as well as \nCarin High: determining the fate of the sediment that is deposited\, and with respect to the biotic component. We’re wondering if that could be extended to more than a few months. We also are very happy to see the use of tracer studies when you’re talking about \nCarin High: a 1 mm increase in elevation. That’s very hard to track\, so it’s important that we have something like a tracer study to track the efficacy of onshore sediment transport \nCarin High: transferred. \nCarin High: and we are looking forward to tracking the progress of the proposed project. We recognize the results of this project will be specific to the conditions of this site. \nCarin High: but they may help reflying questions for future projects. So \nCarin High: yeah\, encouraged to see beneficial reuse. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Charles Schaefer. Go ahead and unmute yourself. \nHi! My name’s Charles Schaffer. I’m with the Sierra Club’s Day alive. Project \nCharles Schafer: We absolutely support the the experiment. \nCharles Schafer: And \nCharles Schafer: well\, for one thing\, we need to build up \nCharles Schafer: the marshes to the best extent we can\, because if we don’t do something to build them up. They’re going to drown as the sea level starts rising more quickly. \nCharles Schafer: especially that’s a case given that we don’t have much room around the date for the marshes to migrate. \nCharles Schafer: and it is absolutely critical that we \nCharles Schafer: extend the amount of marshland that we have around the bay. \nCharles Schafer: and without the \nCharles Schafer: doing anything \nCharles Schafer: like this. We’re actually going to lose that march\, and that’s not a good thing at all. \nCharles Schafer: One other thing to consider is that we don’t have a lot of time to be doing this and experimenting with this. we put this off \nCharles Schafer: it. It’s going to delay anything that we could possibly do with penalty. \nCharles Schafer: and we don’t have that time. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Chair and lost your \nBoardroom SX80: I. \nBoardroom SX80: We have one more. I hope they got that right. Go ahead and unmute yourself. You have 3 min. \nPat Ravasio: Hi! Thanks so much. Just a quick endorsement of this from the town of quarter Madeera. I’m. On the Town Council there\, and we have a climate adaptation group that’s looking seriously at how to protect our many\, many homes along certain roads from \nsea level rise\, and also many of our businesses. So this project seems really right on point for us\, and if there are other \nPat Ravasio: and people who want to do experiments\, you want to come and see what we’re dealing with. We would love to hear from you. So if there’s a chat i’ll put my email address in. But\, Bravo! I I actually came on to listen for something else. But i’m so glad to hear that this is going on. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Pat \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. No more public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner? Sorry. Peskin moves Commissioner\, Show all 2 s \nBoardroom SX80: because I was looking to My! \nBoardroom SX80: Is there any opposition to close in the public hearing? Seeing none? The public hearing is closed. A. \nBoardroom SX80: There were a couple of questions. If you want to address them briefly. I’m happy to have you do so. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s not \nBoardroom SX80: nobody’s raised in the questions from the public hearing \nBoardroom SX80: well the questions regarding Pond 8 8 or pound 18\, and the tunnel muck. So the Tunnel Muck Project that’s actually an official term. We’re not being derogatory about it. Muck is an official technical term. The Vta Tunnel is going to be connecting the Bart system in Lower South Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and there is approximately 3 million cubic yards of sediment coming out of that tunnel. We’re currently along with the water board\, looking at the additives. That will be added to that sediment to help make it slow nicely\, and also hold together\, and whether or not that would have any biological impacts being put in a salt pond. \nBoardroom SX80: we’re currently looking at along with the South bay\, salt ponds\, and the Us. Fish and wildlife service \nBoardroom SX80: ponds\, a 12\, a 13\, a 8\, and potentially a 14. \nBoardroom SX80: A 14 is valley water\, a 12 and 13 are part of the South Bay shoreline Project and pond a 8 as far as the South Bay Salt Pond project\, so they would be placed in \nBoardroom SX80: the current. Look is those 4 Pont\, and they’re looking at feasibility\, and a sequel document will be coming out later this year. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Any other questions or comments from commissioners. Before I ask for the recommendation and \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Washington\, we might need to get a request from the army core to accept the conditions. \nBoardroom SX80: That was part of what I said. \nBoardroom SX80: Does the Army court accept the recommendation? \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Alpha Nisha. I’m. With the Us. Army core of Engineers\, San Francisco district\, chief of Navigation Branch\, and on behalf of the \nBoardroom SX80: Us. Army Corps of engineers. We do accept the conditions founded because you see the germination. Thank you very much \nBoardroom SX80: recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Washington and Commissioners staff recommends that the Commission approves the consistency to determination actually concurs with the conditions\, the conditions i’m not going to be able to speak anymore today. The consistency determination by the Army corps of engineers that the \nBoardroom SX80: strategic aquatic placement project is consistent to the maximum extent practicable of the Commission’s San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone management program \nBoardroom SX80: conditions include working within the environmental work windows protective of species monitoring the site\, placement and the target site for success criteria and for impacts to the system\, as well as removal of sediment. Should the project prove to be \nBoardroom SX80: ineffective\, or cause more harm than the removal itself. \nBoardroom SX80: and that we recommend your approval and concurrent. Thank you. I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Bolton. Peter moves \nBoardroom SX80: the motion \nBoardroom SX80: seconds. I \nBoardroom SX80: sorry. Whoever was on screen. I apologize. You were beat by some one in the house. Is someone a reason to be in the house. If you want to be on the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy\, will you call the role Commissioner on? \nYes. \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: Commissioner Aaron. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Burt. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner her. \nBoardroom SX80: We lost him Commissioner. Actually \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy I\, \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Horn. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: I \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, he. \nAndrew Gunther: I \nBoardroom SX80: Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Molten Peters. Yes\, Commissioner. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, She’ll Walter. Yes. all right. Commissioner M. Here. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. Yes\, Commissioner Pemberton. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gallagher. \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: yes. \nBoardroom SX80: yes. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, and I think your speakers are. No\, it’s not. \nBoardroom SX80: Did I miss anybody? \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, Sorry G. \nBoardroom SX80: Did I miss anybody else just checking to make sure you paying attention \nBoardroom SX80: now? 21 yeses no no\, no abstentions\, for the motion is passed. Thank you for your work. \nBoardroom SX80: God speed! And may the project go. Well\, Thank you. Commissioners will report back with progress. That goes to item 11 public hearing and possible vote \nBoardroom SX80: on the flow. Equalization and resource\, Recovery\, facility\, Levy Improvements Project. \nBoardroom SX80: Say that fast by West Bay\, Sanitary District in Menlo Park. \nBoardroom SX80: Attic\, and Leiden\, our Resources manager will introduce the item. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Shirt Wassaman. Me just share my screen. \nBoardroom SX80: There we go. all right. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, Chairwosterman and Commissioners to day. I’ll be presenting \nBoardroom SX80: to you the application for the West Space sanitary districts flow Equalization and resource\, Recovery\, facility\, Levy Improvement Project. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll present a brief overview of where the project is located and set the stage for the Commission’s consideration of the application. \nBoardroom SX80: Following this\, I’ll turn the presentation over to the West Bay Sanitary District and their consulting team to present the details of the project. \nBoardroom SX80: Today we are joined by multiple staff from the Westpace sanitary district\, including Sergio Ramirez\, the general manager of the West Bay Sanitary District. \nBoardroom SX80: as well as Ferrer bores. He\, Art Hadari and Jed Bear. Then from their consulting team we have SW. Ca\, which includes Lauren Huff and Ben Snyder and the team from prayer\, and Laurietta includes Lorraine\, 2\, and Fernando Monroy. \nBoardroom SX80: As mentioned today\, we will be discussing the flow equalization and resource\, Recovery\, facility\, Levy Improvement Project Project site is located in the southern part of San Mateo County\, off of Bay Shore\, Freeway and marsh road in the city of Menlo Park. \nBoardroom SX80: The map on the right shows the project location which is directly adjacent to Bedwell Day\, Front Park in Menlo Park. \nBoardroom SX80: The map to the right shows the current. They plan\, designate a priority\, use areas that are around the project site which is shown by the red outline \nBoardroom SX80: priority. You series include the adjacent at Well Bay Front Park\, that is\, in a designated waterfront Park beach prior to you Syria\, as well as Greco Island\, which is in in a designated wildlife priority use area and part of the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, the project site itself\, again shown in the Red. is not located within a bay plan designated priority use area. \nBoardroom SX80: and I also just quickly point out on this map that there it also shows the existing and planned Bay trail near the project site \nBoardroom SX80: B. Cdc’s current jurisdiction within the project area is shown on the figure to the right. \nBoardroom SX80: The site is approximately 30 acres in size\, with about a little over 5 and a half acres of the site within the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, which is shown by the pink dashed line\, and approximately a little over 6 acres within the 100. But and that’s shown in the hatched area \nBoardroom SX80: a 100 feet inland from the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: West Point slew is located to the north of the project site\, and floods flu is located to the west. Additionally\, there are 3 open air overflow basins that are used for overflow capacity for the wastewater conveyance system\, and also shown in this figure. \nBoardroom SX80: There also are many existing habitats on the site that should be noted. There’s title\, slews\, title\, Mud flats\, title Marches and Upland Rural habitats present the specific site\, details\, or the speaks Sorry. Excuse me\, the specific details of the project will be described by the project team\, but generally the project involves levy improvements along the western and northern perimeter levies which include the installation of sheet pile walls into the existing burns\, and raising the elevation of the perimeter levies to 15 feet \nBoardroom SX80: any Vd. 88\, \nBoardroom SX80: constructing an ecoton levy slope on the outboard side of a portion of the existing northern perimeter\, Levy\, setting back a portion of the northern perimeter levy to create new tidal marsh habitat and installing oyster Reef elements along the northern point of the project site along West West Point slew \nBoardroom SX80: this project is an interesting one for the Commission’s consideration. Today it’s the first one of its kind that’s coming before the Commission\, where the specific goal of the project is to provide trolling\, protection and flood flood protection as well as sea level\, rises in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: particularly with including habitat elements that will actually be constructed out into the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: The the Commission has in the past authorize the construction of ecotone levies and habitat transition slopes. But typically these have been authorized in areas of di valence or in former ponds that are not subject to tidal action\, but that were opened up to the bay at a later time. \nBoardroom SX80: So this project is different in that regard. \nBoardroom SX80: I will also quickly note that the project has been approved by all other regulatory and resource agencies Except for B. Cdc. And the Us. Rb. Corps of Engineers. \nBoardroom SX80: This shoreline protection project for this facility could have been accomplished simply by using traditional sheet pile walls and raising the levees. However\, when the applicant began talking with agency staff. \nBoardroom SX80: There was a request that the applicant assessed whether nature based options were feasible to use for shoreline protection. After receiving this feedback\, the applicant reassessed the project design\, and determined that construction of an Ecotone levy was feasible. \nBoardroom SX80: and in addition to placing some oyster reef habitat structures around the site. the applicant then presented the project design to the agencies\, and the ecotone. Levy had a more gradual and covered\, or a more gradual slope\, and covered a larger area of the outboard title Marsh. \nBoardroom SX80: The agency staff had concerns about such a large area of impact on the outboard marsh\, and requested that the applicants look at whether it was feasible to set back any portions of the levy further into the project site to minimize the impacts on the existing marsh. The applicants responded and identified that a portion of their levy near Basin 3 \nBoardroom SX80: could be set back into the basin to allow the creation of new marsh habitat\, and that the slope of the Ecotone levy could be made to be 20 to one. To further reduce the near term habitat impacts and provide long term benefits while still maintaining required capacity for the overflow facility. \nBoardroom SX80: This is the project that you will hear about from the applicant shortly. This panel on the left of this slide shows the modeled habitats and what they will look like in 2\,070\, \nBoardroom SX80: and it compares those various options that I talked about. So on the top. There’s the sheet pile wall only option in the middle. There’s the larger ecotone levy that was originally shown to the agencies\, and the lower panel shows the project that you will hear about today at 2\,070\, with the habitat\, provided. \nBoardroom SX80: I also want to mention that the Commission did previously approve construction of a habitat transition zone slope out onto existing marsh and against the Vallejo sanitary district. Facility as part of the Us. Fish and wildlife service project to improve a portion of marsh habitat along the mouth of Sonoma Creek. \nBoardroom SX80: The transition that zone levy for that project covered approximately 10 acres of marsh\, and it was reduced that was actually a reduced footprint from the original project design. After discussions with Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: that project was again specifically done for marsh\, reduce mass\, march restoration and enhancement\, and had a different purpose on the project before you today\, which is shoreline protection with natural nature-based options. \nIt’s \nBoardroom SX80: so to to set a little bit of a site context before the applicants present. \nBoardroom SX80: The project site is located about 0 Point\, 8 miles away from the nearest residences\, and according to the Commission’s community vulnerability\, mapping tool\, and the 2\,020 census data\, the project site itself is not located within an area that has \nBoardroom SX80: any sort of score for social or contamination vulnerability. However\, many of the surrounding areas and areas serviced by the facility are identified as areas that have moderate to high social vulnerability\, and also a low to high contamination vulnerability depending upon the location. \nBoardroom SX80: So in this map the darker areas of\, or the darker great colors actually show higher areas of social vulnerability\, and the applicant will also briefly discuss environmental justice in their presentation. \nSo \nBoardroom SX80: So the facility itself is currently located within the 100 year flood zone\, and the existing burns around the perimeter of the facility you do not prep provide current fema accreditation or sorry. Do not meet current fema standards. The current Berm elevations range from 10 to 12 feet\, and a Vd. 88 \nBoardroom SX80: and will be raised to about 15 feet\, and a. V. D. 88\, as I mentioned previously. The table on the left of this slide is the flood protection or flood elevations table that staff often use to understand the potential for coastal events and projected sea level rise to lead to overtopping and inundation of a site. \nBoardroom SX80: This table compares the current lowest elevation on the site at around 10 feet\, and a. Bd. 88 to the proposed levy height of 15 feet\, and a. Bd. 88 \nBoardroom SX80: over. Topping in this table is is actually shown by the blue shading in the cells\, the darker the blue\, the greater the water depth over the infrastructure. \nBoardroom SX80: as shown. You can see the current levy Berm system is susceptible to overtopping even today\, at a 50 year storm event. \nBoardroom SX80: and the project itself is designed to meet fema accreditation requirements\, and would be resilient to extreme tides. Sea level rise and wave conditions through 2\,050\, which you can see is indicated by there being no blue cells present at the year\, 2\,050 for the proposed project elevation. \nBoardroom SX80: and then at 2\,070. The still water elevations indicate that there is not likely to be overtopping on a daily basis\, or even during a 100 year. Extreme tide event\, however local wave effects may lead to some overtopping \nBoardroom SX80: the relevant Bay plan. Policies for Commission’s consideration when evaluating this permit application today include the policy policy sections highlighted on this slide which include tidal marshes and title flats\, subtitle areas\, fish\, other aquatic organisms and wildlife water quality\, environmental justice and social equity. \nBoardroom SX80: climate change\, shoreline protection safety of fills and public access. \nYes. \nBoardroom SX80: so the primary issues raised by the application and by the project are whether the project is consistent with the Macate or Petrus act and the relevant a plan. Policies by including the minimum fill necessary for the project. \nBoardroom SX80: Whether the design of the nature-based shoreline protection is appropriate for the site. Whether the near term impacts of the project are outweighed by the long term benefits of the project. whether the project includes appropriate protections for bay resources and is appropriately designed to be resilient to future extreme tides and sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: and whether the project provides maximum feasible public access consistent with the project. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes staff prejudice\, presentation. And here\, to present the details of the project\, is Lauren Huff\, or Sorry Sergio Ramirez from the West Bay Sanitary district Lauren huff from Swca and Lorraine to from prayer and Loretta. \nOkay. \na second. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: it’s \nBoardroom SX80: all right. Good evening. Commission. This is my name is Sergio Ramirez. I’m. The general manager with West Bay Sanitary district born and raised in the Bay area. So the area native. \nBoardroom SX80: born in Stanford\, Stanford Hospital\, and raised in North Fair Oaks Redwood City. \nBoardroom SX80: Pretty much the project area that we’re talking about today. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have a presentation that’s coming up? Okay. Yeah\, just 1 s. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, it’s getting it’s a little slow. \nBoardroom SX80: Thursday afternoon. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, we’re good. \nBoardroom SX80: all right. So this is. This is an exciting project that West Bay is undertaken. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll mention that Westbury Sanitary district was established in 1\,902\, as the Menlo Park Sanitary district\, and as our sanitary district expanded to cover and provide more sanitation needs for the community. We changed our names in the eighties or so to West Bay Sanitary district\, but we were. We have been around since 1\,902\, serving in an environmental capacity in one way or another. \nBoardroom SX80: If you can go to the next slide \nBoardroom SX80: today’s agenda\, it will be discussing the the project needs and purpose\, and then the project design overview of the project impacts and then \nBoardroom SX80: select project\, Select project Measures monitoring\, which is very important that we’ve heard here all day today\, which we have a plan for and funding\, and then adaptive management\, and then we’ll open it up to questions and and answers \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So in prior to to the \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: at the beginning I should just start 1\,902 wastewater\, just like in many other communities\, would go down to the nearest creek and stream\, and actually flow right into the bay. That was common practice all over the bank. \nBoardroom SX80: So in the 19 thirties or so\, 1940 S. We started building treatment plants to serve as a treat treatment before we released wastewater into the bay. So that was a huge undertaking\, and we did it in 19. In the 1940 S. We acquired this property here\, this parse\, 20 anchor parcel. \nBoardroom SX80: We built the publicly owned treatment plant where we treated waste water so it would no longer flow up or down. The flood slew there on the left of the screen and into the bay\, we would actually capture it in pipes\, and then treat it. That started in 1\,900 fortys\, which caused us to build the original levy. \nBoardroom SX80: and then \nBoardroom SX80: and then i’ll go on to some some more \nBoardroom SX80: history. But this is the project site\, which is covered nicely by staff. These are These are areas of underserved communities there in the in the Redwood City area\, and then East PAL\, Alto and and others East mental park \nBoardroom SX80: and one more slide. So we are sensitive to the\, to those to those areas\, one being a local\, a local\, and then another. Having my parents live adjacent to this park in the the \nBoardroom SX80: In the Menlo Park district. \nBoardroom SX80: In the 19 eighties we converted\, we actually invested in a regional treatment plant called the Silicon Valley Clean water plant\, which you you may be familiar with. \nBoardroom SX80: We helped build that facility\, and then at the same time\, we converted this facility from a treatment plant to a flow equalisation facility\, where we are able to hold roughly 18 million gallons or so of raw wastewater. Whenever the treatment plant is overcome \nBoardroom SX80: by rich stormwater\, so we’ll actually divert flow into the site \nBoardroom SX80: again\, protecting the bay from from from exposure to weight to to waste water. \nSo the the we’ve been doing this since the 1980 S. \nBoardroom SX80: Through these storms\, as you can imagine\, we the Silicon Valley clean water treatment plant. Folks had to divert waste water to these ponds several times throughout the throughout this year’s storms \nBoardroom SX80: in the night\, and the so to just briefly describe the current Conditions Pond. One is our holds. About 10 million gallons of raw wastewater pond. 2 is an emergency emergency facility. That’s there. Just in case pawn. One is full. \nBoardroom SX80: We hadn’t had to use that in about 10 years\, but this year we actually on the New Year’s eve storm as it’s been mentioned. We actually had to \nBoardroom SX80: overflow into pond\, too. Luckily we had Ponto there to hold this waste water back during New Year’s day. Within a couple of days we diverted it back to the treatment plan and and processed it properly. \nBoardroom SX80: Right now we have a warehouse there in the middle of the picture that where we store equipment\, construction\, equipment\, and things to do\, pipeline\, replacement projects and things. \nBoardroom SX80: We also have the part portion of it as that decommissioned plant. We still use the operations room of the treatment plant as our field or secondary corp yard. We have about 12 members of the crew that report to that facility. \nBoardroom SX80: and then also down at the bottom left of that picture is the native plant nursery run by\, save the bay. So we’ve partnered with them\, and they’re actually they have it. We let them borrow a piece of property there. I think they were. We leased it for a dollar or something like that\, but they’re using it\, and they’ve been able to grow plants in this area in this nursery and then \nBoardroom SX80: use them in other areas of the bay\, which is a. Really\, we think it’s a nice partnership. \nBoardroom SX80: We have a stockpile in those green areas of some fresh soil that we plan on use to use for this project to raise our levy and protect the site. And \nBoardroom SX80: so in the ninth\, in the 2\,010 S. Or so we noticed that during king tides. \nBoardroom SX80: The water started getting closer and closer to the top of our of our levy. \nBoardroom SX80: and\, as you can see\, just in the just basic nature of this facility protecting the site is a matter of public health. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s just we’re. We want to protect the bay\, and we also want to protect the facility\, of course. So we’re doing both. Next picture our next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Another thing\, this one. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: we’ll leave it up. We’ll describe it. Well\, thank you. Thank you\, surger for that. Hello\, everyone. My name is Lorraine\, too\, and I’m Prior in Loretta. \nBoardroom SX80: a little of us. Thank you by me. \nBoardroom SX80: all right\, as I said\, my name is Lorraine to and i’m with fire in Loretta. We’re a consultant for West Bay sanitary district. So\, to demonstrate the purpose of this project. We share this photo taken by West Bay Sanitary district in 2\,017\, where it shows \nBoardroom SX80: Flood slew. Starting to come and overtop the levy into pond 2 \nBoardroom SX80: so. and to add to that raising the levy is a priority for West Bay in particular\, as you’ve heard from Sergio\, and we’ve come up with a valuable way to protect the site and create shoreline resiliency next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So in this slide here you can see that we’ve prepared an animation\, model of the inundation of the sites during 100 year\, events in the year\, 2\,073\, without any of the it\, without this project at all. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So our project itself. The design is described in this graphic. Here it’s \nBoardroom SX80: the goal of the project itself is to protect the area from flooding\, and to provide nature-based design and shoreline protection. The project attempts to balance near-term impacts with long-term gains associated with sea level rise resilience \nBoardroom SX80: The design includes both gray engineering as well as the nature based design\, including a sheet pile system to the west and the north. We also have raising the grades at the entrance of the fur facility. The sorry west-based facility to the south at Marsh Road. \nBoardroom SX80: and also to the northeast at Bedwell\, Bayfront Park the site also includes\, as mentioned before\, coming up. The project \nBoardroom SX80: includes coming into the site for about 739 feet of shoreline\, which helps create more tidal marsh. And we’re also featuring creation of \nBoardroom SX80: more marsh area to the north and then towards the point. There you’ll see that we also have quoister reefs as living shoreline. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Speaking of levels. \nBoardroom SX80: Speaking of the oyster reefs\, as mentioned earlier\, the project proposes these to not be the type that I think most people are familiar with seeing what these voicemail reefs that are like more of a ball formation. These are pre-fabricated such structures that are bid to createable they are. \nBoardroom SX80: They are comprised of locally sourced bay mud as well as fabric material and concrete. They’re meant to stay lower to the ground\, but above the bay mud to allow for vegetation to to still grow. \nBoardroom SX80: and as they degrade over time\, the hope is that the oyster shells will remain and start to create that structure and substrate for future oysters. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this slide also shows a rendering\, and of what happens with the project \nthat’s like something \nBoardroom SX80: so very different from the earlier slide where you saw the entire site inundated. This project is doing what we want it to do\, and that’s protecting the facility and protecting the the park to an extent \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So these graphics are somewhat familiar\, but just to point out the top slide there. On this slide the top figure shows what the project is\, with just the sheet pile system\, and the image below shows it with the sheetball system and the ecotone slope\, the colors themselves\, the the the purplish color is open water\, the brown is mud flat. \nBoardroom SX80: the green is the marsh salt marsh\, and there’s yellow for upland. And so\, in comparison you could see with the without the egotone slope we actually the biggest impact is\, you’ll see less of the the tile marsh \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as Sergei had mentioned\, the site is a very active site with the with the daily operations from day to day. It it’s because of that\, and in and to keep it safe\, you know it’s restricted. But as part of this process\, and working with Vcdc. We recognize that there’s a there should be some some elements of that. And so\, in working with the city of Memo Park\, West Bay is going to include here a viewing platform of sorts. \nthe site off of the northeast\, so that the Ecotone slope can be viewed. It’ll include a bench and interpretive signage. \nBoardroom SX80: and with that i’m going to turn it over to Lauren to talk about. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi! Good afternoon. I’m Lauren huff with Snca\, and just a \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, repeating some of what’s already been said. Really\, this project aims to really balance the near term impacts with long-term resiliency the slide you saw just previously\, with the habitat migration. The other option was really to just install the sheet pile walls and raise the levy which could have been the project. \nBoardroom SX80: The agencies showed some interest in having this nature-based solution\, and\, in fact\, they were the ones who originally suggested it in West Bay\, sanitary district took that to heart and really tried to come up with a project that would provide that nature-based solution\, and also allow them to have their site protected from flooding. \nBoardroom SX80: So I think at this point we’ve arrived at a pretty good balance of those near-term impacts and long-term \nBoardroom SX80: resiliency the ecotone slope. So on this slide i’m really just focusing on bay impacts. So I just want to point that out because there will be impacts to uplands as well. But i’m really focusing on those bay impacts and the ecotone slope really only impacts \nBoardroom SX80: permanently point one approximately 0 point\, 1 one acres of of habitat. We have avoided impacting any of West Point slew. So this is really just dendritic channels and mud flats as well as salt marsh. \nBoardroom SX80: and then temporary impacts are approximately 1 point\, one acres\, and then there’ll be a coffer dam\, right at the limit of that disturbance\, to isolate the work area from waters\, and also exclude wildlife species while construction is going on\, and that shouldn’t really add any additional impacts\, but it will\, You know the sheet piles will be driven in at low tide \nBoardroom SX80: right at that limit of disturbance\, and then there’ll also be approximately 1 point\, one acres of oyster reed habitat that you saw at that northern point. \nBoardroom SX80: In order to offset those permanent impacts we’ll be creating \nBoardroom SX80: approximately point 6 5 acres of salt marsh habitat in the uplands\, and I also just wanted to point out that we are still leaving Point 2.6 6 acres of habitat in place\, and will not be disturbing that existing habitat \nBoardroom SX80: slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So the project is subject to numerous permits\, and these are obviously not all of the measures associated with those permits. We. \nBoardroom SX80: the During implementation there is going to be a list of permit measures that will have to be implemented from B. Cdc. Us. Army Corps of Engineers\, Regional Water Quality Control Board Us. Fish and Wildlife Service. Noa Fisheries at State Lands Commission in city of Menlo Park as well\, and these are just some of the select measures\, just to show that you know loss of habitat and species are being considered and will be protected \nBoardroom SX80: during construction so obviously creating that wetland and upland habitat is to offset those near-term impacts conducting pre-construction surveys biological monitoring environmental trainings ensuring the site is excluded during construction\, so no species can enter the work area and then adhering to seasonal restrictions. \nBoardroom SX80: And then\, finally\, the project does have a very robust adaptive management and monitoring strategy. It will look at vegetation\, elevation\, shoreline\, position\, water\, level and quality\, dendritic channel\, evolution and erosion of both onsite \nBoardroom SX80: habitat as well as nearby habitats\, and then also the oyster reefs\, and these will be monitored consistently throughout construction\, in order to track any changes and address any issues immediately. \nBoardroom SX80: And then there are also triggers that will \ncreate a \nBoardroom SX80: a point in time when we would have to look at what’s going to happen\, whether or not we’re on track and implement adaptive management\, and the monitoring plan has some adaptive management recommendations\, but also includes a lot of agency coordination during that time\, in order to ensure we’re really adapting the project appropriately. \nBoardroom SX80: The monitoring will go on for 10 years for most elements. \nBoardroom SX80: I believe the oyster reef monitoring may go on a little bit longer\, and the regulatory agencies will be involved during that entire time. \nBoardroom SX80: And with that I will hand it back to staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. That concludes our presentation on the project. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: I will now open the public hearing on this matter. \nBoardroom SX80: Any member of the public who would like to speak. I don’t have any cards from people in the audience. \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy\, do we have anybody raising their hand on Zoom? \nBoardroom SX80: You have 3 min. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. First of all\, congratulations on being the first to to the eco-tone slope levy I know. That’s also a plan for pond to 18 \nDean Stanford: i’d like to know more about. Why\, Why\, you can’t have a trail around the perimeter. There was a safety issue. \nDean Stanford: I know there’s a there there is. There was a It’s all around Sunny whales\, water treatment plant pawns \nDean Stanford: and \nDean Stanford: the loss of the 9 Mile Bailey trail of out of county partners in \nDean Stanford: huge loss. \nDean Stanford: Maybe this could help mitigate that. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, sir. Next\, Peggy. Thank you. He \nfor me. \nBoardroom SX80: Karen high\, and then Gina Tab\, go ahead\, Karen. \nCarin High: Good afternoon\, Karen. High Citizens Committee to complete the refuge. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. \nCarin High: Let me start by stating we we have actively supported ecotone levies and the use of nature based solutions instead of gray infrastructure wherever possible\, to provide resilience for the bay ecosystem and our communities. \nCarin High: This project is neither of these\, and we strenuously object \nCarin High: to the project being identified as an ecotone levy. We urge B. C. DC. To remove this phrase from any permit authorization issued. Continuing to describe this flood control\, Levy as an ecotone. Levy sets a dangerous and negative precedent \nCarin High: of authorizing the disturbance of high value. Tidal Wetlands under the guise of implementing nature based solutions. The proposed project violates the intent and foundational definition of an ecotone levy\, which is\, that the toe \nCarin High: of such a levee begins at the high tide line and moves landward. From there the intent is to provide existing tidal wetlands space to migrate as sea levels rise by contrast \nCarin High: this project begins well below the high tide line lying damaging existing wetlands. \nCarin High: The proposed project will introduce physical disturbance to over an acre of high value wetlands by being constructed on top of an amid an area of mature stable tidal wetlands that support State and Federal listed species. \nCarin High: The staff\, the staff report acknowledges that the norm for construction of ecotone levees is within Dyke Baylands salt ponds\, or in areas not directly exposed to tidal action. \nCarin High: In contrast this project will be exposed to tidal action and subject to wind and storm-driven waves. \nCarin High: Our concerns are not only focused on the risks associated with erosion of the constructed slope. \nCarin High: but as important the potential for significant adverse impacts to the adjacent wetlands\, including Greco Island\, part of the Refuge. For these reasons we expect B Cdc. To commit to closely following the progress of the project \nCarin High: during and post construction\, it will be imperative that any adverse impacts to the extent of title wetlands adjacent to the project be quickly identified and remedy \nCarin High: in an era where scientists and the environmental community are advocating for the use of nature based solutions instead of great infrastructure to provide sea level\, rise\, resilience\, authorization of the proposed project as an ecotone. Levy sets a dangerous precedent. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Tina. You’re next and then Charles Schaefer. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re a hand\, Gina. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Hello! Can you hear me? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, go ahead. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Great! \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Thank you. Chairman Westman\, and and the commission \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: i’m Gita Dev and I’m. Speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club\, Loma period\, a chapter \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: as well as the 3 Chapter Sea Level Rise Committee. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: as I \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: would like to note\, as Karen hided that we very much support nature based adaptation \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: in every project. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: However\, in this project we \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: we were encouraged to see that nature-based adaptation was being considered. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: However. we want to point out \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: that it is not what we expect when the \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Ecotone levy is actually placed on top of existing tidal wetlands\, which are very valuable. which are important for habitat. It’s right adjacent to Greco Island\, which is part of the wildlife refuge. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: This will be very very disruptive\, and we see no reason why \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: the Levy and the Ecoton could not be placed within the property line of the project. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: If they say it\, that it was not possible earlier\, however. Later on we found that they were moving part of it backwards into the property\, as the agencies \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: protested. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: and but we do notice that the Eir did not even include the possibility\, and that may be one reason why they are not looking into it more closely. But there should be no reason why the capacity of the existing fonts could not be increased by raising the height of a levy\, for example\, so we are very concerned \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: that this \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: which is being presented as a nature-based adaptation is really destroying \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: habitat\, which is very mature and adjacent to a very sensitive area. We also wanted to point out for B. C. DC. The that that the trail \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: the trail is not very well\, being considered the signage that is considered just not really provide for \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: the people who are using the trails \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: to know that they will be reaching a dead end. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: and they will have to turn back. These are fairly long trails\, so we do expect that the whole issue of signage and the trail need to be examined further. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: including parking for all the construction workers which would take up the very limited parking that’s there now. And finally\, i’d like to point out that a helicopter \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: right next to the Greco Island is not an ideal location for a helicopter. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: and simultaneously the oyster reefs Don’t seem to have any scientific basis. Thank you very much. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Wasserman. That’s all the public comment in it. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. We have no more public comments. \nBoardroom SX80: I would welcome a motion and a second to close the public hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, absolutely \nBoardroom SX80: sorry. Show altar moves molten. Peter’s seconds. \nBoardroom SX80: Is there any objection to closing the public hearing. seeing none? \nBoardroom SX80: The public hearing is closed \nBoardroom SX80: now. \nBoardroom SX80: Comments or questions from Commissioner. So \nBoardroom SX80: i’m going to go to this screen first\, uncharacteristically. But I have \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gallagher\, who is \nBoardroom SX80: a new voice\, so we we will honor \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: thank you\, and thank you so much for the presentation. I think I just want to come around in terms of some of the things that were mentioned in public comment\, and see if we could get a a little bit more of an understanding of how this project is \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: echo toned nature based\, You know we did hear some comments around that\, and whether that this actually meets those definitions\, and so I personally need some help. But around that if someone could do a little bit of \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: more explaining there. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, maybe I can start\, and then I can turn it over to the project team. \nBoardroom SX80: I actually do have a slide if you would prefer to see it written. But the San Francisco Estuary Institute’s adaptation Atlas does have \nBoardroom SX80: definitions for what is considered an ecotone levy\, and so i’ll just read that really quick. So Ecotone levies are gentle slopes or ramps. \nBoardroom SX80: with a length and height ratio of about 20 to one or gentler award of the flood risk management levies and land of a tidal marsh. They stretch from the levy crust to the marsh surface\, and they can provide wetland\, upland transition zone habitat. When they properly vegetated with native flonal grasses\, rushes\, and sedges. \nBoardroom SX80: They can also attenuate waves\, provide high tide refuge for march wildlife and allow room for marshes to migrate up slope with sea level rice. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s the definition. I can certainly pull it up if you’d like to to see it \nBoardroom SX80: as we have the discussion. But i’ll also just point out in the same section of the adaptation Atlas\, where they describe ecotone levies. They do recognize that these are\, you know\, transitional zone habitat areas. They can provide a additional flood risk management. \nBoardroom SX80: They say that they’re largely untested in terms of them actually being constructed and built out into the bay\, and that potentially\, they would require considerable volumes of material to construct with high costs\, and that in many places their construction could require. Filling the bay lines\, which is highly regulated \nBoardroom SX80: is is kind of the discussion on that particular type of adaptation strategy. So I think the Ssei adaptation Atlas does at least envision that some of these structures would be built out into the bay on potentially existing valent habitats. \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s your computer. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m. Following along on Commissioner Gallagher’s question. I I guess i’d like to understand a little more \nBoardroom SX80: response to the question about the Ecoton Levy this project\, and whether it is impacting \nBoardroom SX80: the existing wetland\, or just how it fits into the strategy and the long-term strategy as well. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I can certainly start and then turn it to the project team. So \nBoardroom SX80: the project\, I mean\, could have accomplished their goal of flood protection without including nature\, based options or habitat elements. That was something. Our shoreline protection policies and the Bay plan do advise that people and projects should first look at nature\, based options and see if they’re feasible. When they first came to the agencies to discuss the project\, they they hadn’t done that\, and so naturally the agencies say\, consider Nature based options first. Please take a look. So they did\, and they went and designed an ecotone levy slope that was much \nBoardroom SX80: larger in terms of the area of impact and extended pretty closely\, I think\, out to West Point slew. So it impact almost the entire area of March that’s outboard of the levy\, or a pretty significant portion of it. \nBoardroom SX80: All of the agencies kind of had a pause with that\, and had some concerns\, and so did ask about\, you know\, setting the levy back\, reducing impacts further. And so that is kind of when they went and reassessed\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we still even include these habitat elements\, and they decided to still include them\, but also have habitat benefits of setting one portion back and allowing title marsh to be created in that area to kind of offset that near term temporary impact for the next few years\, because it’s going to take some time before the Ecotone \nBoardroom SX80: fully vegetates and can buy can provide the same like habitat functionality. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you\, Mr. Chairman. 2 questions. One is about the Oyster Reef. \nAndrew Gunther: I have been under the impression that in the South Bay. It was very challenging to establish choice to reef because of the presence of oyster drills\, parasites on the oysters\, and I wondered if there was any information about that \nAndrew Gunther: where they good plan for the eventuality of not being able to establish the oysters. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. So I mean\, I can certainly turn it over to them. But the there will be a monitoring plan that requires\, like\, we said\, 10 years of annual monitoring for these structures. They have not currently done any testing to see about\, like the recruitment or levels of recruitment that they might achieve at the site. It does \nBoardroom SX80: look like from some of the literature and guidance documents that have been provided\, that there are oysters that could be present in the South Bay in terms of recruits\, and that they might recruit to the structures\, but \nBoardroom SX80: how long they actually might stay\, or if there’s other issues\, such as the oyster drill that you mentioned is not known at this time\, so it would be something that would have to be closely monitored\, I think\, annually. \nAndrew Gunther: So. So this is proposed \nAndrew Gunther: really as a test of using this kind of nature based \nAndrew Gunther: wave attenuation structure\, I mean\, we don’t we don’t Really. \nAndrew Gunther: there’s no there’s no this is never been done before. At this in this part of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, to my knowledge\, I don’t think it’s been done in this part of the bay. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay\, I can. \nBoardroom SX80: If i’m in my loves. Okay\, so I can just add that really this came about because we have niff with funding for this project. And Niffliffe really wanted to see this living shoreline component added to the project. And we do actually think it would be a really \nBoardroom SX80: add some value to the structure over there\, you know\, if it works. So I think that’s really where it came about\, and it is not actually necessary for the engineering of the project based on the modeling. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay. But this will\, this will in essence give us a test of of utilizing this kind of structure in this part of the bay. Yes\, okay. My second question has to do with \nAndrew Gunther: the sediment. In the presentation you mentioned that there is sediment already on site that can be used to construct \nAndrew Gunther: the the the slope for the levy is is that all the sentiment you need? Or are you going to be needing to find sentiment from other locations as well? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, go ahead so for the for the bay\, for the Ecotone slope portion of it we would only need on-site sources. So we would be using the Bay mud that’s been over excavated to create the Ecotone slope\, and then there’s a stockpile on site that would also be used. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay\, Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Maybe i’ll just add to. There’s gonna be a thin layer of of the bay sediment that’s native. So sediment that’s going to be placed on top along with the Marsh saw to try and \nBoardroom SX80: make the vegetation effort happen much more quickly. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Kishimoto. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Well\, well\, first of all\, thank you for being some pioneers \nBoardroom SX80: in in in this nature based solution. So yeah\, I and I I\, You know I did read the extensive comments that came from the the committee\, for to complete that \nBoardroom SX80: refuge\, and \nBoardroom SX80: I think you know they. So \nBoardroom SX80: I got some some of my questions answered\, but maybe to me maybe some of it might boil down to \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. I’m looking at like pages \nBoardroom SX80: 11 or so where they kind of looked at the wording \nBoardroom SX80: of You know the mitigation\, etc. And so some of it comes down to May versus shell. So \nBoardroom SX80: so so for those of you who don’t have it in front of you\, for example\, they talk about. \nBoardroom SX80: If adverse impacts to the bay are identified during the monitoring period. then compensatory mitigation may be required. \nBoardroom SX80: And would it be possible to change that to shell. \nBoardroom SX80: so that you know\, to reassure during the monitoring period. Because it is\, you know\, it is kind of experiment in the first time that we’re \nBoardroom SX80: really doing this on the scale \nBoardroom SX80: that it’s not just monitored\, but \nBoardroom SX80: the \nBoardroom SX80: public. and can be reassured that there they will. There will be steps taken. \nBoardroom SX80: Let him staff. Think about that. I don’t know if you have any response right now. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, we can certainly add that. I think that is kind of the intent of the language. I think the project team would agree to that as well. But it’s kind of to them to say\, Are you talking about the special conditions\, each one and this kind of the subsequent \nBoardroom SX80: right right there’s yeah\, there’s some \nBoardroom SX80: several conditions. I mean several places on those same pages\, 10 \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, 10\, through 1011\, 12. There’s a number. So so let’s not let’s not. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s be very clear \nBoardroom SX80: about the exact condition. Okay\, and the exact language. Okay\, Given that this is being done on the flaw\, I see. Okay\, all right. Well. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m depending\, you know\, on the homework that was done by the the committee to complete the refuge. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that so i’ll start by looking at page. It says additional comments. It starts on page 9\, but I don’t think there’s anything there. \nBoardroom SX80: First\, one might be on page 10\, so special conditions. H: One mitigation areas. So additional compensatory mitigations shall be required instead of the may \nBoardroom SX80: again. Which special condition? Okay\, it’s\, let me say\, oh\, it’s it’s the it’s it. It must be kind of an introductory paragraph. \nBoardroom SX80: If you’re reading the same letter I’m. Reading. Then there are old headings above each paragraph. That is what we need to know. Okay\, Well\, the first one doesn’t have a letter after it\, says H. One \nBoardroom SX80: mitigation areas and habitat creation \nBoardroom SX80: at the bottom of page 10\, and then and then it goes on to more specific special conditions. H\, one C. Let’s hold it. H: One: okay\, and make sure that the \nBoardroom SX80: staff and \nBoardroom SX80: the applicant know that what? You are talking. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, and so it’s the red. It it is the it is the red \nBoardroom SX80: red line. That’s a \nBoardroom SX80: I apologize for that. for the red line there that says shall be required to offset temporal losses of high value. Title\, wetlands and Tidal Flats habitat. \nBoardroom SX80: Is that is that what you are talking about? Yes\, okay. Well\, well to me\, yeah\, I mean that I think the more important thing is\, shall rather than may I got you. And the second is\, you know this\, the the adding\, the phase about offsetting temporal \nBoardroom SX80: losses is\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: So so so you’re You’re restricting your suggestion to changing May to Shall in that sick. Well\, yes\, I mean if you want. If we can add that second part\, it’s a second. It’s a second priority. But I I think the most important to me is there. There. There are times when this happens. \nBoardroom SX80: but we need to be very careful when we’re doing this from the dais and and in the hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m. And by asking what your proposed. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: I Well\, to keep it simple\, then I would. Yeah\, just change to shell. Let’s take that one from me to shell\, and that’s for just special condition. H: One. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, that’s where I’m: I can go to others. We’re gonna take them one by one. Come okay. \nBoardroom SX80: next second one. \nBoardroom SX80: Consult amongst yourselves\, and give us an answer for me. Hey! What we’re looking at\, and i’m asking for an answer. We’re looking at the same thing that we agree we’ll change May to the shop from May to shall special condition. H. One third line in the letter page 10. \nBoardroom SX80: The May will be struck. The shell is in red\, and that is the change. Is that is that correct for everybody? \nYes. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. One down next one. Okay? \nBoardroom SX80: Well. yeah\, next one would be \nBoardroom SX80: H. H. One \nBoardroom SX80: ye or oyster reefs \nBoardroom SX80: if the success approved success criteria not met by the end of their monitoring period \nBoardroom SX80: from it \nBoardroom SX80: shall be required. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t. And \nBoardroom SX80: so let’s just make sure you’re only talking about the Shall you not talk about the phrase after that goes to agencies. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I mean other other Board members may suggest it\, but i’m i’m just trying to. I’m trying to just keep it as simple as possible. So you so just to make sure that I understand\, and that our staff understands\, and the Commission understands. \nBoardroom SX80: Your A met Year’s proposal is to change the word may to shall. That is the only change to h one. E. Oyster reefs. That’s correct. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Can we agree with that? Thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, and the next one would be the next paragraph. \nBoardroom SX80: If the success criteria in the final a. M. M. And P. Are now method and adaptive management actions shall be required. \nBoardroom SX80: so do I take it that it’s the same as the one above it. That we that you would change may to shall\, and that would be the only change in that paragraph. Special conditions. H: One: F. Geomorphology. That’s correct. \nBoardroom SX80: We agree with that. Okay\, thank you. And then next paragraph is special conditions. H. 5 adaptive management. \nBoardroom SX80: If any adverse impacts to the bay are identified during the monitoring period\, then then \nBoardroom SX80: compensatory mitigations shall be required. So the only Apollo just Commissioner\, just like we do the same thing again. The only change you are recommending is from May to shall in that paragraph nothing else. \nBoardroom SX80: But yes\, okay\, just to be clear. Yes\, so we can agree to that. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: And I I think that’s it. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Any other comments. questions\, suggestions. \nBoardroom SX80: See? Oh\, i’m sorry\, Sanjay. Yeah\, I just want to say I I agree with those suggested changes\, and then wanted to ask. \nBoardroom SX80: Do any corresponding changes need to be made in the findings section or anywhere else. The documents track that \nBoardroom SX80: I think potentially\, I think Staff would have to go through and and look at the findings. But we can make those changes \nBoardroom SX80: to reflect that \nBoardroom SX80: may I make a recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: you may\, which is\, that when the recommendation is made by Staff \nBoardroom SX80: that the recommendation include reference to the I believe it were 4 changes that were made and direct staff to make parallel changes as required in the findings of the permit to align the findings with those changes. \nBoardroom SX80: So be it. \nYes. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no other hands. \nBoardroom SX80: We will now take the staff recommendation \nBoardroom SX80: with the \nBoardroom SX80: amendments as articulated by the executive Director \nBoardroom SX80: on the basis of Commissioner Kishimota’s suggestions. \nYep. \nBoardroom SX80: Up. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Just a second. Here. I’m: going to share my screen again. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. So on March thirtieth you were mailed. The staff recommendation for the flow\, Equalization and resource\, recovery\, facility\, Levy Improvement Project. \nBoardroom SX80: The staff recommends that the Commission approved B Cdc. Permit application 202-20-0100\, with conditions to authorize the project. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition\, staff are requesting to make revisions that were male to you this morning to the staff recommendation and the permit\, which includes a change to the area of coverage for the oyster reef habitat \nBoardroom SX80: from 0 point\, 1 one acres to 0 point\, 1 8 acres\, which was discussed during the presentation today\, and to clarify that the temporary copper dam for the project covers the same footprint as the eco-tone levy. \nBoardroom SX80: These changes would require updates to the permit to specify that the total temporary fill for the project is 1.3 acres rather than 1.2\, 2 due to that increase in the oyster reefs which we did talk about today. \nBoardroom SX80: The staff also requests that the Commission allow the staff to make minor type of graphical grammatical and non-substantive corrections to the permit\, and we will also be sure to include the changes to those special conditions\, which were 2\, \nBoardroom SX80: 2\, H\, one to \nBoardroom SX80: h\, one e\, or H. Sorry\, h\, 3\, e. \nBoardroom SX80: 2\, h\, 3\, F. And I believe 2. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s 5\, 2\, H. 5 is the last one. as condition. The staff believes that the project is consistent with your law and Bay plan policies\, and with that we would recommend that you adopt the staff recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: I would recognize. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you and I’d be happy to make the motion to adopt that staff recommendation as amended. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Do I have a second. So. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, show all 2 s. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any other hands\, Peggy\, we call the role\, please. Okay\, Commissioner on the and Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Erin. He \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Akland \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: bye. \nBoardroom SX80: I \nbye. \nBoardroom SX80: What did you? I’m Sorry\, Commissioner \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: I Commissioner\, he. \nAndrew Gunther: I \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Walton Peters. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Pauline. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Rancho. Yes. Commissioner show Walter. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Muell. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kin Shimoto. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pemberton \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Epstein \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Mandara. \nLenny Mendonca\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gilmore. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Vice chair. Eisen. Yes\, Chair Walserman. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. Did I miss anybody? \nBoardroom SX80: 18? Yes\, no no one abstention. It passed. Thank you very much congratulations to the applicant \nBoardroom SX80: at this stage. There’s a lot of work to do. \nBoardroom SX80: and we are. \nBoardroom SX80: I. You recognize the executive director. I just want to say that that it’s not often that the last time somebody makes a presentation as a staff member to BCDC. That you have to go through a process like we just did. And I just want to say\, on behalf of all staff that we are going to Miss Onik and terribly\, and we look forward to your deciding to become a B C. DC. Staff member again at some point in the future. Thank you. And I’m. I’m \nBoardroom SX80: that line or extending that line\, if you like. I have thanked\, and the Commissioners who are here for being here. I want to thank the staff for being here in terms of making the presentations. That makes a big difference as well. \nBoardroom SX80: So we thank you very much for doing that. \nBoardroom SX80: We are not going to take up items \nBoardroom SX80: 12 and 13. We will take them up at future meetings. \nBoardroom SX80: You got saved from a bunch of rhetoric from me. \nBoardroom SX80: but you’ll get to hear it in the future on it. It’s one of those items. With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haz moves commissioners as franchise seconds. \nBoardroom SX80: Anybody want to oppose that one. Anybody want to abstain on that one. \nBoardroom SX80: The motion passes\, we are adjourned. Thank you all for your attention and your efforts. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-6-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230406T103000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230406T120000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230407T060720Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231213T024458Z
UID:10000082-1680777000-1680782400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 6\, 2023 Financing the Future Working Group and Rising Sea Level Commissioner Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022).  To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterBoard Room\, First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84651614882?pwd=NEZxcnJxNXUyamE0VVpXNVdJc01yUT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID846 5161 4882 \nPasscode035450 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nBriefing on Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding and Investment Framework The Working Groups will receive a final presentation summarizing the conclusions of the BCDC/MTC-ABAG Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding and Investment Framework study. The Framework is a high-level analysis of the anticipated costs of adapting to rising sea levels and possible sources of revenues to meet those costs.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald @bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Bay Adapt and Regional Shoreline Adaptation PlanThe Working Groups will receive a briefing on the progress of the Bay Adapt initiative including the development of a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan. The briefing will include an overview of leadership groups\, goals\, and the work plan.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald @bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/04/04-06-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, all\, and welcome to our \nBoardroom SX80: P. Cdc. \nBoardroom SX80: Workshop. On financing the future and rising sea level. we are this morning combining 2 working groups. \nBoardroom SX80: You can envision it as where the dollars need to see. \nBoardroom SX80: And as we know\, and as we’re going to hear\, we need a lot of dollars in order to avoid meeting the sea in places where we really don’t want it to be. \nBoardroom SX80: This is one of the very important milestones\, I think\, in our efforts \nBoardroom SX80: to figure out how we are in fact\, going to adapt to rise in sea levels \nBoardroom SX80: in the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: I suspect\, because I cannot help myself that I will have a number of things to say during the morning. But at this moment i’m going to turn it over to \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy to get us started. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. I’m gonna take her all \nBoardroom SX80: here. Vice chair. Eisen \nBoardroom SX80: here\, Commissioner on \nEddie Ahn: here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joya. \nJohn Gioia: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gory. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Fine \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, she\, Walter \nBoardroom SX80: here Commissioner\, left for went. \nBoardroom SX80: having a hard time today. Sorry I’ve been up since 4 30\, Did I miss anybody? \nBoardroom SX80: Nope\, it looks like you have 7 commissioners here. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Sorry. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. I thank you for those who are here in person\, and for those of you who are participating remotely. \nBoardroom SX80: I know I urged everyone to participate \nBoardroom SX80: in person\, both for this and for our commission meeting this afternoon. \nBoardroom SX80: just because we need \nBoardroom SX80: for these important things to get together as much as possible. But I also appreciate. There are \nBoardroom SX80: distance and travel and environmental reasons that support participating remotely. \nBoardroom SX80: So who’s going to start the Dana. Take it away. \nBoardroom SX80: please. Great. Thank you. So we will just jump right in our first agenda. Item is our financing the future agenda item\, which is a presentation on our funding and investment framework that we have been working on with Mtc. A bag. \nBoardroom SX80: So i’ll reintroduce myself. I’m Dana Breckwald\, i’m the assistant planning director for climate adaptation with B. Cdc. And I’m. Joined here today by Rachel Harder Phyllis\, the Resilience planner at Npca. Bag and I also want to. You know that Dave Button\, assistant Director of Major Plans is also here as well. \nBoardroom SX80: So let me get my screen set up. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. So as I mentioned. We’re here today to discuss the conclusion of our sea level rise\, adaptation\, funding\, and investment framework. And this project builds off of major regional planning efforts\, all of which have called for a priority action to fill knowledge gaps in the adaptation funding space. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as a result\, we kicked off the framework here at the bark governing board in December. 2021\, and we’re back here today to conclude the project and summarize our final findings. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as we introduce the final findings of the framework. It’s\, of course\, always important to put them in context. The bay area is defined by its relationship to water with iconic beaches on the outer coasts. \nBoardroom SX80: waterfront parks across the region\, with cliff sides\, wetlands\, playgrounds\, and more vast wetlands and diverse habitats. \nBoardroom SX80: and maritime culture. And commerce \nBoardroom SX80: We also have diverse shoreline communities\, such as bustling downtowns\, tight-net residential neighborhoods\, cozy beach towns and industrial job centers \nBoardroom SX80: spanning across the bay the delta and the outer coast \nBoardroom SX80: and winding across the region\, of course\, are also transportation and infrastructure networks which line the shoreline\, both connecting us to one another as well as supporting the region’s economic vitality. \nBut rising sea levels puts this all at risk. \nBoardroom SX80: So to day we’ll be spotlighting the framework findings on key financial estimates to tackle this challenge\, but it is also important to keep in stake what’s at. \nBoardroom SX80: Keep in mind what’s at stake with sea level rise\, adaptation\, and what adaptation could mean for the people and places that we care about so deeply. \nBoardroom SX80: So i’m not going to go into a deep dive on climate change. I’m sure You’re all familiar with the numbers. But\, needless to say\, sea level rise is happening already. \nBoardroom SX80: The shoreline is already aided\, and is higher than it was at the beginning of the twentieth century\, and coastal flooding is commonplace with king tides and extreme storms\, as you’ve seen over this past winter \nBoardroom SX80: by 2050\, we could be living with 12 to 32 inches of more more of permanent water\, with much\, much more by the end of the century. \nBoardroom SX80: although there’s still a lot of uncertainty at this point. But what we do know is that while this is a California wide coastal issue\, it will be felt most acutely here with 2 thirds of the statewide impacts occurring in the Bay area. \nBoardroom SX80: So clearly there is a need for significant adaptation action to occur in the region\, or we lose much of what we love in the Bay area. It’s not possible to quantify every benefit of adapting Iconic shorelines and the diverse communities that live behind them. But we can spotlight some elements of what’s at risk as waters rise \nBoardroom SX80: first. It’s estimated that 200\,000 jobs and 75\,000 homes may be at risk. \nBoardroom SX80: including over 12\,000 of the vulnerable homes that are in the areas. The region’s most socially vulnerable areas as defined by BCC’s community vulnerability data. \nBoardroom SX80: A regional perspective on this on this issue can ensure that everyone has the opportunity to adapt\, regardless of capacity level. \nBoardroom SX80: And in addition\, we have vulnerable acres at risk\, including the region’s\, rich\, diverse wetlands and tidal marsh habitat. \nBoardroom SX80: while 85 billiondollars estimated\, is at risk in terms of the assessed value of parcels. \nBoardroom SX80: our critical infrastructure will also be exposed. \nBoardroom SX80: These estimates can be mitigated with coordination or multi benefit solutions adapting vulnerable transportation networks with elevation or realignment could cost up to 150 billiondollars. \nBoardroom SX80: Other infrastructures\, such as wastewater and public utilities\, will also be extremely costly To adapt \nBoardroom SX80: adapting to Isentide’s Bay area\, which B. Cdc. Released in 2020 painted a region wide picture of the sea level rise risks\, including areas where there’s a nexus of critical regional systems\, all exposed to flooding. At the same time. \nBoardroom SX80: We call these hotspots\, and they are included. They include areas where transportation\, infrastructure\, vulnerable communities and jobs\, in housing growth or priority development areas or priority conservation areas are all co-located meeting that they pose a significant shared risk for the region. \nBoardroom SX80: but They also represent opportunities where the shoreline adaptation could provide multiple benefits at once. \nBoardroom SX80: Some of these areas are exposed early on\, like Santa Fe Quarter\, Madeera and Martinez\, while others become exposed later on. \nSo let’s keep these hotspots in mind\, as we consider where investments may be prioritized in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: I also want to emphasize here that while there will be a so need for significant investment on the local level by cities\, private landowners and developers. \nBoardroom SX80: local action will not be enough to meet the needs of sea level Rise\, adaptation\, cities\, face tough trade offs in adaptation\, and most critical in the context of this project. Without a region wide approach. We risk competition between cities for funding\, funding\, only going to high capacity cities. \nBoardroom SX80: and we may actually miss adaptation in critical locations like the hotspots you just saw\, because we’re not collectively agreeing on funding priorities. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, just like cities can’t solve sea level rise problems on their own. Our regional agencies also need to coordinate\, to provide the most effective solutions. No single agency has all of the authorities and capacity to address adaptation solutions from all angles \nBoardroom SX80: Over the past several years B. Cdc. Has been coordinating with Mpca. Bag and the San Francisco asteroid partner to align our respective regional plans and coordinate on implementation of the key tasks that we’ve identified. \nAnd this collaboration is the foundation for this Project \nBoardroom SX80: B. C. D. C’s primary plan that informs our steel of a rise work is our Bay Adopt joint platform\, which was published in 2021\, \nBoardroom SX80: and the joint platform contains 9 actions and 21 tasks that overcome barriers\, and paved the way for faster\, more equitable adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: It doesn’t specify shoreline projects but instead\, lays the foundation for more responsive engagement and community-led planning consistent and accessible information\, coordinated and aligned plans. \nBoardroom SX80: projects that hit the ground with fewer snags and more funding and a collective way to measure the region’s progress. \nBoardroom SX80: And I specifically want to call out at Action 6 here\, which is\, figure out how to fund adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: This project helped us to achieve the first task under this action\, which is to expand understanding of the financial costs and revenues associated with regional adaptation and help set the foundation for the next 2 tasks. \nBoardroom SX80: And then\, lastly\, I just want to remind this group that the joint platform is informed by guiding principles that we created with our stakeholders that you can see here. I won’t. Read them at this time\, but just keep in mind that these principles can help guide any future decisions as that we\, as a region make about how we fill the region’s Funding gap\, which you will hear about next. \nBoardroom SX80: So at that i’ll turn it over to Rachel to introduce you to the project and its findings. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Dana Rachel\, Hard to feel this resilience planner at B. C. A. Back. \nBoardroom SX80: and just as a quick refresher on the framework. We’d like to review 3 of the key focus areas of this project. \nBoardroom SX80: The first is to update and improve our regional accounting of anticipated civilized projects. \nBoardroom SX80: and some of the outcomes of this are to update our prior regional analyses with local projects from recent planning efforts\, as well as to estimate the regional steel\, for as adaptation needs through 2050. \nBoardroom SX80: We also have a focus to update and characterize the existing revenue sources for sea level as adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: And to do this. We’ve inventoried and forecasted known revenues for State and Federal public funding programs\, and also characterized how some of these existing adaptation funds are dispersed\, and for what purpose? \nBoardroom SX80: Finally\, a focus area is to study how new revenues for sea levelorize adaptation needs could be raised more equitably. And for this we analyzed a range of possible revenue measures at different scales\, trying to understand the high level equity approaches to close the seal. The rise of funding gap \nBoardroom SX80: next slide \nBoardroom SX80: in support of the first focus area. We’ve created a regional inventory of adaptation needs identifying locally developed projects in various planning stages. \nBoardroom SX80: This inventory was sourced by local plans\, and for B. Cdc’s shoreline Adaptation Project\, mapping program or sap map\, which is an extension of Eco Atlas. \nBoardroom SX80: This inventory was created to help us to develop high level cost estimates for regional adaptation and to begin to identify planning and implementation gaps. We identified approximately 200 locally identified projects and study areas which have less defined adaptation interventions. Many of these with multiple sites among them. \nBoardroom SX80: and to review this inventory in the fall we spoke with local staff across all 9 Bay area counties\, updating over 2 thirds of the inventory and adding additional projects as well. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, the data in this inventory was not complete in all cases\, as you can see in this example\, not all projects that are included in the inventory provide the same level of sea levelise protection. For example. \nBoardroom SX80: some less protective projects are shorter term projects\, while others are green projects that provide other flood mitigation\, but are not intended to harden the shoreline at the adaptation development edge \nBoardroom SX80: we were not able to gather flood protection information for approximately 50% of these projects. \nBoardroom SX80: Similarly\, projects were missing. Other details\, such as 20% of the project’s missing project costs. We developed methods to get around some of these data gaps\, including the use of placeholders. \nBoardroom SX80: next slide \nBoardroom SX80: to better quantify the full magnitude of regional need. The inventory also needed a way to account for costs in areas with less advanced advanced adaptation\, planning or project implementation \nBoardroom SX80: or in areas where the projects were missing\, cost information \nBoardroom SX80: to do this placeholder values were created by assuming the protection of the shoreline in place\, including areas that have no known plans\, areas where a study has not yet defined specific projects \nBoardroom SX80: or areas where a project was not confirmed to provide sufficient protection. \nBoardroom SX80: These placeholders should be thought of as project gaps that represent vulnerable segments of the shoreline\, and will be replaced by specific ideas generated from further local adaptation planning in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: And while this is a helpful data data summary of a moment in time which will be making available as an online interactive map later this spring. In the long term we envision B. Cdc’s sat map as the tool through which the region can continue to track adaptation projects \nBoardroom SX80: as such data from the framework will be integrated into that effort from which plans and project data can be updated. As they develop \nBoardroom SX80: in the near term. We’ll integrate this data into regional planning efforts\, such as Plan Bay area\, 2050 plus\, and the regional shoreline adaptation plan \nBoardroom SX80: excite. \nIt’s okay. \nBoardroom SX80: And as mentioned previously\, the inventory has been developed to help us estimate a regional cost. Estimate for shoreline adaptation \nBoardroom SX80: for context. The estimates that we’ll discuss today are presented in year of expenditure \nBoardroom SX80: and the framework builds off of previous work done in Plan Bay area\, 2050\, which estimated the regional need at 19 billiondollars through 2050. \nBoardroom SX80: To update this information for the framework. We’ve made a number of assumptions. As a first step we created updated cost assumptions for different project types\, using the best available data. With this change alone the same set of projects from the previous work would be projected to be just shy of 40 billiondollars. \nBoardroom SX80: We also accounted for increased inflation over the last 3 years \nBoardroom SX80: previous. Analysis\, looked at an inflation rate of 2.2% in the future\, while the framework has assumed a rate of 3% through the study period. \nBoardroom SX80: The framework also measures protection through 4.9 feet of sea level rise to account for both permanent sea level rise projected from the Ocean Protection Council through 2050\, \nBoardroom SX80: as well as a 100 year storm\, which surpasses State guidance recommendations\, and also coincides with many of the local planning assumptions of some of the local efforts here in the region. \nBoardroom SX80: Finally\, where an area was identified with no current adaptation plan nuclear concepts. The framework analysis assumed a default\, adaptation\, action\, or all vulnerable shorelines\, including areas without planning and those in need of augmented plants. \nBoardroom SX80: And when we piece these elements together\, the adaptation estimate through 2050 is a 110 billiondollars expressed in year of expenditure dollars. \nBoardroom SX80: About half of that cost is based on locally identified projects with the remainder estimated as a placeholder value\, including estimates for additional sediment. Management needs \nBoardroom SX80: Partial project funding where known was also subtracted from this total\, but there may be additional projects with partial funding that were not known at the time of the assessment. However\, we like to emphasize that this is not necessarily the value that needs to be raised by governments to adapt \nBoardroom SX80: as a reminder. This estimate accounts for a very conservative approach in place \nBoardroom SX80: a very conservative approach in which we assumed the protection of the shoreline in place for all vulnerable shorelines\, including low density areas. \nBoardroom SX80: This inventory is also a snapshot of a current moment. In time and adaptation. Efforts will continue to develop or shift\, especially for projects that are in the early planning or conceptual stages\, so the costs are likely to change as more information becomes available. \nBoardroom SX80: Other strategies not estimated or assumed through the framework. Analysis will also play a role\, including adaptation without protection\, building code changes or other local policy adjustments. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition\, feature analysis will need to include riverine and groundwater data as it becomes regionally available\, as well as additional adaptation plans such as those made by utilities. \nBoardroom SX80: So now that we’ve seen this total number\, let’s revisit that cost of inaction that we showed you on a previous slide. \nBoardroom SX80: One key finding of this analysis is that even just a partial estimate of the cost of inaction was found to be much higher than the estimated cost of sea level rise. Adaptation projects through mid century. \nBoardroom SX80: Our cost of inaction\, analysis included losses to assessed property\, values of homes and the impacts of inaction on the transportation system\, but did not include more sophisticated estimates\, such as real market value of property losses\, impacts to the environment. \nBoardroom SX80: communities\, businesses\, and more that would certainly increase this cost of inaction. Even further. \nBoardroom SX80: the difference in these values makes it clear that adaptation\, action will be worth while many times over. \nBoardroom SX80: So now that we’ve seen the total number for the region\, let’s dive into some additional details and a few of the distinctions across the counties. \nBoardroom SX80: The analysis has shown that most of the planned projects are hybrid in nature\, representing a regional focus on multiple benefits\, such as levees paired with marsh restoration. \nBoardroom SX80: though the threshold for the amount of nature based solutions needed to be considered\, a hybrid project \nBoardroom SX80: was very low\, meaning that hybrid projects may be over represented here \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of the counties. Alameda and Marin counties have the highest cost estimates with the information that we’ve gathered\, aligning with their anticipated steel of arise Vulnerability. \nBoardroom SX80: notably approximately half of the estimated value comes from placeholders created to develop cost estimates with significant implementation. Gaps identified in alameda Contra Costa and Marin counties. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, this. \nBoardroom SX80: while identifying this implementation gap\, is helpful\, it also does not point out a key nuance between these counties. \nBoardroom SX80: For example\, in Marin County\, while they are still identifying specific projects for vulnerable locations. The county has almost no identified planning gaps\, and\, in fact\, the planning is quite robust and comprehensive \nBoardroom SX80: by contrast. In Contra Costa County. The placeholder value represented here represents a significant implementation and planning gap. \nBoardroom SX80: We anticipate that these distinctions will become clear through future efforts\, such as through the developing sea level\, rise planning guidelines in the Cdc’s regional shoreline adaptation plan and updating project information in plumb area 2050\, and beyond. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s piece these different elements together by taking a deep dive into one county \nBoardroom SX80: on the Hotspot’s map\, one Major Hotspot\, was identified in East Palo Alto. \nBoardroom SX80: This location contained the Dunbarton Bridge touchdown us 101\, \nBoardroom SX80: too\, socially. \nBoardroom SX80: socioeconomically vulnerable communities. The ravens with Pda \nBoardroom SX80: and the Bay Trail as well as the Menlo Park and East Palo Alto Bayland’s priority conservation area. \nBoardroom SX80: When we look at the inventory\, however\, we see that not only has significant planning occurred along this shoreline\, but several adaptation projects and study areas are already underway. \nBoardroom SX80: This means that most of the county wide cost of the 11 billiondollars that we have estimated is based on real costs. With a minority of those representing placeholders. \nBoardroom SX80: We can even dive into one of these projects further and highlight the safer Bay project\, which consists of a series of levies\, dikes\, and restoration projects\, with a priced estimate of over 200 milliondollars. \nBoardroom SX80: diving deeper into each county\, and looking at each shoreline’s\, vulnerabilities\, especially the areas of first and horse\, i. E. Early flooding and areas of interconnected vulnerabilities where key assets are located. \nBoardroom SX80: as well as taking a deeper look at the planning and implementation gaps\, can all help us to shape a more nuanced approach to layering the the local funding with regional or state grants to meet each county’s. Need \nBoardroom SX80: We’ve also developed an existing sea level rise\, adaptation\, revenue\, forecast\, to estimate how much revenue the region can anticipate through 2050 from sources that already exist. \nBoardroom SX80: The framework has identified new public funding sources To add to prior revenue estimates in this space\, such as the one in Plumb Bay area\, 2050\, including 30 new adaptation Grant programs from the past 2 years of State and Federal funding. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, despite the influx of new revenue opportunities\, only a small share of the billions of dollars in New State and Federal funds are estimated to be available for both civilized adaptation\, and to be awarded \nBoardroom SX80: in the Bay area. \nBoardroom SX80: What the bay area is likely to receive will be whittled down significantly when we assume a portion for statewide and national funds. \nBoardroom SX80: Additionally\, most of the 30 new funding line items are not specific to sea level rise\, adaptation\, but may support a range of adaptation needs such as wildfire or extreme heat\, and so the revenue must be further bilted down to sea level rise specifically \nBoardroom SX80: when these limitations are accounted for the region should expect only a fraction of new State and Federal funding opportunities \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: and I can pass it back over to Dana to close up this next section. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks\, Rachel. So it it’s in this this context of of funding that we look at exploring new funding sources. \nBoardroom SX80: A part of the closing the gap will be increasing the available revenues\, and while we can and will work to advocate for State and Federal funding\, it may also be beneficial to raise funds at the local county and regional scale to fund projects will provide matching funds to Federal and State opportunities that emerge. \nBoardroom SX80: The framework approached this analysis in a high\, level\, exploratory way\, intended to provide insight for future research and discussion in the years ahead\, not to point to the the right measure. We need to take right now. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s within this context that we research 3 possible new revenue measures at the local county and regional skills to understand how much funding could be raised annually\, what the bond issuance potential is\, or how much \nBoardroom SX80: different funding measures could raise for near term project implementation and initial equity implications specifically\, who would pay versus who benefits \nBoardroom SX80: while many funding options are out there for sea level rise adaptations such as sales\, taxes\, business taxes\, and development fees. Among others. \nBoardroom SX80: these options were filtered for overall feasibility and regional precedence\, and the 3 measures that were selected based on these filters for generating case studies led us to focus on parcel taxes AD blorent property taxes and assessment districts. \nBoardroom SX80: Of course\, our high level findings show that there is no silver bullet. There is no single revenue measure that’s projected to be capable of addressing our funding gap. \nBoardroom SX80: and as such\, additional funding from State and Federal sources will also be necessary \nBoardroom SX80: of the 3 revenue types that we reviewed. Parcel taxes and app floor and property taxes were viewed at the county regional scales\, but we also looked at assessment districts on a sub local basis. For each of these we determined. We looked at high level findings and used regional precedents to determine case studies \nBoardroom SX80: So parcel tax are typically a flat rate tax that Don’t account for the value or size of the property \nBoardroom SX80: an add lower property tax can be a progressive tax\, as higher assessed properties may pay more. However\, we have limitations due to prop 13\, and lastly\, assessment districts are directly tied to specific benefits. With last opportunity to tailor them to account for equity Disparities \nBoardroom SX80: As such. They are most feasible in specific areas\, with either more resources and or more direct impacts of sea level rise \nBoardroom SX80: for case studies. We did do regional estimates. Aside from the assessment districts\, and with our consultants supporting us\, we looked at example\, rates for what taxes could support if raised and bonded at different scales. \nBoardroom SX80: We notice that property\, that par parcel taxes and adulorum property taxes\, the bonding potential is quite different. \nBoardroom SX80: and this is due to the fact that aval or property taxes have a much higher tax rate for highly assessed parcels\, as well as greater regional precedents. \nBoardroom SX80: Again\, just to remind you\, this is an initial review of case studies and its exploratory to set the that set the stage for future conversation and discussion. \nBoardroom SX80: We also looked at all of these tools through the lens of equity focused on who pays versus who benefits \nBoardroom SX80: for these 2 are For this analysis we focused on adulterum and property taxes\, as they are more likely to be scaled at the county and regional levels as opposed to the assessment district which is highly dependent on the community in question. \nBoardroom SX80: So with regards to geographic equity\, Santa Clara\, Alameda\, and San Francisco counties have the largest property tax rate\, while San Francisco or San Mateo and Marin counties\, have a disproportionate share of the risk of sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, the risks to parcel values obscure some additional nuances. For example\, in the context of regional revenue measure\, the protection of key regional infrastructures\, such as us\, 101 in San Mateo and Morin \nBoardroom SX80: would benefit travelers regionally\, not just local residents. \nBoardroom SX80: So our our key finding here is that it will be necessary to use multiple funding sources\, such as AD form or taxes or parcel taxes to help balance the tax burden across the region. \nBoardroom SX80: To look at social equity. We define socially vulnerable areas using BCC’s community vulnerability data which categorizes areas using a number of vulnerability indicators such as income and race. \nBoardroom SX80: And with this information we found that both taxes benefit socially vulnerable areas to a greater extent than the regional share. Therefore\, advancing equity. however\, parcel taxes were found to be less socially equitable and add toil on property. Tax. They they place a higher tax burden on socially vulnerable areas. \nBoardroom SX80: So these are really high-level findings. So If we were\, if county or regional measure were to be considered for sea levelized adaptation. Of course we would need to take additional steps first. Further research creation of guiding principles \nBoardroom SX80: to ensure that measures were specifically tailored to advance equitable outcomes from their Perspective of who pays \nBoardroom SX80: as well as how the Funds are ultimately structured and distributed. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as we conclude\, we’d like to zoom out and review the key findings from this project \nBoardroom SX80: first is that the framework has identified a mix of green and great projects with more than half of the region’s known projects focused on hybrid or multi-benefit solutions. \nBoardroom SX80: These represent just one of the many ways our region \nBoardroom SX80: to adapt our region to rising sea levels\, but it also represents one potential cost range associated with adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ve also identified a significant funding gap of over 100 billiondollars\, and to address this increasing revenues\, prioritizing or phasing shoreline protection and discouraging development in highly vulnerable areas\, and should all be considered moving forward. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ve also identified key differences across the region with disparity\, both in terms of estimated sea level rise costs\, as well as the level of local planning and implementation due to resource constraints. \nBoardroom SX80: and we’ve determined that multiple funding sources at multiple scales will be determined to \nBoardroom SX80: required to address the funding gap. Even with prioritizing and phasing of adaptation products projects. \nBoardroom SX80: Again\, it’s crucial to prioritize equity\, and in addition to considering funding approaches that reduce the burden on socially vulnerable areas\, we can also utilize shared principles to ensure that our adaptation of decisions are made with equity in the forefront. \nBoardroom SX80: and\, lastly\, all these pieces together make it clear that a regional approach will be a critical piece of the funding and financing puzzle to ensure that we meet regional goals and avoid leaving critical pieces of the adaptation puzzle behind. \nBoardroom SX80: So I do want to point out as we as we saw in San Mateo County. There’s already significant work planned or underway\, so we have started to take a bite from this 110 billiondollars Bill. \nBoardroom SX80: Just 3 examples. Here. Foster City is in the final year of construction for its levy improvement program which will protect the 30\,000 residents of this waterfront community. From sea level rise storms and high tides. \nBoardroom SX80: The Sr. 37 corridor adaptation is currently in planning stages\, and this east west route is critical for the connection of the region connecting the North Bay counties. \nBoardroom SX80: and equity is also a key consideration in this project. Unlike many other regional corridors\, the majority of surveyed drivers on the route are lower income with many in the North Bay\, using the cordark to connect to jobs in Marin\, and beyond \nBoardroom SX80: moving to the East Bay\, the North Richmond shoreline\, living Levy project seeks to provide protection for both key regional infrastructure\, including the West County wastewater district’s. Wastewater treatment plant as well as frontline disadvantaged communities near the shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: These and and and our example in san Mateo County are just a handful of the examples that we could share with you. There are many more exciting efforts already happening in communities large and small\, but every step forward is making a difference in the diverse communities and networks across the bay area\, and we can build on these experience and learn\, as we continue to plan for the region’s adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as the framework project concludes\, we’ve identified a number of actions to move these findings forward first to prioritize sea level rise investments in upcoming plans \nBoardroom SX80: such as Mt. C. A. Bags Plan Bay area\, 2050 plus\, and BCC. Shoreline adaptation plan to help identify which projects might require early action and mitch\, which areas might be appropriate for lower cost interventions. \nBoardroom SX80: Second Mtc. A bag will explore how to integrate resilience into envisioned regional measures on affordable housing and transportation to the extent possible. \nBoardroom SX80: Third B. C. DC. Will complete and maintain the development of the shoreline adaptation project. Mapping data to ensure that the region has access to the best possible inventory. \nBoardroom SX80: In light of our initial analysis on the limitations of new revenue measures\, it will be critical to continue to use State and Federal resources to address our funding gap. \nBoardroom SX80: so we should continue to engage and mobilize elected officials to accelerate our State and Federal advocacy to secure a greater portion of funding for the bay area. \nBoardroom SX80: and our last 2 next steps are to fulfill tasks to point \nBoardroom SX80: 6.2 and 6.3 in the joint platform\, and this is to better define\, lead roles for funding plans and projects to ensure that the region is empowered to secure adaptation monies and distribute them equally. \nBoardroom SX80: and lastly\, to identify a path to support cities\, counties\, and the private sector to fill the funding gaps that the region cannot fill alone. \nBoardroom SX80: So at that we’ll thank you for your time and attention and turn it back to chair\, Wasserman to facilitate questions and discussion. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much\, Dana. \nBoardroom SX80: The questions on the screen are illustrative. They are not limiting. \nBoardroom SX80: so I will start with entertaining questions \nBoardroom SX80: or comments from Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Start up here. Honor\, you are attending. As for that could go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: I have a number of questions. \nBoardroom SX80: and I think I heard \nBoardroom SX80: a very similar if not identical presentation at the bark meeting\, and I \nBoardroom SX80: still have questions. I thought I saw on one of your slides that we estimate $125\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: a foot to adapt roads to sea level rice. It was in a footnote in one of the earlier slides. \nBoardroom SX80: Are Are we saying that it costs a 1 million dollars for every 8 feet of roads to adapt them to sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s a very good question\, and it is an extremely high level assumption that we’ve made looking at the elevation or realignment of transportation. That is\, a Median cost estimate for that specific type of \nBoardroom SX80: adaptation. So it is one of the higher cost estimates for transportation absolutely. \nBoardroom SX80: So of that 110 billionthat we came to at the end of the day is a lot of that. \nBoardroom SX80: This transportation piece of it. \nBoardroom SX80: I believe \nBoardroom SX80: about \nBoardroom SX80: oh\, somewhere over 50. I think of the estimate\, when it comes down to it just due to \nBoardroom SX80: the nature of how much it costs to work in infrastructure\, especially in the context of the bay\, where so much of our infrastructure is in highly dense areas which makes that cost much much higher. \nBoardroom SX80: So and we I see that we’ve made that adjustment from 2 feet to 4.9 feet on sea level rise is the cost to adapt to sea level rise directly correlated to the level of in in other words\, is \nBoardroom SX80: is it cost twice as much to adapt to 4 feet as it does to 2 feet? Or is it not linear in that way? \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t believe that it’s\, linear and our specific analysis \nBoardroom SX80: wouldn’t have shown that relationship\, even if that was the case\, because we also took a more conservative approach to what was protected. \nBoardroom SX80: So our analysis assumed that everything was protected which in some cases not protecting or using ministry or alternative strategies\, might be \nBoardroom SX80: a different cost\, estimate\, and in some cases less \nBoardroom SX80: so\, in addition to that protect in place assumption and that escalated \nBoardroom SX80: inundation level. Yes\, those 2 things make it a much higher cost. But in terms of whether it’s linear don’t believe we’d be able to say. I guess what i’m trying to understand is \nBoardroom SX80: if if you’re talking about 2 feet of sea level rise. Are you gonna need \nBoardroom SX80: 70 of that? 110 billionjust at 2 feet\, and the other 30\, you know\, for the remaining 2.9 feet\, or \nBoardroom SX80: do you have to? In other words\, are we is the 110 billionwhich is a pretty scary number. Is it? \nBoardroom SX80: Is it something that we can expect to see\, you know\, sooner rather than later\, or it’ll just\, you know\, over the course of time and sea level rise. It’ll just keep adding up. \nBoardroom SX80: if you understand. I I I do. Yes\, so I think that’s related to You know what gets wet then\, and when we’re constructing different projects ultimately\, and in \nBoardroom SX80: the course of this framework the assumptions that we made\, we didn’t have a lot of construction year for different projects\, and so we had to make a lot of assumptions. But through plain bay area 2\,050 plus\, and I believe\, the regional shoreline adaptation plan\, both of those \nBoardroom SX80: efforts. We’ll be able to explore this further\, and I can speak to especially with Plan Bay area\, 2\,050 plus. We plan to look at what gets wet at each layer\, and hopefully start to think about \nBoardroom SX80: what the difference is when we look at prioritizing in that sense in terms of cost. So we should have answers building on this work hopefully in this future efforts. I have 2 more questions\, although they may be a little dense. One of your slides\, and I tried to find slight numbers on the bottom right hand corner\, and some times I could\, and sometimes I couldn’t\, so \nBoardroom SX80: I think it’s somewhere around Slide 15. It was called Adaptation needs additional. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, is it 60? And where you explain sort of the green hybrid and gray projects? And I just need a little more understanding of that. Many\, many people probably understand that very well\, people to the right and left to me. But I but I don’t so can you\, just as you know. \nBoardroom SX80: sort of teach me about the green gray\, hybrid distinctions\, and what that what that tells us \nBoardroom SX80: Sure. And I can start and see if anyone would like to add\, so gray would be \nBoardroom SX80: protection elements such as sea walls or traditional levies as we would consider them. and Green\, I think\, on the other extreme\, would be marsh restoration\, for example\, or other types of infrastructure\, and so\, or adaptations and hybrid would be somewhere in between\, or a combination of those elements. \nBoardroom SX80: Ecotone Levy could be considered hybrid or just marsh restoration. Next to a se wall in one project could also be considered hybrid\, and the threshold\, for whether \nBoardroom SX80: different\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: project leads or jurisdictions considered something as a hybrid project could be quite low in some cases\, or really different in some cases. So there’s a little ambiguity in terms of the firm lines of \nBoardroom SX80: what hybrid could mean. But it really \nBoardroom SX80: the the green and the gray are more more defined. Different adaptation types. \nBoardroom SX80: I mean in the ideal world. Would they all be green ideally\, but due to the type of development that we have especially so close to the shoreline in some cases \nBoardroom SX80: that won’t protect\, because we don’t have the space for it\, or the type of development that is in that location is not suitable for it. For example\, it wouldn’t make sense to have marsh restoration on the embarkadero shoreline\, and so just due to the nature in which we have developed. \nBoardroom SX80: There are\, you know\, hybrid accommodations that ultimately need to be made if we want protection. Okay. And then maybe this is for Dana\, because you were talking about the taxes and the possibilities of raising revenue through taxes. \nBoardroom SX80: So I don’t know enough about this. But if we are going to try to find funding on a regional basis\, so that once we have the monies\, we can allocate them \nBoardroom SX80: to where the need is without risk\, without regard to how wealthy or not wealthy that community is. \nBoardroom SX80: Are these taxes taxes that we could \nBoardroom SX80: could even be collected on a regional basis and distributed regionally? \nBoardroom SX80: Or are they collected by necessity from count counties or cities\, and therefore they would \nBoardroom SX80: probably be used by that count to your city. \nBoardroom SX80: I can. Yeah. I’m: okay. So PC. Has the the history of doing this\, these types of measures that are regional scale. So I will let \nBoardroom SX80: Rachel \nBoardroom SX80: with the 3 different case studies that we looked at the parcel taxes and AD valorum Property taxes are type tax types that could be raised at the regional scale potentially\, or the county scale\, they so there’s variation in terms of the scale that is available to them. We also looked at assessment districts as \nBoardroom SX80: a case study\, and these are well. Theoretically\, they could be applied at a very high scale\, such as the region. There are almost no examples of that they are typically used at the sub local level. And that’s what we looked at when we were making assumptions about it in the case study. \nBoardroom SX80: So let’s take AD Ballorem\, Texas as an example. So Alameda County would \nBoardroom SX80: assess the tax and Marin County would assess the tax. But what are the chances\, then\, that the monies that are raised in that way could be used to help \nBoardroom SX80: Nap\, or wherever the need is. You see what i’m saying \nBoardroom SX80: it’s my oh\, Thank you. Thank you. As I say\, I knew people to the left \nright \nBoardroom SX80: sure. I mean it just to point out with the San Francisco Bay restoration authority that was created by State statute that allows the money to be collected regionally. \nBoardroom SX80: But the statute also provides an allocation \nBoardroom SX80: mechanism. \nBoardroom SX80: So we have. About 50% goes to based on population\, and 50% goes to highest needs. But this is all right. Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: We were reflected by State legislation. Great\, that that’s where I was going. Thank you so much. Everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy \nJohn Gioia: first thanks for the presentation\, then John John John\, Wait\, I apologize. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to recognize the people here. First Commissioner\, show up. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. I have 2 questions. One is just very local. It’s a little hard to read those maps at that. You know the scale. They are so when I saw the placeholder area for the South Bay W. What jurisdictions does that represent is that Moffat Sunnyvale\, or is that include mountain view. \nBoardroom SX80: I I will say that we are going to be publishing our online map later. This in the spring that has that will allow you to zoom in to those project and placeholder locations. So \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, I can\, if you want to answer specifically about that location. But later on you will have access to the map that will allow you to zoom in on in greater detail. \nBoardroom SX80: and i’ll just add that I can’t speak to that area at this moment\, but can certainly look into that for you and you\, said the Moffat \nBoardroom SX80: Moffat. Sunnyvale\, is it? It’s it’s it’s Sunnyvale or Mountain view. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve spent. I’m. I’m spending a lot of time at City Mountain Council meetings\, talking about \nBoardroom SX80: financing our sea level rise protections\, and I just want to make sure that they’re properly reflected here\, anyway. So my second question is about the calculations you did\, I’m. Assuming that you just said that the existing law we have for proposition. 13 is what you did the calculation for. You didn’t do the calculation\, for if we had a split role\, or \nBoardroom SX80: you know even a more significant change in proposition. 13 is just the existing one. Is that correct? \nBoardroom SX80: That is correct. We based our case studies on existing on precedence. And so \nBoardroom SX80: there are other options beyond what this initial study looked at. But for this initial high level assessment we only looked at precedence. \nBoardroom SX80: The proposed changes that Haven’t passed would would Garner\, that we might be able to use for this? Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you. So I was surprised by your forecast that existing public revenues would only be 5 and a half 1 billiondollars over the period \nBoardroom SX80: like when we\, when we look at what the kind of investments that the Us. Army core of engineers making in other regions of the country. \nBoardroom SX80: you know. Can’t we expect more? \nBoardroom SX80: And and 5.5 million? So yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: that’s a a great question. And again\, what we looked at is what the region has historically received in terms of its portion of funding\, and we use those values to project forwards through 2\,050. \nBoardroom SX80: And so it is possible that in the future we might receive a larger portion. But I think that one thing that we’ve learned through this analysis is that the region likely needs to advocate for a larger portion that it than it has historically received to balance what we’re receiving Visa V. The rest of the country \nBoardroom SX80: right? Can I also help answer that question? And I see water in the audience\, and Warner and I have talked about this a number of times. There is something starting with the capital H. That Florida\, New York\, and Texas have \nBoardroom SX80: have been involved with\, or have received that we haven’t. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s called a hurricane. And so those monies are. F. Have been for the most part after the fact monies. And so it’s a really interesting situation\, because I think what we are. What we as staff are suggesting \nBoardroom SX80: is that the advocacy that needs to be done has to be done in preparation for as opposed to as a recovery from. \nBoardroom SX80: because I mean\, I think the challenge here is. \nBoardroom SX80: you know it’s. It’s not foreseeable to me that we can raise 110 billiondollars through local tax measures. That is\, when you need it. It has to be substantial Federal state. \nBoardroom SX80: So for \nBoardroom SX80: just to jump in on that one. It absolutely. \nBoardroom SX80: and this largely leaves out in dollar estimates what \nBoardroom SX80: private developers will provide. Some of the gap will have to be provided by private developers as they build projects \nBoardroom SX80: that they need to protect. and their contributions depending on the project and the location and a bunch of other things. They well extend beyond their own project. \nBoardroom SX80: But those numbers are very hard \nBoardroom SX80: to project \nBoardroom SX80: at this regional level. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy. \nJohn Gioia: Thanks. I I do think we need to take the estimates as a \nJohn Gioia: as a range right? I mean\, we know that these are all estimates\, and whatever it is\, it’s a lot of money\, and I think\, getting back to David Pyne’s point. \nJohn Gioia: We we’re gonna have to look at all these different funding opportunities\, Federal\, State and local \nJohn Gioia: and just reflecting. I’ve been elected in local government for 35 years. 25 of those\, with the county and have been involved with regional measures\, with Dave on the Restoration authority double a. With county measures with sub\, you know\, sub county measures. \nJohn Gioia: and I think we we need to be pursuing sort of multiple pathways\, one at a regional level \nJohn Gioia: makes a lot of sense. But also I I think there’s going to be a lot of effort at county levels. \nJohn Gioia: so I sort of see a parallel path of \nJohn Gioia: I mean\, I a lot of my works thinking about. How do we communicate our needs? So the public will vote on it. We can have the we can have the best policy in the world and the best need. But unless we can communicate that need in a politically successful way. We’re not going to get voters to pass it. \nJohn Gioia: you know clearly\, you know\, at \nJohn Gioia: Equity needs to be really at the foundation\, both from standpoint of our of our communities\, our highly impacted communities\, regional equity as well. \nJohn Gioia: So I I think all the work going forward sort of needs to lay out information that we could use \nJohn Gioia: from a regional standpoint for a regional measure and a county by county standpoint. \nJohn Gioia: So your estimates of what the cost will be by county is really important. We’re starting a a planning process that’s going to be more robust and contra costa a lot of work we have cut out for us\, as your own chart shows. \nJohn Gioia: You know\, voters and counties are not going to pay. It’s going to be harder to get them \nJohn Gioia: to pay for something that’s occurring somewhere else. We went through this discussion\, you know. I thought we were very successful in how we design measure double a with as Dave\, as part of it was based on need\, part based on population. People want to see a return to source. \nJohn Gioia: so I I think our effort should also support the the sub regional efforts that will go on around the bay area by county. \nJohn Gioia: and we need leadership in every one of the 9 counties to make this work\, and we also need some regional leadership as well. So that’s sort of my message is. Pursue 2 tracks have information that’s helpful for those of us doing countywide planning processes \nJohn Gioia: as well as\, and and leave it up to those counties to figure what is going to have the best chance of passage\, but at the same time look at a regional measure \nJohn Gioia: as well. That has a pretty broad stakeholder involvement. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, John Commissioner Gordon. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Good morning\, everyone\, and I agree with everything that John just said. I have a couple of questions on the speaking to question Number one. How do we get the attention of elected leaders\, and certainly we have many on B. Cdc. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: But can you give us a status report of the local task force that you are convening\, and how you might and involve them in that question. And this larger context \nBoardroom SX80: I can answer that. And then Commissioner Joy is actually the chair of that task force\, so i’ll make space for him. He’d like to respond as well. So we had our initial kickoff meeting on January 20\, fourth. We I’ve been trying to bring on a consultant to help facilitate that particular group. \nBoardroom SX80: That contracting has been taking a a while. So our second meeting has been pushed off a bit\, but we are anticipating that. That will get going again \nBoardroom SX80: in the next month or 2\, \nBoardroom SX80: and then I I think \nBoardroom SX80: we have some slides that demonstrate this and our next\, the rising seal of a working group meeting. But there is a reciprocal relationship\, obviously\, between the task force and this group as evidenced by the fact that Chair Joya is here for both. So I think this is the type of space where we can identify what type of issues we’d like to bring to that task force\, and how we’d like to \nBoardroom SX80: get them in alignment with with what we’re looking at in this working group. So I don’t know if you have anything I mean\, I I think you’re I think it is important to use that regional elected work group to identify the leaders in counties who are willing to step up. I know they’re getting informed \nJohn Gioia: and educated more on the issue from B. Cdc. Staff\, but they’re also expressing. You know where they need and want more information\, and I so I think that is a good starting point. We’ll need more county wide leaders\, but \nJohn Gioia: I think that we can get that’s a good starting point to develop some some leadership around the bay area. We need to do more of that. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Thanks\, John for sharing that group. I think it might be helpful if the B. C. DC. Commissioners are sort of kept abreast of what information is being presented to the local task force \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: and what they’re what they’re thinking and considering\, maybe providing opportunities for them to join us in some joint discussions\, especially regarding financing \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: for the infrastructure around the bay. Obviously I can check in with the 2 folks from Sonoma County\, but I think it might be good to keep that on our radar. And then one final question\, and I know that they Time and John both join me. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: and representing the San Francisco Bay Restoration authority\, and opined about how financing has been used to\, I think\, benefits the whole Bay area. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: and i’m wondering if we have a category in this report\, or maybe\, in addition to this report\, the pie graphs showing \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: what is being funded\, what is being created and financed and completed throughout the bay area. So you have some pie graphs about\, maybe the the dollars necessary and the strategies necessary\, but what has already been completed to work towards those goals. \nBoardroom SX80: I can speak to some of this\, and then pass it off if there’s additional notes. \nBoardroom SX80: But we only have a partial assessment of what has been completed this far. Some of that was just what we uncovered from the support of local jurisdictions\, and we also have a subset of projects to be identified as completed through the app map\, which was a helpful resources for us as well. And so I would say\, we have a partial sense of what has been done\, but not a very comprehensive one at this time. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: and I would just end my comments by saying the Restoration authority is getting ready to release a 5 year plan sort of a report card \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: of what was accomplished over the past 5 years\, and it might be a good appendix for this report\, and i’m still thinking about ways to integrate the information \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: about the projects under in in design as well as in completion. So thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Commissioner. Left quits. \nSteve Lefkovits: Thank you\, and thank you\, Staff\, for \nSteve Lefkovits: a wonderful report\, or a very comprehensive and well done. I have a couple of high level questions. Frankly. You know the report that filled me with a little bit of dismay. I thought maybe breaking down some high level things like it was a little bit of hope. I was just curious. If you know heuristically\, or off the top of your heads\, you had any idea of \nSteve Lefkovits: how much of that 110 billiondollar number might be private property projects versus public infrastructure\, public projects\, any directional notion at all. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think that we have that \nBoardroom SX80: information\, or at least not a good sense of how the the proportion of that information. There’s a few private projects that we’re aware of certain developments like the Treasurer Island\, for example. \nBoardroom SX80: but they are few\, and I would say the majority are either public\, and then also \nBoardroom SX80: a a large portion. As we mentioned earlier\, about 50% of that estimate is placeholder cost estimates\, and so those are certainly unknown. \nSteve Lefkovits: of course\, all right\, and my next question was just about the timing of priorities. Do we. \nSteve Lefkovits: you know? Does it? Would it make any sense to try to prioritize certain\, say marsh and levy projects that might bias time or give further support to other projects that are further inland \nSteve Lefkovits: Is \nSteve Lefkovits: Is is there some benefit to thinking about phasing remediations? \nSteve Lefkovits: So you know we’re not thinking about coming up with this money all in a 10 year period. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, that’s even though we didn’t get into in this project exactly what that criteria would be for prioritizing and phasing. That is one of our key takeaways is that we won’t. Be able to do all this at once\, and \nBoardroom SX80: there are areas that\, as you\, as you pointed out\, for example\, restoration projects need to occur. First. \nBoardroom SX80: there are certain locations along the shoreline that are flooding already today\, so there are a number of criteria that we could use for a prioritization. Moving forward\, we just haven’t gotten to a point in this project where we’ve made any decisions about what that might look like\, and what tools we would use to to implement that prioritization. \nSteve Lefkovits: Fair enough. Thank you. And just one more question. I I just wonder this is such a nice piece of context setting have looking at the larger. Even California. Have you anecdotally or otherwise heard any estimates from other high impact areas. That \nSteve Lefkovits: is La Orange County\, San Diego\, or they going through this process? Are they also going to be calling on State Federal resources? \nSteve Lefkovits: How do we think about. You know how unique we are on this timeline \nBoardroom SX80: good question\, and I am not aware of any other places in California that have done this kind of assessment in terms of what the costs would be. I know there’s been some locations\, for example. I believe San Mateo County has an assessment of what is at risk. \nBoardroom SX80: but in terms of what those costs are\, I believe that we might be the only ones that I know of that have done such an assessment\, and I think that just speaks to the unique vulnerability that we have here. We are susceptible to most of the sea level rise inundation\, and just the amount of shoreline that we have here in the bay makes us very unique in terms of the geography of the rest of the state. \nSteve Lefkovits: Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: just to re-emphasize \nBoardroom SX80: the answer to the last question. I would remind you that one third of the California coastline is within the Bay. and the estimate is that 2 thirds \nBoardroom SX80: of the damage from rising sea level to the State of California will occur inside San Francisco Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you\, Mr. Chairman. I just want to start by congratulating the staff on attacking with great vigor\, and thought a very\, very difficult question. \nAndrew Gunther: I really see that you guys are devising a method and and an approach for \nAndrew Gunther: organizing us for thinking about this problem. This is\, I think\, the second time that I’ve seen this kind of presentation\, it’s greatly improved. It’s becoming more robust\, and I hope that that will continue. \nAndrew Gunther: My first question is\, do you guys see that we have the resources and the \nAndrew Gunther: regional support \nAndrew Gunther: to continue to refine and update our inventory and our map. \nBoardroom SX80: Very good question. \nBoardroom SX80: I would say that right now\, since. \nBoardroom SX80: These are some of the first assessments that have been done if we did it in Plymouth area 2\,050 a few years ago\, and we built on that through the framework effort. And to \nBoardroom SX80: make this a more robust analysis in the future\, I would\, I would say we would need more resources as of right. Now\, it’s a very small team that does this\, and there’s not really \nBoardroom SX80: a structure for accounting for the different adaptation measures that are going on around the bay at this time\, so it it is a a lengthy effort just to figure out what is being planned\, where and what’s going on\, so I would say more resources would be needed. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: and i’ll just jump in and say that our our staff map program\, which is led by Todd Helenbeck over here is an ongoing program. We do have resources devoted to him and his staff. \nBoardroom SX80: and also if we we have the time to get to it. We’re we’ll be talking about our regional shoreline adaptation plan again\, which we’ve been looking at at ways in which we can have sort of a continual stream of information between cities and counties and the planning and the projects that they’re working on and incorporating that into our regional approaches and our regional tracking. So we we certainly have plans to continue this back and forth of information. \nBoardroom SX80: so that we have more data over time. But as Rachel mentioned it’s\, You know\, we’re working on very few staff and always seeking ways to support and expand these types of programs. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay\, I think that that the effectiveness of this work will be greatly enhanced if we can make sure to be able to continue it. And have you all be the repository of what’s going on. \nAndrew Gunther: so that we have one place that we can look\, and I would ask you to not be bashful about it\, including supporting that \nAndrew Gunther: ongoing effort as a recommendation from your work. \nAndrew Gunther: I was very happy to see you framing this as a return on investment. \nAndrew Gunther: and I am sure frankly that the costs are going to be higher than we think they are now\, but I also think the benefits will be greater\, and and I would encourage you to think about you. You mentioned that \nAndrew Gunther: the this your benefit number\, was just a first cut\, and if we could get that in a little more\, with a little more sophisticated approach that should help us in our communication effort about the value of this. Does your work include the cost of rising groundwater \nBoardroom SX80: at this time? It does not because we did not have robust groundwater information for the entire jurisdiction. Just a subset at this time. \nAndrew Gunther: I understand that. But there’s just one example of how things are going to cost more. Did you think about framing your cost numbers through in the context of operational landscape units? We have seen a lot of of information\, indicating that both understanding our vulnerability and understanding our adaptation options is well. It can be well framed by thinking about these operation Landscape units \nIs it easy for you to look at cost in that way as well? \nBoardroom SX80: Actually\, yes\, it is. That is a layer that we have overlapped with the geographies that we identified. And so that is \nAndrew Gunther: another way that we can cut those numbers right. Do you guys consider that the way we have reached out to the public. The way we have funded work preparing for earthquakes is a frame in which we might be able to approach \nAndrew Gunther: the funding for sea level\, rise and storm surge impacts. \nBoardroom SX80: I I I can jump in on this one. So I actually used to work in the earthquake space. So i’m pretty familiar with that. The way that that’s generally been approached is at a jurisdiction by jurisdiction level\, or at a state level through legislation. So we don’t have any regional precedence for funding earthquake retrofits at a regional level. We could certainly learn from \nBoardroom SX80: lessons. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, through through that space. And as to what has worked and what Hasn’t and I think we should pull on on multiple fields and arenas\, such as the Restoration space\, which has been quite successful in generating funding for projects. \nBoardroom SX80: So it is an example\, but it still has the challenge of\, you know\, raising funding on a city by city basis through grants from Fema\, or\, you know\, entities like that. \nBoardroom SX80: or occurring at a statewide level where the resources get distributed throughout the State. For example\, in Earthquakes L. A. Was always a major competitor for funds\, and La gets much more of the funds for earthquake retrofit than the bay area does. Similar problem that we might have about not getting our fair share of resources here for adaptation. \nAndrew Gunther: but we did have regional. Do I remember correctly. We have regional tax taxes that have been supporting\, as I understand it\, tens of billions of dollars\, of retrofit to bridges and roads\, and \nAndrew Gunther: and all maybe coordinated by Cal. Trans. But but they\, the public has supported this work and has seen the benefits. Am I correct about that? \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll pass it over to Dave. Hi\, good morning\, everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, they just state your name for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, that’s absolutely true. Regional measures. One and 2 did focus on seismic enhancements for bay area bridges. So that is an example of regional action and the seismic resilience space. But I think you know\, as Dana correctly pointed out. \nBoardroom SX80: you know in general\, those those earthquake actions have occurred to other levels of of government. So I think the question with sea level rise is really what is the right balance between local regional State and Federal investment in this space\, and it’ll probably require some element from all of those different levels of government. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you. And lastly\, just to data. So if there are. Is there information from this report that you think is particularly of of importance to our working group on a sediment beneficial reuse? \nAndrew Gunther: I hope you will make sure to get that information to Brenda\, so that the Commissioner is working in that working group can bring this information in to our deliberations. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, absolutely. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you. Thank you\, Commissioner Molten Peters. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. I want to thank you for the presentation and and appreciate all the staff work and this working group to begin to get our arms around a really large topic\, a question and a comment. Did the cost estimate include \nBoardroom SX80: relocation of utilities\, preservation\, or modification of reconstruction of the infrastructure of any sort. \nBoardroom SX80: It did not include relocation at this time. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: And then just a a comment building on the the need for partnership with local government that most of the Commissioners County Commissioners have expressed. That’s great to have B. Cdc. The the aggregator\, and and the set guiding principles and priorities\, and in the way that Mtc. Does. \nBoardroom SX80: I also think it’s important to find ways to empower the local counties to do their part in this planning and to and to fund their work as well. So I just want to add that. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you\, Commissioner Joya. \nJohn Gioia: Yeah. One thing I forgot to say is I\, I don’t think we should be taking the storm water off. \nJohn Gioia: be\, or tax off the plate\, because that is\, that is becoming a major issue. Folks who are with the Regional Water Quality Control Board know all the the new permit requirements on development and permits on cities and counties \nJohn Gioia: has come with a very increased cost\, and \nJohn Gioia: those stormwater fees are not exempt under prop. 218\, like water and waste water fees were. So you have to go to the ballot every time you want to raise those fees. So we’re and we’re saying \nJohn Gioia: local\, clean water\, agency cities and counties having greater responsibility in this area\, and it’s related to sea level rise. \nJohn Gioia: So I I really would argue to not take that off the plate \nJohn Gioia: and leave\, and and you know whether it’s done regionally or done county by county. There’s been some efforts\, county by county to look at this. \nJohn Gioia: and you know we can look at how we support it regionally. So I I just want to point that off. It’s it. I I don’t know how we can remove off the plate. Something that which there’s a growing mandate and responsibility to do. \nBoardroom SX80: I think that. concludes Commissioner\, comments Peggy\, are there any \nBoardroom SX80: but he in the audience who wants to speak\, I would note \nBoardroom SX80: that we have a second presentation \nBoardroom SX80: that is related to this\, but focusing on the broader \nBoardroom SX80: sea level rise issue. As I said at the beginning. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no hands in the house of Peggy\, remote public speakers. That was not a discouragement. Guys. \nBoardroom SX80: We do have one person\, Jennifer Chang Henterly. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead and mute yourself. \nBoardroom SX80: You have 3 min \nBoardroom SX80: the public comment. Go ahead. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jennifer Heterley and I’m. Speaking today on behalf of the Sierra Club’s Bay live campaign which advocates for preserving and enhancing bay ecosystems as a necessary resource for ensuring community resilience in the face of sea level rising. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): We’re pleased to see this joint effort to better understand the magnitude of the challenge before us\, and to plan ahead for funding regional sea level rise. Adaptation\, however\, we’d like to see much more clarity and specific attention paid to the investments needed to adapt our natural ecosystems. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): For example\, how are the costs of inaction assessed for these natural assets\, where green strategies are tally\, does it predominantly reflect existing local planning and projects\, or do placeholder projects? Consider everywhere that strong opportunities exist for such strategies. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): The health of our bay communities depends not only on resilience for the built environment and our transportation infrastructure. We also need a healthy bay to help sustain our communities. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): They ecosystems\, provide great value in storm\, water\, retention\, carbon\, sequestration\, and biodiversity\, which research shows is\, it. Critical risk is\, several species are collapsing. This affects us all\, and these natural resources need to be valued and protected as the vital assets. They are \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): too often threats to ecological assets\, get ignored in cost-benefit analyses and play only a minor role in adaptation\, planning. But as climate change worsens we can no longer afford to take them for granted. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): Ecosystem valuations which assign a value to the ecosystem or or the service it provides\, such as water\, filtration\, or wave attenuation are evolving to provide a more sophisticated and acceptable way to assess the benefits the environment brings to an area. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): An example is Art Bay areas work with the natural capital park project. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): We urge you to strengthen the framework with robust attention to resilience for our natural assets\, including ecological costs of inaction and consideration of much needed upland migration pathways as sea level rises. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Jennifer. We have no more public comment. Here \nBoardroom SX80: we have one in the audience. Warner. \nBoardroom SX80: Identify yourself for those very few who may not know \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: My name is Warner Chabot. I’m an executive director of the San Francisco Estuary Institute. Sfbi has served local\, regional and state agencies on landscape scale environmental issues for 3 decades. We provide science support data and gis tools to support\, to help monitor\, measure and visualize climate\, adaptation challenges and possible solutions. \nBoardroom SX80: We don’t\, do policy advocacy. This is really a policy issue. You’re dealing with. Therefore my remarks are my own. As a somewhat biased observer. \nBoardroom SX80: the 110 billiondollars challenge is the most consequential public policy issue this region has faced in the last 60 years since the beginning Origin of B. C. D. C. As elected and policy leaders. It may be your most difficult challenge. Over the next decade \nBoardroom SX80: the bay area faces many climate challenges\, including drought\, wildfire\, and extreme heat. However\, the most significant defining issue of our region is the triple threat of sea level rise\, rising groundwater and lowland\, flooding for more extreme and frequent storms. That’s because \nBoardroom SX80: our low and well\, this triple whammy is also the most significant climate equity issue that we face. That’s because our low-income underserved and disadvantaged communities are the most likely to be hit the hardest by rising seas\, rising groundwater and flooding \nBoardroom SX80: as policy leaders. You need to prioritize regional priorities. Obviously influential voices will call for regional 1 billiondollar housing and transportation measures. However\, if we don’t address and solve the triple threat\, those housing and transportation solutions will soon be underwater. \nBoardroom SX80: This shoreline issue is court solving a many of those issues. \nBoardroom SX80: While the solution requires good science and innovative engineering\, this region has those resources in abundance. We have thousands of engineers\, scientists\, and planner types working on this issue\, however. \nBoardroom SX80: 2 areas that may need the most significant vision and innovation are governance and municipal finance to be crude and blunt. This is where you\, as elected regional policy leaders\, have an extraordinarily large and extremely hot potato in your lap. Any funding solution is going to involve local State and Federal actions out. \nBoardroom SX80: I have one local and one Federal action for you to consider at a local level. Please note that we made great progress 8 years ago\, when we passed\, measured double a. We raised 25 million dollars a year for Wetlands restoration. At the same time we made that measure a Los Angeles past measured W. They are now raising 300 milliondollars a year\, 12 to 14 times as much in perpetuity. So it can be done. Local elected bond measures that address local issues are possible at a much greater possibility. \nBoardroom SX80: Then measure double a number 2. The Army Cork. \nBoardroom SX80: New York\, Louisiana\, and Texas are running circles around us and raising each of them\, have a 30 to 50 billiondollars. Proposal in the pipeline to deal with shoreline adaptation. I’m not suggesting. They are concrete\, heavy solutions. But I am suggesting that here in the bay area we have innovative leaders that are moving the army corps into thinking about working with nature\, and we have the possibility of the Bay area being a national leader\, and how an urban region tackles these types of issues with vision and hope \nBoardroom SX80: and and clarity. And I think we should be thinking about a a project process with the army corps of engineers to try to work with them on a 30 to 50 billiondollars. big\, hairy\, audacious goal for the bay area to tackle. This issue because we can also focus on the low-hanging fruit of Nature-based solutions\, such as restoring our wetlands and those are the areas that will also help protect the disadvantaged underserved communities that are going to be hit the hardest. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to make a suggestion. Then a couple of comments. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to make suggestion first\, just to be clear. \nBoardroom SX80: The program this morning was supposed to now move \nBoardroom SX80: to a report on rising sea level\, and they adapt\, and how we move forward on that in the context of what we just heard. \nBoardroom SX80: That discussion itself \nBoardroom SX80: has a number of important layers that I don’t think we can effectively address in the next 12 min. \nBoardroom SX80: Therefore we’re going to \nBoardroom SX80: reschedule that meeting \nBoardroom SX80: for next month. \nBoardroom SX80: I think we we need to think about it a little bit\, but we will probably do it again as a joint workshop\, because obviously the financial needs and the financial availability of funds. \nBoardroom SX80: our critical part of doing anything. \nBoardroom SX80: couple of comments\, and I will make a few more specific comments when \nBoardroom SX80: we summarize this for the Commission meeting \nBoardroom SX80: in an hour. \nBoardroom SX80: I certainly want to join in in in the chorus of thanking staff for the very hard work on this both agencies and and thank \nBoardroom SX80: the staff of both agencies for the cooperation. \nBoardroom SX80: Certainly there’s been a number of areas of cooperation between B. Cdc. And Mtc. Over the years\, and particularly over the last couple of years\, and particularly in this area. But I think this effort represents a significant step forward which is going to be absolutely \nBoardroom SX80: critical to continue. And indeed accelerate. if we’re going to have success in saving \nBoardroom SX80: our \nBoardroom SX80: natural resources are built resources\, and are people from the threats that are coming. \nBoardroom SX80: I would refer you back to Slide 15. \nBoardroom SX80: This story \nBoardroom SX80: is a story of \nBoardroom SX80: real threat \nBoardroom SX80: and real hope. \nBoardroom SX80: And we need both. \nBoardroom SX80: And that slide is the one that compares \nBoardroom SX80: 230 billiondollars plus of potential damage. And we know that’s low \nBoardroom SX80: to the 110 billioncosts \nBoardroom SX80: of what we can conceive of. Now\, in terms of what we need to do to mitigate \nBoardroom SX80: that cost. It’s not going to eliminate it. We cannot delude ourselves. but it can make a very significant dent if we figure out \nBoardroom SX80: how to raise and effectively spend that money now\, and some of that\, as this presentation has talked about is going on now. \nBoardroom SX80: this is not all conjectural for the future. \nBoardroom SX80: There are a bunch of things we don’t know. \nBoardroom SX80: as has been pointed by questions\, and and and candid and transparent answers which are important. \nBoardroom SX80: and I will go back \nBoardroom SX80: to John Joyous comment that\, I think is absolutely critical. \nBoardroom SX80: We need to continue figuring out how to marshal this information \nBoardroom SX80: and get it out \nBoardroom SX80: to the broader constituency of elected officials\, but even more importantly. \nBoardroom SX80: to the broader constituency of the public. who are going to have to support in a variety of ways. \nBoardroom SX80: not only regional and local bond measures\, but also our efforts \nBoardroom SX80: to affect State and Federal resources. \nBoardroom SX80: to devote to devote more resources to our region to the bay area if we’re going to succeed \nBoardroom SX80: protecting ourselves. \nBoardroom SX80: So I thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: This is an iterate process. We’ve said that from the beginning I will continue to say it. \nBoardroom SX80: What we are doing \nBoardroom SX80: builds step by step\, and builds by bringing in plans and looking at the plans \nBoardroom SX80: from a variety of perspectives and circumstances and locations. \nBoardroom SX80: and we’re just going to have to keep at it. And yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Gunther\, we need more resources \nBoardroom SX80: unless there are any other comments or questions. I think that brings us to adjournment of this session. \nBoardroom SX80: I look forward to seeing most of you at 10’clock for the Commission meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much for being here. Thank you for participating remotely. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-6-2023-financing-the-future-working-group-and-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Financing the Future Working Group,Rising Sea Level Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230216T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230216T170000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230216T094331Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231009T234313Z
UID:10000016-1676552400-1676566800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 16\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82212269394?pwd=VmE2NTNJUks4VE5XNVhySGtjaENGQT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID822 1226 9394 \nPasscode155346 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of January 19\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Peggy Atwell) [415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with Resources Legacy Fund for Environmental Justice Advisors – POSTPONEDThe Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $180\,000 contract with the Resources Legacy Fund to help provide stipends to BCDC’s EJ Advisors. The Resources Legacy Fund will receive the money granted to BCDC from the State Coastal Conservancy and the Ocean Protection Council and pass it through to the EJ Advisors as payment for their services.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Two Sediment Grant Contracts (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into two contracts for scientific\, restoration\, and technical services to assist BCDC staff in its Beneficial Reuse of Sediment and Soils for Wetlands and Adaptation Project funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Ocean Protection Council grants. The first contract is with the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture to provide guidance\, advice and technical review in regards to wetland restoration needs. The second contract is with the Aquatic Sciences Center/San Francisco Estuary Institute for advice\, guidance\, and technical review of sediment related issues.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nUpdate on Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan and Electeds Task ForceThe Commission will receive a briefing on the recent launch of the Local Electeds Regional Task Force and the status of the Bay Adapt Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nCity of Sausalito Update on Settlement Agreement ImplementationThe City of Sausalito will provide an annual update on its actions in 2022 to implement the Settlement Agreement between the City of Sausalito and BCDC.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Settlement Agreement (PDF) //  Presentation (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nRichardson Bay Regional Agency Update on Settlement Agreement ImplementationThe Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) will provide an annual update on its actions in 2022 to implement the Settlement Agreement between the RBRA and BCDC.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Settlement Agreement (PDF) // Presentation (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Minutes and Audio Recording\n				Minutes\nMeeting Minutes February 16 (PDF) \nAudio\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/02/02-16-audio.mp3 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-16-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230119T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230119T170000
DTSTAMP:20260628T193824
CREATED:20230120T042953Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T204950Z
UID:10000028-1674133200-1674147600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 19\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82212269394?pwd=VmE2NTNJUks4VE5XNVhySGtjaENGQT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID822 1226 9394 \nPasscode155346 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of December 15\, 2022 Meeting (PDF)(Peggy Atwell) [415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Bay Adapt Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Planning Contract (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $480\,000 contract to provide the Commission planning\, communications\, and outreach support to support the Bay Adapt Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Bay Adapt Implementation Strategy and Outreach Contract (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $330\,000 contract to provide the Commission strategic leadership\, communication\, tracking\, convening\, metrics\, and organization to support Bay Adapt backbone functions.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with Resources Legacy Fund for Environmental Justice Advisors (PDF) – POSTPONEDThe Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $180\,000 contract with the Resources Legacy Fund to help provide stipends to BCDC’s EJ Advisors. The Resources Legacy Fund will receive the money granted to BCDC from the State Coastal Conservancy and the Ocean Protection Council and pass it through to the EJ Advisors as payment for their services.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on the Racial Equity Workshop Held on October 6\, 2022 (PDF)The Commission will receive a briefing on the results of the Racial Equity Workshop held on October 6\, 2022. BCDC’s Racial Equity Team will present the findings from the Ferdman Consulting summary report and a brief update on the next steps for the Racial Equity Plan. This is a briefing only\, and no vote is scheduled on this item.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nStrategic Plan Adoption (PDF)The Commissioner Working Group on Strategic Planning will present its recommendation that the Commission approve the draft Strategic Plan posted on January 6\, 2023.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Long-Range PlanningThe Commission will receive a briefing on projects led by the Long-Range Planning team\, including an overview and update on current Bay Plan Amendments. The Long-Range Planning Team is a unit in the Planning Division\, and is responsible for conducting major planning studies\, policy research and development\, and incorporating best available science and best management practices into BCDC’s plans. This is a briefing only\, and no vote is scheduled on this item.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nInitial Compliance BriefingCompliance staff will brief the Commission on the new program’s goals and their implementation plan. This is a briefing only\, and no vote is scheduled on this item.(Greg Scharff) [415/352-3655; greg.scharff@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \nApplicantsJoseph and Mary Cheng259 Claudia CourtMoraga\, CA 94566 \nPermit Application No. M2021.012.00 \nFiled on October 15\, 2022 \n90th Day on January 13\, 2023\, extended to January 26\, 2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 400 Lancaster Street\, in the City of Oakland\, Alameda County. \nDescriptionUse and maintain in-kind a 7\,800-square-foot portion of an existing 104\,730-square-foot warehouse for office uses. \nInstall a security fence separating the warehouse building from the easement granted to the City of Oakland for public access\, involving a 6-foot-tall painted steel picket fence along the southern edge of the building and a 6-foot-tall galvanized steel chain link fence between the building and Fruitvale Avenue. \nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov or 415/352-3650 \n\nApplicantCEMEX Construction Materials Pacific\, LLC2365 Iron Point RoadFolsom\, CA 95630 \nPermit Application No. M2021.022.00 \nFiled on November 8\, 2022 \n90th Day on February 6\, 2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 876 Seaport Boulevard\, in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County. \nDescriptionConstruct\, use\, and maintain in-kind a portion of a ready-mix concrete batch plant\, involving the following: \n\nStockpile Area. A 3\,200-square-foot portion of a 7\,500-square-foot stockpile area designated for one uncovered aggregate or sand stockpile containing up to approximately 1\,000 tons of aggregate or sand and with an average height of approximately 20 feet;\nFeed Bin and Enclosed Conveyor. A ground-level feed bin approximately 12 feet in width\, 12 feet in length\, and 10 feet in height\, and a portion of an enclosed conveyor approximately 6.5 feet in width\, 34 feet in length\, and 25 feet in height connecting to the proposed plant; and\nGrading and Site Preparation. Grading and soil preparation for the ground-level feed bin foundation.\n\nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov or 415/352-3650 \n\nApplicantCity of Vallejo555 Santa Clara StreetVallejo\, CA 94590 \nPermit Application No. M2022.013.00 \nFiled on November 4\, 2022 \n90th Day on February 2\, 2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the Mare Island Causeway Bridge\, over the Mare Island Strait in the City of Vallejo\, Solano County. \nDescriptionRepair the Mare Island Causeway Bridge in the Bay and the 100-foot shoreline band by repairing and/or replacing damaged concrete and steel bridge components\, replacing the concrete bridge deck and sidewalk\, installing new lighting\, replacing one concrete pile with a steel pile\, repairing concrete piles under the bridge\, and replacing damaged fenders and cathodic protection anodes. The pile replacement and repairs will not result in a significant increase in Bay fill\, only approximately 4.3 cubic yards and all occurring within the existing footprint of the bridge. The project will improve public access by replacing the existing\, deteriorated sidewalk with a new\, ADA-accessible sidewalk\, and temporary impacts to public access will be avoided by the implementation of pedestrian lanes throughout construction. \nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov or 415/352-3613 \n\nApplicantsQueen’s Louisiana Po-Boy Café\, LLCPier 33\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94133 \nand \nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94111 \nPermit Application No. M2022.026.00 \nFiled on December 6\, 2022 \n90th Day on March 6\, 2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at Queen’s Louisiana Po-Boy Café at Pier 33 along the Embarcadero in the City and County of San Francisco. \nDescriptionThe project would establish an outdoor dining area for a five-year period at Queen’s Louisiana Po-Boy Café. The outdoor dining area is designed to be compatible with the adjacent public access area along the Embarcadero\, and would include controls to minimize potential conflicts between outdoor dining and users of the Embarcadero. The project would also install five bike racks for the benefit of the public. \nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions. Shruti Sinha; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov or 415-352-3654 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing January 6\, 2023 \n\nJanuary 19\, 2023 Commission Meeting\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\n2023-2025 Draft Strategic Plan (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing January 13\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of December 15\, 2022 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nStaff Report and Recommendation on a Contract for Bay Adapt Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan – Planning Contract (PDF)\nStaff Report and Recommendation on a Contract for Bay Adapt Implementation Strategy and Outreach (PDF)\nStaff Report and Recommendation on a Contract with Resources Legacy Fund for Environmental Justice Advisors (PDF)\nFinal Report Racial Equity Commissioner Workshop (PDF)\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments and issued Regionwide Permits\n\nPublic comment letter (PDF) \nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nState Regulators Scrutinize Climate Plan for Controversial Richmond Housing Development\nWhat Happened When the Bay Area Rejected Growth\nFacebook Bridge to Nowhere\nLetter to Governor Newsom on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (PDF)\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				Audio Recording Part 1 \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/01-19-audio-part-1.mp3 \nAudio Recording Part 2 \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/01-19-audio-part-2.mp3 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-19-2023-commission-meeting-2/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR