April 6, 2023 Commission Meeting

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public 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)
4. Approval of Minutes of March 2, 2023 Meeting (PDF)
   (Peggy Atwell) [415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@bcdc.ca.gov]
5. Report of the Chair
6. Report of the Executive Director
7. Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters
   (Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]
8. Closed Session on Possible Litigation
   Pursuant 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]
9. Commission 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)
10. Public 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)
11. Public 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 2022.001.00
    The 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)
12. Briefing 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)
13. Briefing on Enforcement Program
    The 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)
14. Adjournment

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.

Administrative Permits Applications

Applicants
SailGP
One Liberty Plaza – 165 Broadway
New York, New York 10006

AND

Port of San Francisco
Pier 1, The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA 94111

Permit Application No. M2023.001.00

Filed 03/29/23

90th Day 06/28/23

Location
In the Bay and within the 100-foot shoreline band, at Pier 80, in the City and County of San Francisco.

Description
The 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.

Activities at the project site would include temporary installation of:

In the Bay:

• Eleven 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.
• Three 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

  Within the 100-foot shoreline band

• Two 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.
• Shipping containers, cabins, tents, a boom lift vehicle, and other small structures covering approximately 2,792 total square feet.

Tentative Staff Position

Recommend Approval with Conditions. Jessica Finkel, Project Manager; 415/352-3614 or jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov

Emergency Permits

The Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing.

Applicant

St. Francis Yacht Club
700 Marina Boulevard
San Francisco, CA 94123

Emergency Permit No. E2023.002.00

Emergency Permit Request Received 01/13/23

Emergency Permit Approved via E-mail 01/19/23 and 03/09/23

Location

Within the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction, at 99 Yacht Street, in the City and County of San Francisco.

Description

Conduct 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:

1. installation of two new 12-inch-diameter, 60-foot-long piles at the edge of the East Pier;
2. removal and replacement of four damaged piles;
3. removal of a concrete section of the West Pier; and
4. placement 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.

Tentative Staff Position

Recommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding, Project Manager; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov

March 30, 2023

Commission Mailing March 24, 2023

• April 6, 2023 Commission Meeting
• Issued Regionwide Permits
• Applications for Permits, Federal Consistency Actions, and Amendments
• Consistency Determination Summary Strategic Aquatic Sediment Placement Pilot Project No. C2022.011.00 (PDF)
• Flow 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)

Commission Mailing March 30, 2023

• Staff Report and Recommendation on a Contract with Resources Legacy Fund for Environmental Justice Advisors (PDF)
• Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding & Investment Framework: Project Conclusion (PDF)
• Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding & Investment Framework: Project Conclusion (PDF) // Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)
• Listing of Pending Administrative Matters
• Draft Minutes of March 2, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)
• Staff Recommendation West Bay Sanitary District Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility Levee Improvement Project (PDF)
  Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)

Articles about the Bay and BCDC

• County’s Largest Public Works Project Ever ‘Passes With Flying Colors’
• Alameda Harbor Seal Haul-Out inspires research in NY
• This floating community is a rare Bay Area spot for affordable living. Can it survive?
• Marin air tour operation battles mounting state fines
• $1.3B plan to fill last empty pier on Embarcadero may get boost from state
• Rodanthe, North Carolina sees rapid rates of erosion, rising sea levels – Washington Post

Meeting Minutes

Audio Recording First Part

Audio Recording Second Part

Audio Transcript

Boardroom SX80: It’s a village to raise a chair.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you all.

Boardroom SX80: Peggy. Will you call the Role Commissioners? Will you unmute to announce your presence? And then we mute yourselves. When you have

Boardroom SX80: indicated you are present.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Cheer Wasserman here, Vice Chair Eisen. Here, Commissioner Annieo here.

Eddie Ahn, Commissioner: Commissioner on here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner, her

Pat Burt, Commissioner: here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Atland.

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: present

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy

John Gioia, Commissioner: I’m. Here

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner.

1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: present

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther

Andrew Gunther: here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner, has here

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Molten Peters. Here Commissioner Peskin, present Commissioner Pine here Commissioner rancho. Here. Commissioner, show Walter here, Commissioner M. Mule.

David Ambuehl, Commissioner: Here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimono.

Boardroom SX80: Here, Commissioner Pemberton.

Sheri Pemberton, Commissioner: Here.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Kitchener.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Van Hughes Vancouver.

Lenny Mendonca, Commissioner: been down here.

Boardroom SX80: You are Thank you

Boardroom SX80: and Commissioner Gilmour here. Did I forget anybody.

Jesse Arreguin, Commissioner: Commissioner Ergy is present.

Boardroom SX80: Hi, Jessie! Thank you. Anybody else.

Boardroom SX80: We have 22 Commissioners present For Forum.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: scheduling transportation, distances and and potential illness or actual illness.

Boardroom SX80: But I also want to observe, I think the meetings are more robust.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: The next item is public comment on items not on our agenda or not matter of public hearing.

Boardroom SX80: and I think we have 2 speakers for public comment, one here and one in the

Boardroom SX80: remote audience, like counting no 2 in the remote. And

Boardroom SX80: to here I think you have 2 remotely, and I believe

Boardroom SX80: i’m not sure if the ones that are here are associated with an agenda. Item.

Boardroom SX80: So there’s a gentleman. Are you associated with a particular agenda? Item.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and i’ll start with John Coleman.

Boardroom SX80: Hello, Executive Director and Bcb. DC. Commissioners. My name is Barbara Tassa. I live in Bayview, and I live close to Candlestick Point State recreation area.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: I run, walk bike, and sometimes just go there to sit, watch the water and the ships in the bay.

Boardroom SX80: The park is an important asset for my family and the nearby community.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Everybody nearby is impacted.

Boardroom SX80: So I am here today to ask B. Cdc. In its power to help re-establish access to this park and get it funded properly.

Boardroom SX80: It was 2015 when the nearby candlestick stadium

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: And one last thing pictures of the area just Don’t, do a justice.

Boardroom SX80: Take the time to go. See for yourselves what we are asking for

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: but also the beauty of the sight, and why it should be your priority. Thank you.

Yes.

Boardroom SX80: thank you. John Coleman.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you

Boardroom SX80: our remote public speakers. We have 3 chair. David Lewis is first date after Davis. David is Alison Madden.

Boardroom SX80: David? Go ahead and unmute yourself. You have 3 min.

David 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

David Lewis (he/him/his): your urgent attention.

David 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

David 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

David Lewis (he/him/his): and the issues that

David Lewis (he/him/his): engineering Criteria Review Board addressed back in November

David Lewis (he/him/his): around seismic stability of the burns holding this material from the Bay

David 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

David Lewis (he/him/his): to be catastrophic to endangered bay wildlife.

David 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

David Lewis (he/him/his): any information shared with the public from B. C.

David Lewis (he/him/his): Your Engineering Criteria Review Board met last November, so it is definitely time for action and at minimum an update

David Lewis (he/him/his): to the Commission.

David 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,

David 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

David 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

David 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.

David 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

David Lewis (he/him/his): it’s opposition as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. David.

Boardroom SX80: Next is Allison, Madden Allison, Go ahead Unmute yourself. You have 3 min, and after Allison will be Dean Stanford.

I thank you. Can you hear me?

Boardroom SX80: Yes.

Alison 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.

Alison 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.

Alison Madden: and at the time there was a pretty

Alison 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

Alison 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

Alison Madden: make some kind of port back or recommendation in terms of amending the Bay plan, which I very much

Alison 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.

Alison 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

Alison Madden: provided some public comments before the B. C.

Alison 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

Alison Madden: for a non-level board i’m living on the upland in Sosolito. Now, where this I have a World war, 2 Higgins landing craft.

Alison Madden: It actually is a

Alison 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 Ssalito before I was born, and I cannot even find a non liverboard slip

Alison Madden: for it. I’m just experiencing real hardship. And

Alison Madden: so i’m advocating to actually raise the percent to harbor master discretion, not to exceed 25%.

Alison 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

Alison 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.

Alison Madden: If people move their boots over, compliance is just not staying on it more than 3 nights a week.

These displacement scenarios people end up living in alternative scenarios, and they need a safe, secure spot for their boat. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, Allison

Boardroom SX80: Dean Stanford. Go ahead and unmute yourself. You have 3 min.

Dean Stanford: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Dean Stanford

Dean Stanford: going to read the comments that I emailed to you hopefully. If I go over you want me to extra minute.

Dean Stanford: So I submitted a park proposal during the San Jose Santa Clara. Regional waste water facility, Master Plan Process in 2,010.

Dean Stanford: The proposed park includes miles of paved multi-use trails and dirt trails

Dean Stanford: for E. Bikes, mountain bikes, 0 Mission recreational vehicles and a new home for display. Santa Clara.

Dean 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

Dean Stanford: for a New California State Park

Dean 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.

Dean 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.

Dean 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.

Dean 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

Dean Stanford: as desired.

Dean 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

Dean 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.

Dean Stanford: All I ask is that the preservation of the levy Berm, except for breached.

Dean Stanford: and to be breached in America like you later be bridged.

Dean 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.

Dean Stanford: due to the restoration efforts of the shortened plan.

Dean Stanford: Under the nicotine Petr sack. The B. C. DC. Requires locations for water, Oriented land uses and increase public access.

Dean 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

Dean Stanford: and linkages between existing shoreline parks that requires the provision of these opportunities in relation to the biological species. Habitats

Dean Stanford: confused the restoration of

Dean 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

Dean 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.

Dean Stanford: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, sir. If you haven’t already, you can also submit a a public comment known as as well.

Dean Stanford: Yeah, I me all this and a couple of catchments. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Chair. No more public speakers.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: because I think there are some people here who may not be familiar with our procedures in State law

Boardroom SX80: for items that are discussed in public comment that are not on our agenda.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Welcome

Boardroom 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

so moved.

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: Second

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Molds Eaters move, and Commissioner No.

Boardroom SX80: Gilmore moved. Oh, Commissioner Gilmore moved. Sorry my ears are not Working Commissioner Gilmore moved. Mr. Kitchimono seconded. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: You second

Boardroom SX80: Eklin seconded.

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: Thank you. I didn’t think you heard me.

Boardroom SX80: Are there any who oppose the approval of minutes.

Boardroom SX80: Know anybody wishes to abstain.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t see any.

I

Boardroom SX80: every now and then I say this: you are fully entitled to abstain. You are not required to abstain

Boardroom SX80: if you were not here.

Boardroom SX80: All right, one

Boardroom SX80: you, Mr. Mendanka, abstains as well.

Lenny Mendonca, Commissioner: I was not present.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you

John 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?

John Cota, Court Reporter: You?

Boardroom SX80: I’m going to start my remarks as chair

Boardroom SX80: with a

Boardroom SX80: somewhat longer comment that I normally make. which I think will become self. The reasons for it will become self evident.

Boardroom SX80: In late January

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and accused B. Cdc. Staff of racism against black women.

Boardroom SX80: We took that very seriously

Boardroom SX80: and in response our executive director and I asked our general counsel, Gregg Sharp, to perform a fact, finding review to determine

Boardroom SX80: whether any actions by B. C. DC. Staff working with the E. J. Advisors program Warrant. A formal, Independent Human Resources Investigation.

Boardroom SX80: Greg and Peggy Atwell, B. Cdc’s Administrative Director, interviewed B Cdc. Staff members. the 4 remaining E. J. Advisors

Boardroom SX80: and representatives of the Resource Legacy Fund, the philanthropic organization that has provided funding for the E. J. Advisors program.

Boardroom SX80: After making several requests to interview the 3 former E. J. Advisors who had made the complaint.

Boardroom SX80: Greg was able to interview them, and they were joined

Boardroom SX80: in that interview by an attorney of their choice. who was present, but did not formally represent them.

Boardroom SX80: The executive director and I have carefully reviewed Greg’s report of this review.

Boardroom SX80: Greg and Peggy found that the former E. J. Advisors charges that PC. DC. Staff committed. Acts of racism against black women

Boardroom SX80: are unfounded, and are not substantiated by any evidence.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Therefore, under State law, it cannot be shared.

Boardroom SX80: Well. I am certainly reassured

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: that there is institutional racism in our country, our State and our region. and that as a government agency.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: We are carefully reflecting on these accusations

Boardroom SX80: and examining ways that our agency might have behaved differently.

Boardroom SX80: and learn from what occurred as we move forward.

Boardroom SX80: I think it is also important to understand that our E. J. Advisors program is new.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: we need to better align the expectations of this Commission and B. Cdc. Staff and the expectations of the environmental justice advisors.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: and advice to selected B Cdc. Activities.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and P Cdc. Staff

Boardroom SX80: need to adjust their expectations. as does the J. Advisors

Boardroom SX80: about the balance of work involved. As the representatives of these communities.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: as much as B. C. DC. Wishes to, and is trying to increase. The E. J. Adviser’s stipends.

Boardroom SX80: given the work that they are eager to perform.

Boardroom SX80: Doing so requires approval of a contract by State control agencies whose policies and processes are out of our control.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: them and their community to become more communications with their community to become more robust, effective, and efficient.

Boardroom SX80: P. Cdc. 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: Staff are hard at work on developing a racial equity plan for BCC. Which will lay out specific actions and metrics.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: staff.

Boardroom SX80: We expect that Staff will expeditiously complete that effort, and the Commission will adopt such a plan

Boardroom SX80: as part of this effort.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: with relevant experience in the environmental justice field to help our staff and the E. J. Advisors

Boardroom SX80: learn ways to move our shared goals forward.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: We will involve the E. J. Advisors in the process of selecting such a consultant.

Boardroom SX80: We will agendize this issue as soon as possible, so the Commission can fully discuss the Ej Advisors program

Boardroom SX80: going forward

Boardroom SX80: on a different note.

Boardroom SX80: This morning we held an interesting and robust and thought-provoking

Boardroom SX80: meeting, a combined meeting of our financing the future and rising Sea Level Commissioner working groups.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: you’ll get some sense of, and will be posted on our site

Boardroom SX80: this Morning’s effort, I think, marked a significant milestone in our efforts

Boardroom SX80: to understand what we need to do, how we need to do it. how we’re going to pay for it.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: not only us.

Boardroom SX80: but our partners in this

Boardroom SX80: other elected officials.

Boardroom SX80: and ultimately the public. We have a big challenge to educate the public on what we need to do

Boardroom SX80: to address rising sea level, so that we, in fact, do not become inundated by the waters that are inevitably going to rise.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: The first meeting we had, I think.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: a new B Cdc. Staff, who will be leading the beneficial Reuse project, and she shared

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: I I would urge you to take a look at that.

Boardroom SX80: and

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: May nineteenth, and typically our meetings are the the third Friday of odd numbered months.

Boardroom SX80: and

Boardroom SX80: It’s going to take us about

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, Pat. The

Boardroom SX80: sediment, and particularly beneficial reuse is one of the many important

Boardroom SX80: and challenging issues that we need

Boardroom SX80: to address. But it is also a very significant part of how we are going to adapt to rising sea level.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: at that meeting.

Boardroom SX80: We expect a public hearing and vote to update the resolution that sets the priority use areas in the Bay plan.

Boardroom SX80: Consideration of legislative matters in Sacramento.

Boardroom SX80: Excuse me

Boardroom SX80: a briefing on compliance at Oyster Point, Marina, in San Mateo County, and a briefing on implementation of our strategic plan

Boardroom SX80: that brings us to the exciting time in our agenda, where, if anybody has had ex-partate communications concerning and matter of

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: adjudicatory or hearing matters. not simply

Boardroom SX80: constituent discussions. Any ex-party reports.

Boardroom SX80: seeing none that brings us to the report of the executive Director.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: You see, on April sixth, 1772, Catherine, the great Empress of Russia. ended. Russia’s tax imposed on men with beards

Boardroom SX80: that was enacted 74 years earlier by Peter the Great for defensive and military reasons.

Having 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: who is sitting next to Peggy Atwell Rainless. Put your hand there. You go.

Railina is transitioning into our director of administration, as we have but 2 months before Peggy retires.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

So we’re replacing Ethan, who has represented B C. DC. So well for so long with Ashley Tommerlin, our Senior Bay Development design analyst.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and we’ve asked Catherine Pan, our shoreline development Program manager, who has succeeded Ethan to become Ashley’s alternate.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

As Wade commented at the meeting. However, I am the outlier

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: The good news is that the Clamis elevator is now working, and the vessel is finally open to the public.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Finally, Mr. Chairman, because it is that time of year

I have in my hand

Boardroom SX80: the list of Commissioners alternates Dr. B. And Ecrb. Members who have not yet filed their F Ppc. Financial disclosure formed 700 forms.

I believe that you all know who you are.

Boardroom SX80: As usual, i’ll hand this list to chair, washerman for a formal reading in our next meeting.

Boardroom SX80: Not today. So you have time. That concludes my report chair. Washington and i’m happy to answer any questions.

Boardroom SX80: Are there any questions for the executive director.

Boardroom SX80: seeing none.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: 6 to 9 months, as they process the amendment to that plan which is

Boardroom SX80: only about a year overdue. but for good reason.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: join in the executive directors. Thank you for your service here, and wish you well in your future career.

Boardroom SX80: Yours?

Boardroom SX80: Oh, sorry any questions. See? She stands up so i’m expecting her to say something.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Yes, there is a hand grease.

Boardroom SX80: Dean Stanford. This is more related to administrative manners.

Boardroom SX80: So go ahead and unmute yourself.

Dean Stanford: Thank you. I just wanted to talk about the beneficial reuse of bridging material.

Dean Stanford: The

Boardroom SX80: I don’t think that’s an administrative matter. I think that’s item number 10.

Boardroom SX80: It’s item Number 10.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: No hands raised here

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: adjourns into closed Session Commissioners who are participating remotely.

Boardroom SX80: When I ask you to do so. and not before.

Boardroom SX80: Please leave this Zoom Meeting, as you normally would at adjournment.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioners who are here will move to the Clermont room

Boardroom SX80: after the closed session has ended. Commissioners who are participating remotely will leave that meeting

Boardroom SX80: Come back by zoom here.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: We are back in open session.

Boardroom SX80: The Commission held the closed session and took no reportable action. So there is no further further action on this matter

Boardroom SX80: today

Boardroom SX80: That brings us to item 9 on the Commission agenda Consideration of a contract for Environmental justice advisers

Boardroom SX80: with resource, legacy fund.

Boardroom SX80: Phoenix, Ourmenta, our senior manager for climate equity and community engagement will present the staff report and recommendation.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: But before I get into the presentation I would like to introduce our new environmental justice specialist, Lita Bridey

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you

Boardroom SX80: slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t know.

Boardroom SX80: Okay.

Boardroom SX80: Next slide.

Boardroom SX80: Okay.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: The Resource Legacy Fund originally provided 6 E. J. Advisors with annual stipends of $6,000 per year.

Boardroom SX80: Our left committed to funding for 3 years of the program.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Next slide

Boardroom SX80: we currently have 4 E. J. Advisors with 2 open seats.

They are Hula Garcia of rise up South City

Boardroom SX80: Violet Siena of climate resilient communities.

Boardroom SX80: Selena Feliciano, of Sf. Consulting Company, and Anthony Khalil of the Baby’s 100 Point advocates.

Each 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.

Boardroom SX80: Next slide, please.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: ensure that B. Cdc’s Decision-making processes are robust, meaningful, and equitable.

Boardroom SX80: prevent harm before it starts and honor the work that has been accomplished and learned from previous mistakes.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: work with the B Cdc. Staff and Commission to develop metrics, to track the implementation of such changes.

Boardroom SX80: encourage commission of pointing authorities to select Commissioners and alternates who reflect the diversity of the Bay shoreline and inland communities.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: These goals are also aligned with our Ej and social equity principles, our racial equity plan and our strategic plan. Next slide

Boardroom SX80: over the past 2 years the Ej. Advisors have advised us on a variety of topics to achieve the aforementioned goals.

Boardroom SX80: They hold monthly meetings and regularly participate in the Commissioner E. J. Working group meeting. They participate.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: This contract allows us to pay our part of the contribution for the E. J. Advisor

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

We 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: next slide. This.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. And i’ll take any questions

Boardroom SX80: any questions from Commissioners

Boardroom SX80: Peggy, do we have any

Boardroom SX80: public comment? No, I see no hands for his chair

Boardroom SX80: with no questions and comments. I would entertain a recommendation. Sorry

Boardroom SX80: you did it all right

Boardroom SX80: multi-

Boardroom SX80: motion, and a second to approve

Boardroom SX80: of Commissioner Peters and Commissioner Kishimoto beats out commission, on

Boardroom SX80: Peggy. Call the roll, please.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner an enhanced Yes. Commissioner on

Eddie Ahn, Commissioner: Yes.

Jesse Arreguin, Commissioner: Commissioner Erin. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner her

Pat Burt, Commissioner: Yes.

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: Hi.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Jo. You

John Gioia: I

Boardroom SX80: Krishna Horn.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner. Hurry.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, Commissioner Gunther.

Andrew Gunther: Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner has. Yes. Commissioner Moulton Peters. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: hey, Commissioner Pauline.

Boardroom SX80: Yes, yes. Commissioner Shelter. Yes.

Commissioner M. Mule.

David Ambuehl, Commissioner: Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner T. Shinoto. Yes, Commissioner Pemberton.

Sheri Pemberton, Commissioner: Yes.

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Commissioner Pascal, Yes.

Joelle Gallagher, Commissioner: Commissioner Gallagher Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Manhattan.

Lenny Mendonca, Commissioner: Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Hilmore. Yes. Vice chair. Eisen. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Chair Wasserman. Yes. Did I miss anybody?

1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Commissioner Gordon? Both. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Okay. Thank you. And hold on a second

Boardroom SX80: 21. Yes, no, no, no abstention, as

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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,

Boardroom SX80: 11 0 0 to pilot the placement of dredge sediment in the bay to support title marshes and the flats next slide.

Boardroom SX80: Oh, I

Boardroom SX80: slides, please

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: The technique is considered a potential tool in sea level rise adaptation over time

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: on a strategic placement framework, a document which outlined several techniques for supporting existing and restored title marshes with drug sediment.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: love that title marshes and mudflats, water quality, subtitle areas and dredging policies regarding pilot project and sufficient monitoring activities.

Boardroom SX80: In addition, whether or not the impact to the subtitle, habitat and wildlife is justified by the need to understand this technique.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, I am a planner and environmental manager with the core with the San Francisco district

and I’m. The planner on our strategic placement project. As Brenda mentioned, we’ve worked closely

Boardroom SX80: the Pcdc coast of Conservancy Water Board, on developing and designing this project.

Boardroom SX80: So if you could go to the next slide, please.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: and contracting support from anchor Qa. Next slide, please.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: go to the next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So this is a graphic to show how much sediment is needed. Moving forward over the course of

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So, taking that sediment and trying to adapt to climate change, how much sediment is required

Boardroom SX80: If you move forward on that side, please

the

Boardroom SX80: so. As Brenda mentioned, this pilot project was

Boardroom SX80: authorized under Section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act 2,016.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: reconstruct ecosystems and wetlands across the bay. Go to the next slide, please.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So what we are proposing to do in this project you can go to the next slide, please.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: As a result of sea level rise increased wave action, erosion.

Boardroom SX80: So this can help us build resilience

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

We’re trying to see if we can

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: ecosystems, endangered species, and so on and so forth.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So to build this into a contract and have it actually

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: Next slide, please.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So we started out with these 12 sites around the bay.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: the whales tail near Shore placement offshore of

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: including gale grass beds in your shore reefs, and also protection for disadvantaged communities and her environmental justice. Considerations next slide, please.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: we tested 100,000 cubic yard placement at different locations in these placement

Boardroom SX80: grids that we’re showing here so shallow location, medium-depth location, and a deeper location

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and you can move to the next slide, please.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: So ultimately the the proposed action is placing in the near-shore environment.

Boardroom SX80: as Brenda had mentioned, between 9 and 12 seat and depths

Boardroom SX80: tidally timed, coming from Redwood City

Boardroom SX80: Federal Harbor Navigation Channel, placing here at the the the shallowest site possible in the summertime.

Boardroom SX80: and 100,000 cubic yards the next side, please.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: next slide, please.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: Next slide, please.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

affect these eel grass resources, and that’s part of a broader monitoring effort.

Boardroom SX80: So if you go to the next slide, please. so our monitoring plan, we don’t, we don’t anticipate having

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

to go

Boardroom SX80: next slide, please.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So go to the next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So in terms of where we are in the environmental compliance. Timeline, we have

Boardroom SX80: most of our environmental permits in hand and we’re moving forward and targeting mid-april to have all of our environmental compliance

Boardroom SX80: and and look forward to to your vote.

Boardroom SX80: So next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: where that fits in the broader scheme of things. We had gone out for public comment on our Nepa.

Boardroom SX80: our National Environmental Policy Act, and secret documents. Last fall, September, October. The consistency, consistency, determination, request, was submitted earlier this year. And

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Questions

Boardroom SX80: from Commissioners, Mr. Shaw.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: I don’t know if there’s anything 10 feet deep below Dunbarton Bridge, but most of its

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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?

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and the thing that I was so struck from

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: a chance to go down to Alvizo County Park, you can. You can go and see that it’s it’s just remarkable

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: thanks for that answer. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther.

Andrew 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.

Andrew Gunther: which I assume means the actual deposition of segment will begin in this this fall if everything goes on schedule.

Boardroom SX80: That’s correct.

Andrew 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.

Andrew 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

Andrew 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: That’s true. You know it’s it. It was a a challenge.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and I

Boardroom SX80: it’s it’s starting in early September, so I think we can still catch some of the the windiness of summertime

Boardroom SX80: to transport the material. But the modeling effort only looked 2 months out.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Andrew 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

Andrew 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

Andrew Gunther: a a decision about strategic placement

Andrew 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

here back about the results of the project.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Ecklin, then Commissioner Eisen.

Boardroom SX80: and then

Pat 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.

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: We got a lot of judgment here for the Court of Oakland that we used to

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: make a wetland out of the runway out of Hamilton, and very successful, very successful. And they use pipes.

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: They, because Sam Saint Pavlo Bay is pretty pretty shallow.

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: My My question here, though, is, Have Have you engaged the San Francisco at estuary partnership in in this experiment?

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, we we have met with San Francisco for a partnership.

Boardroom SX80: In this I would say it

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: which I think you know this this is like a subset project of that broader effort.

So we have engaged with Sfp, and

Boardroom SX80: also a number of other nonprofit

to the

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: and you’re going to keep them involved in the project. As this moves along.

Boardroom SX80: I think.

Boardroom 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.

Pat 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

Pat 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.

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Eisen.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you for the clarity of your presentation for the late persons among us. It was really helpful.

Boardroom SX80: You mentioned direct placement as a sort of an alternate technique to this shallow water placement project.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: strategic placement wouldn’t be a viable option

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: building and planting your garden.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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?

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: as a strategic placement location

Boardroom SX80: moving forward for this particular pilot project. And then what techniques would we use in those places?

Boardroom SX80: I

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: I: yeah, we that we do believe that. Okay, Thank you

so much.

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Hawes.

Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: This is following along on Commissioner Gunther’s seasonal question. Did I hear you correct? Is there a dredging season?

Boardroom SX80: September through November?

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: going forward next year. Let’s say

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: a year and a half. Yeah, there, there’s a timeline built in staff recommendation about reporting

Boardroom SX80: requirements great. I’m. I’m. Very supportive of these kinds of

Boardroom SX80: innovative ways to reuse sediment and to reduce judging costs, and I hope that we help with

Boardroom SX80: speeding permits along for you, too. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: I just have a couple of quick questions.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: post is one year

Boardroom SX80: I don’t think that it’s one year later. I think so.

Boardroom 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.

That’s the

Boardroom SX80: okay

Boardroom SX80: that there there’s a different period of time.

Boardroom SX80: It’s not longer than a year ago for any portion.

Boardroom SX80: And

Boardroom SX80: in the same context of Commissioner Eisner, I’m. Clearly a layman at this

Boardroom SX80: it is. Is that really sufficient? I mean, given what you’re talking about about the the course of wave and wind movement.

Boardroom SX80: This is an experiment

Boardroom SX80: We in the past have seen some experiments

Boardroom SX80: where

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: how

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Excellent answer. Thank you. And I assume the cost of that monitoring is included in the budget. Yeah.

Boardroom SX80: if a question in Mr. Gilmour. Okay, now, I’m confused.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So how do we know at that later date

Boardroom SX80: that it’s going to move within 2 months, and not 4 months, because the win in wave action is

Boardroom SX80: not as great.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, but I mean it’s. It’s a fair question we did summer versus winter modeling. So in in the winter time.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: you know.

Boardroom SX80: centimeters to a foot high, will

Boardroom 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

2 months.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: and and and get it back to an equilibrium state.

Boardroom SX80: Does that make sense? Or did I get too technical there.

Boardroom SX80: you know it. It makes sense.

Boardroom SX80: But I guess my overall question is.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: And then, as far as

Boardroom SX80: the monitoring period, I think what you guys worked on was how much funding you had. So overall

Boardroom SX80: the project got 3.6 million dollars from the Federal Government for the development, the planning for permitting

Boardroom SX80: and execution.

Boardroom SX80: including the monitoring. And so

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: But there is a limitation on the funding, and

Boardroom SX80: no, that’s that’s fine. Thank you. Thanks for answering my question. Thank you.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: I I. The project manager, would be the person to answer about whether the funding will expire.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: and all of these components, and then also building it into a contract currently that

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: at this stage.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Then I can certainly check with him, you know, and that would be a reevaluation.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: be able to be won’t be as an option on the table in the future.

Boardroom 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.

Set back in the future.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, I just I would. I would say.

Boardroom SX80: doing it at the height of probability of success.

Boardroom SX80: So that you do get funded

Boardroom SX80: right? Right? That’s yeah, like

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: so

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah. I I was just asking about the

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: to deposit it. You know it rather than during during a direct deposit.

Boardroom SX80: I I think

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: I’m going to open the public hearing.

Boardroom SX80: And I have 2 public speaker cards. One is from John Coleman

Boardroom SX80: appears to be ready.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: It was a coalition of Epc. B. Cdc. The Coastal Conservancy.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Former Commissioner James, with wrath.

Boardroom SX80: The only time I could called James is when i’m in trouble, and

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: I I am not representing anybody but myself. I no longer spend my days thinking about sediment and dredging.

Boardroom SX80: but some of you know that I had something to do with Cinema Baylands and the Hamilton project.

Boardroom SX80: and before I started working on that I had hair, and it wasn’t much darker. So

Boardroom SX80: this is a good day. This morning at the coast of Conservancy, they gave a grant to Valley transportation to take

Boardroom SX80: the excavation material from the

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and and that for that

Boardroom SX80: that was my mental outlook for 16 years at the Board of Oakland. How can we use the sediment

Boardroom SX80: after we not throw it away in the ocean? How could we make it

Boardroom SX80: ultimately not just a one off. That depends on Federal funding, but something that could be done more routinely.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: is erosion.

Boardroom SX80: and so what they suggested is placing near shore about the same area, sandier sediment that would move

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: rather than requiring special authorization

Boardroom SX80: by Congress, which was required for the 42 foot project in the 50.

Boardroom SX80: And then that final point I want to make.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: but they’re always there, and, as Joe said, they just pecked Joe Johnson, they just pecked

Boardroom SX80: to pick away edge. So the movement of the sediment is not going to stop.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: that’s why I’m here. Thank you, Sir Peggy. Do we have any speakers remotely? Yes, we have 2,

Boardroom SX80: Dean Stanford. Thank you for hanging with us now ahead and unmute yourself. Team. You have 3 min.

Dean Stanford: Thank you like Jim. I also wanted to bring up the

Dean Stanford: plan of dumping something like 3 million cubic yards of the Bart tunnel

Dean 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

Dean Stanford: proposed park on the bay in San Jose

Dean Stanford: could also use the beneficial use of the sediment. They are going to be restoring something like 800 acres. the sledge drawing pawns.

Dean Stanford: and could use the sentiment or the or the Vta tunnel dirt to cap the

Dean Stanford: sled ponds and create some kind of train for the park

Dean Stanford: to be used to raise the levy Berm, around Pondy, 18 for the park trail.

Dean Stanford: and also create Habitat Islands within the pond.

Dean Stanford: Also, the park is located in the official disadvantage community.

Dean Stanford: Thanks.

Boardroom SX80: The we have 4 more now at

Boardroom SX80: Karen. Hi! You’re next. Go ahead, and you have 3 min

Carin 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.

Carin High: We are encouraged to see reuse of suitable dredge material for the benefit of the bay ecosystem. We also feel that it is

Carin 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

Carin 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

Carin 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

Carin High: transferred.

Carin 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.

Carin High: but they may help reflying questions for future projects. So

Carin High: yeah, encouraged to see beneficial reuse. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Charles Schaefer. Go ahead and unmute yourself.

Hi! My name’s Charles Schaffer. I’m with the Sierra Club’s Day alive. Project

Charles Schafer: We absolutely support the the experiment.

Charles Schafer: And

Charles Schafer: well, for one thing, we need to build up

Charles 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.

Charles Schafer: especially that’s a case given that we don’t have much room around the date for the marshes to migrate.

Charles Schafer: and it is absolutely critical that we

Charles Schafer: extend the amount of marshland that we have around the bay.

Charles Schafer: and without the

Charles Schafer: doing anything

Charles Schafer: like this. We’re actually going to lose that march, and that’s not a good thing at all.

Charles 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

Charles Schafer: it. It’s going to delay anything that we could possibly do with penalty.

Charles Schafer: and we don’t have that time. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Chair and lost your

Boardroom SX80: I.

Boardroom SX80: We have one more. I hope they got that right. Go ahead and unmute yourself. You have 3 min.

Pat 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

sea level rise, and also many of our businesses. So this project seems really right on point for us, and if there are other

Pat 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.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Pat

Boardroom SX80: Chair. No more public comment.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner? Sorry. Peskin moves Commissioner, Show all 2 s

Boardroom SX80: because I was looking to My!

Boardroom SX80: Is there any opposition to close in the public hearing? Seeing none? The public hearing is closed. A.

Boardroom SX80: There were a couple of questions. If you want to address them briefly. I’m happy to have you do so.

Boardroom SX80: It’s not

Boardroom SX80: nobody’s raised in the questions from the public hearing

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: we’re currently looking at along with the South bay, salt ponds, and the Us. Fish and wildlife service

Boardroom SX80: ponds, a 12, a 13, a 8, and potentially a 14.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Any other questions or comments from commissioners. Before I ask for the recommendation and

Boardroom SX80: chair, Washington, we might need to get a request from the army core to accept the conditions.

Boardroom SX80: That was part of what I said.

Boardroom SX80: Does the Army court accept the recommendation?

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: Us. Army Corps of engineers. We do accept the conditions founded because you see the germination. Thank you very much

Boardroom SX80: recommendation.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: strategic aquatic placement project is consistent to the maximum extent practicable of the Commission’s San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone management program

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: ineffective, or cause more harm than the removal itself.

Boardroom SX80: and that we recommend your approval and concurrent. Thank you. I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Bolton. Peter moves

Boardroom SX80: the motion

Boardroom SX80: seconds. I

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Peggy, will you call the role Commissioner on?

Yes.

Jesse Arreguin, Commissioner: Commissioner Aaron. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Burt.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner her.

Boardroom SX80: We lost him Commissioner. Actually

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: Aye.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy I,

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Horn.

1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: I

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner, he.

Andrew Gunther: I

Boardroom SX80: Hi.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Molten Peters. Yes, Commissioner.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner, She’ll Walter. Yes. all right. Commissioner M. Here.

David Ambuehl, Commissioner: Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. Yes, Commissioner Pemberton. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Gallagher.

Joelle Gallagher, Commissioner: Yes.

Boardroom SX80: yes.

Boardroom SX80: yes.

Boardroom SX80: yes, and I think your speakers are. No, it’s not.

Boardroom SX80: Did I miss anybody?

Boardroom SX80: Oh, Sorry G.

Boardroom SX80: Did I miss anybody else just checking to make sure you paying attention

Boardroom SX80: now? 21 yeses no no, no abstentions, for the motion is passed. Thank you for your work.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: on the flow. Equalization and resource, Recovery, facility, Levy Improvements Project.

Boardroom SX80: Say that fast by West Bay, Sanitary District in Menlo Park.

Boardroom SX80: Attic, and Leiden, our Resources manager will introduce the item.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Shirt Wassaman. Me just share my screen.

Boardroom SX80: There we go. all right.

Boardroom SX80: Good afternoon, Chairwosterman and Commissioners to day. I’ll be presenting

Boardroom SX80: to you the application for the West Space sanitary districts flow Equalization and resource, Recovery, facility, Levy Improvement Project.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: The map on the right shows the project location which is directly adjacent to Bedwell Day, Front Park in Menlo Park.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: However, the project site itself, again shown in the Red. is not located within a bay plan designated priority use area.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: B. Cdc’s current jurisdiction within the project area is shown on the figure to the right.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: a 100 feet inland from the bay.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: any Vd. 88,

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: particularly with including habitat elements that will actually be constructed out into the bay.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So this project is different in that regard.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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,

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

It’s

Boardroom SX80: so to to set a little bit of a site context before the applicants present.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

So

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: as shown. You can see the current levy Berm system is susceptible to overtopping even today, at a 50 year storm event.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: climate change, shoreline protection safety of fills and public access.

Yes.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and whether the project provides maximum feasible public access consistent with the project.

Boardroom 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.

Okay.

a second. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: it’s

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: born in Stanford, Stanford Hospital, and raised in North Fair Oaks Redwood City.

Boardroom SX80: Pretty much the project area that we’re talking about today.

Boardroom SX80: Do we have a presentation that’s coming up? Okay. Yeah, just 1 s.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, it’s getting it’s a little slow.

Boardroom SX80: Thursday afternoon.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, we’re good.

Boardroom SX80: all right. So this is. This is an exciting project that West Bay is undertaken.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: If you can go to the next slide

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: next slide.

Boardroom SX80: So in prior to to the

Boardroom SX80: so

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and then

Boardroom SX80: and then i’ll go on to some some more

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: In the Menlo Park district.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: by rich stormwater, so we’ll actually divert flow into the site

Boardroom SX80: again, protecting the bay from from from exposure to weight to to waste water.

So the the we’ve been doing this since the 1980 S.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: use them in other areas of the bay, which is a. Really, we think it’s a nice partnership.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: so in the ninth, in the 2,010 S. Or so we noticed that during king tides.

Boardroom SX80: The water started getting closer and closer to the top of our of our levy.

Boardroom SX80: and, as you can see, just in the just basic nature of this facility protecting the site is a matter of public health.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Another thing, this one. Okay.

Boardroom SX80: So

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: a little of us. Thank you by me.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: Flood slew. Starting to come and overtop the levy into pond 2

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Next slide, please.

Boardroom SX80: So our project itself. The design is described in this graphic. Here it’s

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: and also to the northeast at Bedwell, Bayfront Park the site also includes, as mentioned before, coming up. The project

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Speaking of levels.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So this slide also shows a rendering, and of what happens with the project

that’s like something

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: next slide, please.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: next slide, please.

Boardroom 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.

the site off of the northeast, so that the Ecotone slope can be viewed. It’ll include a bench and interpretive signage.

Boardroom SX80: and with that i’m going to turn it over to Lauren to talk about.

Boardroom SX80: Hi! Good afternoon. I’m Lauren huff with Snca, and just a

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So I think at this point we’ve arrived at a pretty good balance of those near-term impacts and long-term

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: In order to offset those permanent impacts we’ll be creating

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: slide.

Boardroom SX80: So the project is subject to numerous permits, and these are obviously not all of the measures associated with those permits. We.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: And then there are also triggers that will

create a

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: The monitoring will go on for 10 years for most elements.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: And with that I will hand it back to staff.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. That concludes our presentation on the project.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: I will now open the public hearing on this matter.

Boardroom SX80: Any member of the public who would like to speak. I don’t have any cards from people in the audience.

Boardroom SX80: Peggy, do we have anybody raising their hand on Zoom?

Boardroom SX80: You have 3 min.

Dean 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

Dean Stanford: i’d like to know more about. Why, Why, you can’t have a trail around the perimeter. There was a safety issue.

Dean Stanford: I know there’s a there there is. There was a It’s all around Sunny whales, water treatment plant pawns

Dean Stanford: and

Dean Stanford: the loss of the 9 Mile Bailey trail of out of county partners in

Dean Stanford: huge loss.

Dean Stanford: Maybe this could help mitigate that.

Dean Stanford: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, sir. Next, Peggy. Thank you. He

for me.

Boardroom SX80: Karen high, and then Gina Tab, go ahead, Karen.

Carin High: Good afternoon, Karen. High Citizens Committee to complete the refuge. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Carin 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.

Carin High: This project is neither of these, and we strenuously object

Carin 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

Carin 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

Carin 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

Carin High: this project begins well below the high tide line lying damaging existing wetlands.

Carin 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.

Carin 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.

Carin High: In contrast this project will be exposed to tidal action and subject to wind and storm-driven waves.

Carin High: Our concerns are not only focused on the risks associated with erosion of the constructed slope.

Carin 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

Carin 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

Carin 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.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Tina. You’re next and then Charles Schaefer.

Boardroom SX80: You’re a hand, Gina.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Hello! Can you hear me?

Boardroom SX80: Yes, go ahead.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Great!

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Thank you. Chairman Westman, and and the commission

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: i’m Gita Dev and I’m. Speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, Loma period, a chapter

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: as well as the 3 Chapter Sea Level Rise Committee.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: as I

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: would like to note, as Karen hided that we very much support nature based adaptation

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: in every project.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: However, in this project we

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: we were encouraged to see that nature-based adaptation was being considered.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: However. we want to point out

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: that it is not what we expect when the

Gita 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.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: This will be very very disruptive, and we see no reason why

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: the Levy and the Ecoton could not be placed within the property line of the project.

Gita 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

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: protested.

Gita 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

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: that this

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: which is being presented as a nature-based adaptation is really destroying

Gita 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

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: the trail is not very well, being considered the signage that is considered just not really provide for

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: the people who are using the trails

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: to know that they will be reaching a dead end.

Gita 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.

Gita 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

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: right next to the Greco Island is not an ideal location for a helicopter.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: and simultaneously the oyster reefs Don’t seem to have any scientific basis. Thank you very much.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Chair Wasserman. That’s all the public comment in it.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. We have no more public comments.

Boardroom SX80: I would welcome a motion and a second to close the public hearing.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, absolutely

Boardroom SX80: sorry. Show altar moves molten. Peter’s seconds.

Boardroom SX80: Is there any objection to closing the public hearing. seeing none?

Boardroom SX80: The public hearing is closed

Boardroom SX80: now.

Boardroom SX80: Comments or questions from Commissioner. So

Boardroom SX80: i’m going to go to this screen first, uncharacteristically. But I have

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Gallagher, who is

Boardroom SX80: a new voice, so we we will honor

Joelle 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

Joelle 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

Joelle Gallagher, Commissioner: more explaining there.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, maybe I can start, and then I can turn it over to the project team.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So that’s the definition. I can certainly pull it up if you’d like to to see it

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Joelle Gallagher, Commissioner: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: It’s your computer.

Boardroom SX80: I’m. Following along on Commissioner Gallagher’s question. I I guess i’d like to understand a little more

Boardroom SX80: response to the question about the Ecoton Levy this project, and whether it is impacting

Boardroom SX80: the existing wetland, or just how it fits into the strategy and the long-term strategy as well.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, I can certainly start and then turn it to the project team. So

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: fully vegetates and can buy can provide the same like habitat functionality.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther.

Andrew Gunther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 2 questions. One is about the Oyster Reef.

Andrew 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

Andrew Gunther: where they good plan for the eventuality of not being able to establish the oysters.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Andrew Gunther: So. So this is proposed

Andrew Gunther: really as a test of using this kind of nature based

Andrew Gunther: wave attenuation structure, I mean, we don’t we don’t Really.

Andrew Gunther: there’s no there’s no this is never been done before. At this in this part of the bay.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, to my knowledge, I don’t think it’s been done in this part of the bay.

Andrew Gunther: Okay, I can.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Andrew 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

Andrew Gunther: the sediment. In the presentation you mentioned that there is sediment already on site that can be used to construct

Andrew 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?

Boardroom 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.

Andrew Gunther: Okay, Thank you.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: make the vegetation effort happen much more quickly.

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Kishimoto.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Well, well, first of all, thank you for being some pioneers

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: refuge, and

Boardroom SX80: I think you know they. So

Boardroom SX80: I got some some of my questions answered, but maybe to me maybe some of it might boil down to

Boardroom SX80: Let’s see. I’m looking at like pages

Boardroom SX80: 11 or so where they kind of looked at the wording

Boardroom SX80: of You know the mitigation, etc. And so some of it comes down to May versus shell. So

Boardroom SX80: so so for those of you who don’t have it in front of you, for example, they talk about.

Boardroom SX80: If adverse impacts to the bay are identified during the monitoring period. then compensatory mitigation may be required.

Boardroom SX80: And would it be possible to change that to shell.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: really doing this on the scale

Boardroom SX80: that it’s not just monitored, but

Boardroom SX80: the

Boardroom SX80: public. and can be reassured that there they will. There will be steps taken.

Boardroom SX80: Let him staff. Think about that. I don’t know if you have any response right now.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: right right there’s yeah, there’s some

Boardroom SX80: several conditions. I mean several places on those same pages, 10

Boardroom SX80: yeah, 10, through 1011, 12. There’s a number. So so let’s not let’s not.

Boardroom SX80: Let’s be very clear

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: I’m.

Boardroom SX80: I’m depending, you know, on the homework that was done by the the committee to complete the refuge.

Boardroom SX80: so

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: mitigation areas and habitat creation

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: staff and

Boardroom SX80: the applicant know that what? You are talking.

Boardroom SX80: Yes, and so it’s the red. It it is the it is the red

Boardroom SX80: red line. That’s a

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom SX80: losses is, you know.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: but we need to be very careful when we’re doing this from the dais and and in the hearing.

Boardroom SX80: So I’m. And by asking what your proposed. Okay.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Well, that’s where I’m: I can go to others. We’re gonna take them one by one. Come okay.

Boardroom SX80: next second one.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: The May will be struck. The shell is in red, and that is the change. Is that is that correct for everybody?

Yes.

Boardroom SX80: thank you. One down next one. Okay?

Boardroom SX80: Well. yeah, next one would be

Boardroom SX80: H. H. One

Boardroom SX80: ye or oyster reefs

Boardroom SX80: if the success approved success criteria not met by the end of their monitoring period

Boardroom SX80: from it

Boardroom SX80: shall be required.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t. And

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Can we agree with that? Thank you. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, and the next one would be the next paragraph.

Boardroom SX80: If the success criteria in the final a. M. M. And P. Are now method and adaptive management actions shall be required.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: We agree with that. Okay, thank you. And then next paragraph is special conditions. H. 5 adaptive management.

Boardroom SX80: If any adverse impacts to the bay are identified during the monitoring period, then then

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: But yes, okay, just to be clear. Yes, so we can agree to that. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: And I I think that’s it.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Any other comments. questions, suggestions.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Do any corresponding changes need to be made in the findings section or anywhere else. The documents track that

Boardroom SX80: I think potentially, I think Staff would have to go through and and look at the findings. But we can make those changes

Boardroom SX80: to reflect that

Boardroom SX80: may I make a recommendation.

Boardroom SX80: you may, which is, that when the recommendation is made by Staff

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So be it.

Yes.

Boardroom SX80: I see no other hands.

Boardroom SX80: We will now take the staff recommendation

Boardroom SX80: with the

Boardroom SX80: amendments as articulated by the executive Director

Boardroom SX80: on the basis of Commissioner Kishimota’s suggestions.

Yep.

Boardroom SX80: Up.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah. Just a second. Here. I’m: going to share my screen again.

Boardroom SX80: Okay. So on March thirtieth you were mailed. The staff recommendation for the flow, Equalization and resource, recovery, facility, Levy Improvement Project.

Boardroom SX80: The staff recommends that the Commission approved B Cdc. Permit application 202-20-0100, with conditions to authorize the project.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom 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,

Boardroom SX80: 2, H, one to

Boardroom SX80: h, one e, or H. Sorry, h, 3, e.

Boardroom SX80: 2, h, 3, F. And I believe 2.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: I would recognize.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you and I’d be happy to make the motion to adopt that staff recommendation as amended.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Do I have a second. So.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner, show all 2 s.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t see any other hands, Peggy, we call the role, please. Okay, Commissioner on the and Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Erin. He

Jesse Arreguin, Commissioner: yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Akland

Pat Eklund, Commissioner: bye.

Boardroom SX80: I

bye.

Boardroom SX80: What did you? I’m Sorry, Commissioner

1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Hi.

Boardroom SX80: I Commissioner, he.

Andrew Gunther: I

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Walton Peters.

Boardroom SX80: Yes, Commissioner Pauline.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Rancho. Yes. Commissioner show Walter. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Muell.

David Ambuehl, Commissioner: Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Kin Shimoto.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Pemberton

Sheri Pemberton, Commissioner: Epstein

John Vasquez, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Mandara.

Lenny Mendonca, Commissioner: Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Gilmore. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Vice chair. Eisen. Yes, Chair Walserman.

Boardroom SX80: Yes. Did I miss anybody?

Boardroom SX80: 18? Yes, no no one abstention. It passed. Thank you very much congratulations to the applicant

Boardroom SX80: at this stage. There’s a lot of work to do.

Boardroom SX80: and we are.

Boardroom 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

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: So we thank you very much for doing that.

Boardroom SX80: We are not going to take up items

Boardroom SX80: 12 and 13. We will take them up at future meetings.

Boardroom SX80: You got saved from a bunch of rhetoric from me.

Boardroom 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.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Haz moves commissioners as franchise seconds.

Boardroom SX80: Anybody want to oppose that one. Anybody want to abstain on that one.

Boardroom SX80: The motion passes, we are adjourned. Thank you all for your attention and your efforts.

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act

As 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.

How to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits

Pursuant 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.

If 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.

Questions and Staff Reports

If 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.

Campaign Contributions

State 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.

Access to Meetings

Meetings 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.