July 26, 2023 Joint Meeting Design Review Board and Engineering Criteria Review Board

1. Call to Order and Meeting Procedure Review
2. Staff Briefing on Bay Adapt
   The boards will receive a briefing on several key initiatives BCDC staff is undertaking to implement the Bay Adapt Joint Platform, a consensus-driven regional strategy to protect people and natural and built environments from rising sea levels. The staff will highlight work underway to create a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan, which will build on the Bay Adapt visioning and result in the development of a guidance document for sea level rise adaptation plans for the region. The staff will also highlight its work to improve the permitting process for coastal adaptation projects that meet regional goals, to develop a long-term equity strategy for the Bay Adapt program, and to track and measure implementation of actions in line with the Joint Platform.
   (Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; danabrechwad@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Presentation (PDF) // Shoreline Plan Overview (PDF)
3. Public Comment
4. Board Discussion
5. Adjournment

Meeting Transcript

Here. vice chair, Jim French. that’s present. board member homes.

not present

board, Member Gail Johnson present. or in her Bob B. Italia.

Present Board. Member Jima Casali.

President.

Board, Member Rumi Kolesarkey. President. board member Nick Sitar. Yeah.

Board member Chris. Nay.

here. board member Paula.

Not present board Member Justin Vander

here. Remember, Dill, it trevettes

we didn’t make it

Ecdc. Staff attending this afternoon include our executive director, Barry Goldspan, technical staff including myself, Ashley, Tamerlan, Eerie Jewett and Jen Hyman and our Bay. Adapt folks, Dean of record, and Ethan Levine.

With that I will turn out meeting instruction on part I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting. So it runs as smoothly as possible for everyone online. And in the meeting room. Please make sure you have your microphones.

Are your Anna phones muted to avoid background noise for board members? If you have a webcam, please make sure that it is on. So everyone can see you for members of the public. If you would like to speak during the public comment period, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways.

First, if you are here with us in person, we will ask you to form a line near the staff table and speaker cards are available at the door. You will be asked to come up up to the mic one at a time, to state your name, your affiliation, and provide your comments during the meeting.

After all, individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely the second way, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform, please raise your virtual hand in zoom.

if you are new to zoom, and you joined our meeting, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it is raised. Finally, if you are joining our meeting via phone. You must press in Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand, to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone.

We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised.

After you are called on, you will be unmuted, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks. You remember you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining.

Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us, but everyone has the responsibility to act in civil manner. We will not tolerate hate, speech threats made directly or indirectly and or abusive language.

We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission for public comments. If you are attending online, please note that we will only hear your voice and your view. Your video will not be enabled.

If you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option to view in view settings in order to see all the panelists. audio and audio, for in-person panelists is recorded through the room’s audio system and is not synced to individual panelists. Videos.

Finally, everyone now and then will hear me refer to the meeting host, Yuri, Vcdc. Staff are acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently.

Please be patient with us if it’s needed. And now I will turn the mic over to our executive director of Larry. We need to declare the meeting with them. And since we have a quorum present, we are truly constituted to conduct the business. So meeting is declared open.

We we can, we can actually there we go? Okay? and Yuri, would you please check to make sure that the gallery view is what is set for people who are not here?

actually, or Danny had a marvelous view of Tom Leader for about 5 min there, which was, you know, and we like Tom. But you know it’s not necessarily everybody.

So thank you all. Thank you all for being here. My name is Larry Goldzband. I’m I have the honor of being executive director of BCDC, I know some of you, not all of you, and I want to explain why that is

When I took this job, one of the things that I learned really quickly. And one of the things I’d learned actually earlier is to learn very quickly what you don’t want to know or what you don’t need to know.

and My predecessor, Will Travis, who is, was a professional architect, still is, I believe, was very cognizant of that.

and I became very cognizant of that, and I realized early on in my tenure that I could not add anything to a DRB meeting. because I don’t do what you all do, and I don’t see the world the way you all see.

And candidly, that’s good. because you all are tremendously creative and tremendously talented at what you do. and I’m simply not part of that. And candidly, the last thing I am as an engineer.

And so my sitting in and a Dr. On an Ecrb meeting is equivalent to my to. When I started learning Hebrew to be honest with you, and thankfully you do read from left to right as opposed to right, to left.

but I simply couldn’t really add anything to it. And so what I learned was that I needed to hire people who were really really good at what you all do, and learn how to lead you.

Which is why we have Jed and we have Ashley. because I think they do a tremendous job at helping you help us. and that’s really what we ask you to do

to help you help us as we move forward as on permits and all sorts of other things. With that being said, I think it was my idea, but I’m not positive, Ashley, to put you to the DRB and the Ecrb together to start understanding how Bcdc is moving forward with regard to rising sea level in an overall policy context.

you see this individually in your meetings. you talk about safety of fills, and you figure out how in the Permit side a construction project needs to be put together to ensure safety of fills.

But you really don’t see the other parts of the project, and how that really fits into resilience the larger scope. You see this marvelous, these marvelous examples of how things are put together. But, unfortunately, or fortunately, BCDC. Receives projects on a parcel by partial basis.

And so you don’t have necessarily the. We have not enabled you to look at a larger scope. region-wide sub-regionally about how BCDC. Views resilience.

You do a marvelous job at making sure the project is resilient, and that the project has tremendous public access. But we want you today to start stepping back

and to think a little bit larger about your jobs

jobs, not as though we pay you a heck of a lot to be here. But your roles. How can we have, you help us look at resilience in a larger scale.

How can we have you help us think about what resilience means for public access and for safety on a larger scale. How can we be able to work with you in a way that enables you to help us on that larger scale?

So what we’re going to do today is introduce you to 2 really tremendous staff members are assistant directors of planning and regulatory for climate change.

who have been tasked with the very difficult responsibility of working with the community, working with stakeholders and working with the Commission

to help them lead us through the issue of resilience. large scale Bay wide. And we want you to step back and think, okay, I’m part of this. Now.

how can I help? What does BCDC DC. Need to know. What do our Commissioners need to know? What do our staffs need to know? What questions do we need to ask?

So that’s really the purpose of this discussion, and we want it to be a discussion. I don’t know whether it’s whether Dana, whether it’s you or Ethan who have discussion, questions that will be put up. But there will be discussion, questions put up that we hope you will actually try to answer.

and if you can answer them. Let us know why you can’t answer them. And what we need to provide more information about, or whatever to try to get those answers.

Does that make sense to everybody? So that’s why we’re asking you to be here. So with that, I’m going to be quiet and turn it over to Jacinta.

Thank you, Larry. And thank you, Ashley, and thank you. All the team here from BCDC. DC. For staging the meeting today. We really appreciate it, and I know, on behalf of the Dr. B. This is something that I think, as we have been evolving over the last 10 years, that a number of us had been on the board.

You know, this question of thinking about the bigger picture is something that’s been pretty consuming for us, and we’ve certainly been evolving in that direction. So I think today’s sessions got to be of incredible value. And we just with the opportunity here today, because I think we we don’t get together face to face. very often. In fact, I think this is the first time in 10 years.

Second time. Yeah, maybe I missed the first time somehow. But but I think it’s incredibly important for the different disciplines to get together in this dialogue.

I don’t think there’s any difficulty amongst any of our DRB. Members in weighing in with questions and asking appropriate questions. And I think these questions of

resilience and sea level rise, climate change. The implications for the projects we reviewing have become just more and more compelling, especially in the last, I’d say the last, probably 4 years.

you know, it’s become quite challenging, reviewing some of the projects with the limitations of the site to, you know, to be able to really speak to. So I’m very excited to to be able to have that opportunity with everyone today. And look, I do want to welcome. We haven’t got everyone here today, but we do have new board members and alternatives that are just coming on like on board. And we have the

You meet An. And with us today a new board member. We also have earlier Chao new board member and alternatives. Patricia Fonte, Cody Anderson.

Well. that’s it, and potentially more alternates. But I really see this. As you know, we’re talking about resilience in the pay today, but I think resilience in each of the boards is also really important, and you know, 3, 3 of us

4 of us. I think it’s been on the board for close to 10 years, and so I am very excited, as my colleagues are about having new people come in, so that we can for carry forward with a lot of strength and become become better as we go forward, is it these pretty challenging times? So thanks again for organizing today, and we’re looking forward to it. So

so the 2, you see, I’ll be.

hey? Thank you, Jacinta. I’m rods. I was the chair of ecrb and this is a really wonderful opportunity for for all of us to get together. And

yeah, think and take that step back that Larry’s talking about to consider sea level rise and other changing conditions that are there that are going to happen.

ecr bes goal, or there, you know, our yeah, our goal has been to look at the safety of fills or individual projects. And

I think we’ve started to talk about sea level rise and what we need to do. I’ve been is, you know, my day job. I’ve

a little concern that sometimes we are overreaching. But I’m here to to learn and talk and kind of share my opinion, and I’m sure all of our board members

as well have their opinions, and we’ve had some pretty good conversations over the last couple of meetings. And you know I welcome this all, and and and thanks again for organizing.

So I’d like to introduce Anna Breckfield and Ethan Mavine, who will be presenting or presenting the they adapt to briefing today.

Thanks, Ashley. We’re just getting our presentation set up

1 s.

Okay,

thanks for having us. Today. I’m Dana Breckwald. I’m the assistant planning director for climate adaptation, and I oversee our be adopted initiative as well as our adapting to rising tides program. so I’m going to walk you through the first part of the conversation, and then turn it over to Ethan.

Could you go to the next. even sitting right next to me for those of you? Not in the room. So if I turn my head a lot, it’s talk to him in person. so today, we really want to give you an overview of our major Bay adapt initiatives. How badap came around, what we’re doing now and then, as you listen to our presentation. here are our discussion questions we’ve posed, although, of course, the discussion can go really, any way that we see fit.

so for you as board members. How and when would you like to engage in the Bay adapt process and the projects that we have going on right now and then. What do we not know about? What resources. Would you recommend to support these initiatives? There’s a lot of information out there that’s already been thought of around adaptation. And we want to make sure that we’re being additive and not duplicative in our work.

Sorry which? Okay, there we go. So I’m I’m sure you’re all at least somewhat familiar with Felix vulnerability here in the Bay Area. but what I like to remind people at every presentation that I give is that while this is the California coastal wide issue. It will be felt most acutely here in the bay, with two-thirds of the impact in the state occurring here along our Bay shore line.

and also that climate change is not just a tomorrow problem. Temporary flooding today at King tides, signals the areas that will be permanently underwater in the future, and in addition to overtopping, we are also facing erosion along our shirling edges, beaches, and wetlands and groundwater rides.

This is a multifaceted issue that is real for us today.

when we look at the interconnected systems across the bay area that will be impacted if nothing is done, a stark picture emerges. and as little as 40 years. If we could see impacts to our up to 5 million daily car commuters and 60,000

rail commuters. tens of thousands of existing housing units and planned housing units as well as existing jobs and planned jobs. nearly 30,000 socially vulnerable residents, and 20,000 acres in depression, wetlands, lagoons, and tidal marshes that could drown.

So it doesn’t really matter if you personally live near the shoreline. This will impact everyone in the Bay area.

but it also is true that in the Bay area many aspects of sea levelized vulnerability have been extensively studied already at with a local and regional level. These maps show what we have called hotspots in our 2020 Art Bay Area report

or areas where flooding impacts multiple critical assets at once. like transportation infrastructure, vulnerable communities, job centers, housing growth areas and natural conservation areas.

The 2 maps on the one on the left shows early hot spots at 24 inches of water, and what will they merge later? At 48 inches? You notice on the maps pwl stands for total water level, which is a term that the adapting, pricing tides program uses in our baseline flood explore to describe any combination of permanent inundation and temporary flooding. So, for example, 24 inches. Total water level could mean 24 inches of permanent inundation.

similar to what we may see around 2,060, or it could represent 12 inches of inundation and a king tide. which we’ll see sooner before 2020 50.

So recently BC. Partners and Pca. Bags to develop a cost estimate for how much this is all going to cost. This study was focused on protecting 4.9 feet of total water level, which is our best estimate for permanent inundation and a hundred year storm by 2,050,

and the cost estimate was developed by inventorying, existing and planned projects, as well as creating hypothetical placeholder projects for areas of the shoreline that would will experience over topping by 2,050, but don’t yet have a project identified or planned.

The total that we came up with in this study is the a need for 110 billion dollars for strawline adaptation by 2,050, which includes 52 billion in known or planned projects and as well as 3 billion for sediment needs

this map that you’re seeing here shows the total for the region broken down by project type, gray, hybrid, green or placeholder project as well as by county.

Yeah. Well, 110 billion may seem like a staggering amount of money. We also know that if we fail to adapt our losses by 2,050 could be in the magnitude of 230 billion, or greater, as private property and infrastructure become flooded and lose their functions.

So without a doubt, sea level rise is going to require a radical reimagining of our base shoreline, as well as how we make decisions about how to proceed as a region adaptation is already occurring locally, but it’s not likely to happen fast enough, efficiently enough, or in a way that advances our larger regional goals. If it occurs on a site by site or city by city basis.

This is largely because flooding doesn’t follow jurisdictional boundaries, but up on the flip side, decisions made along one part of the shoreline can have unintentional impacts in neighboring jurisdictions.

Frontline communities are most impacted and have the fewest resources to adapt without additional support. Central habitats such as wetlands are at the frontline and at risk of being lost. There’s currently a patchwork of approaches along with shoreline, not a cohesive strategy.

There’s a different use and interpretation of quote best available science. there is limited funding available, and if everyone goes it alone, there will be greater competition for funding, and we are less likely to seek collaborative multi-benefit opportunities.

and ultimately, without working together to define a shared vision of what we want to achieve. We can’t know if we’re moving towards success, or what success for our region even means.

This is where they adapt comes in in early 2020 BCDC. DC. Started with a hypothesis. and we bring together leaders across a wide variety of sectors, public, private community, nonprofit and academic.

and come up with a consensus-driven strategy that lays out the actions necessary to adapt the San Francisco based shoreline to rising sea level to protect people and the natural and built environment.

The adapt was guided by a set of guiding principles developed by our leadership Advisory Group. And these served as our North star throughout the process and include things like putting socially vulnerable communities, first

solving interconnected problems, at the same time recognizing that we need to support existing efforts, but also plans for the long term and also recognizing that strategies will be different in different locations than at different times.

The accommodation of the bayed act efforts thus far over the course of 2 years was the adoption of the bayed up joint platform platform. In October 2,021,

we engage with over 360 participants through public workshops worked with 81 practitioners and experts through multiple working groups. including the local elected officials, staff and technical advisors.

We held focus groups, including with community-based organizations, environmental groups, business groups and planners and gave over 50 presentations around the region. The joint platform identifies 9 actions and 21 tasks

that don’t specify specific projects along the shoreline, but instead are designed to overcome common barriers and set the stage for faster and more equitable adaptations. It has since been endorsed by over 50 cities, counties, and special interest groups.

Since the adoption of the joint platform we’ve identified and received funding for 4 major undertaking to implement the tasks in the joint platform. First building on our equity principles, we are focusing on frontline communities particularly disadvantaged and low-income communities of color.

Primarily at this point, through the development of a region-wide shoreline leadership Academy. Second, we are leading the development of a regional shirling adaptation plan which I’ll describe to you next.

Third, we’ll focus on regulatory improvements, and those are from Ethan about this task. And then, lastly, we are committed to continuing to serve as what we’re calling the backbone agency for bay adapt.

That means keeping the conversations going, convening, coordinating, and tracking, and reporting our region’s successes and projects and progress. Progress.

so I want to go into some detail now about the regional shoreline adaptation plan. This is one of the major components. We see. Your 2 boards could potentially offer some valuable insight.

The regional shoreline adaptation plan wasn’t actually specifically outlined in the joint platform, but it is named in BCDC’s 2,011 climate change policies, and draws on several tasks in the joint platform.

such as setting a standard vision for what adaptation success looks like for the region supporting local planning to coordinate towards regional goals. linking lots of money towards voluntary compliance with standardized guidance guidelines, and tracking the region’s progress towards

towards this vision that we’ve established

so the regional shoreline adaptation plan will create common standards, goals, and priorities. Aka, what we’re calling guidelines for multi jurisdictional adaptation plans. the projects identified in these plans, once they are created, will together form a comprehensive plan for the Bay shoreline.

We’re working with a 40 person advisory group to develop the guidelines based on a long-term regional vision and engaging around the region to ensure that the guidelines enhance rather than hold back adaptation, planning already underway.

There is also active legislation on the table this year that would mandate beef. Cdc. To review and approve sub-regional adaptation plans. It remains to be seen if the plans that we’re outlining here will be voluntary for mandatory.

If you think back to the slide that I showed earlier that highlights, the challenges of not approaching adaptation region wide the regional shoreline adaptation plan is designed to conveniently avoid many of these pitfalls.

We think that the shoreline regional shoreline adaptation plan could result in adaptation that coordinates neighboring jurisdictions. and, in fact, finds multi-bent multi-benefit from improved collaboration.

provides priority, access to resources to frontline communities. enhances the long-term wealth of health wealth wealth and health of wetlands and increased habitat diversity and abundance.

provides a strategy for how implementation should proceed around the regions that it occurs at the right time, and the right place develops common standards and methods for applying science, which can be supported by our own data and mapping work

creates a funding pipeline that reduces burdens on local jurisdictions and gives us the ability to track and evaluate our collective vision of progress.

So rather than a single document or plan. We’re using the term regional straw and adaptation plan to actually describe 3 key parts. The first is developing a regional steel with seal overized adaptation, planning guidelines.

These guidelines will so establish a common approach to local adaptation, planning and be rooted in our shared vision and region-wide adaptation goals. The second part is providing funding and technical assistance to apply these guidelines towards multiple sub-regional or multi-jurisdictional adaptation plans around the region. And lastly, we’re developing an online mapping platform that will be used first to help users access relevant regional information. To prepare these sub-regional plans.

But once these plans are completed, the strategies that are locally identified in these plans will be knit together at a regional level to form a comprehensive plan for the entire Bay shore lines.

This work will be phased with the creation of the guidelines occurring between now and the end of 2024. Then we’ll transition into the development supporting the development of the plan and the mapping platform will be developed simultaneously with 2 distinct phases, first, building the platform as a support tool for developing the original plans, and then a second phase where the information from the completed sub-regional plan will be sent back into the mapping platform.

These sub-regational plans are really a critical piece of the overall puzzle. We’re still working out exactly what they will look like. But we know that each one will include vulnerability assessments that’s somewhat standardized across the region in terms of what science it uses and what it assesses.

We know that they will identify and evaluate adaptation options in a way that uses a common set of considerations across the region. and that they should all include a a quote, final option.

adaptation, pathway for all vulnerable sections of shoreline. The final options is what will then be fed back into the region-wide mapping platform.

So the guidelines that we’ll be developing should be that should should be comprehensive and standardized while still reflecting local conditions and needs. While this list here is still in flux, these are the topic areas that we believe the plan should include. So the topics that we will need to develop guidelines on.

Obviously, each of these topics can contains many facets.

And we’re currently in the process of adding detail. And these topics have been identified because they are responsive to known risks from sea level rise in the bait area.

They acknowledged shared land land boundary of flooding impacts for implementation, coordination and or cross bay impacts. They, they represent, they address networked systems or biophysical connectivity. And they reflect our regional priorities.

I also just want to set out some, since we don’t have the guidelines yet with some expectations about what we think they actually are and what they are not. So first, what the guidelines are important to be. I know we use the term guidelines a lot to describe project design guidelines, but these are guidelines to guide the creation of plans not necessarily projects.

they will be best practices for vulnerability assessments identifying an evaluation. You shoreline plan and developing adaptation pathways in that consider issues the region. Things are important.

this point, as I said they, they are voluntary, non-enforceable, incentive, driven. We want them to be aligned with the existing planning processes, especially if a city already has some sort of adaptation plan in place.

And, importantly, not all guidelines will be applicable everywhere, so they’re up to only where they’re relevant in the region, i. I. E. Where our condition exists to the board that the guideline applies to.

They said. They’re not project design guidelines. They’re not mandatory or enforceable by BCDC. Permitting or other legal authority. We don’t want them to be an additional burden on top of existing planning processes.

and they aren’t intended to be top down blanket rules. But don’t consider local conditions needs for values. So lastly, we have planned significant engagement with stakeholders. As part of the process of developing these guidelines.

we have a handful of leadership groups that are are directly helping to guide this process. beginning in August, we’re kicking off our regional vision and goals phase which will include pop-up events in a public workshop.

November through July. We will actually be drafting these regional guidelines, which will include number of local meetings as well as 2 additional public workshops, and we aim to go to public comment in August and September of 2,024,

we could. It did also do potential additional focus groups presentations as requested. And of course we are looking to see how we can continue to engage with these 2 groups as well as part of our engagement.

So at that I will turn it over to Ethan.

Thanks, Tina. Sorry, for I’ve been on a few years like I have a hair trigger here on my computer. But good afternoon, board members. I’m with Mobile, and they’ll be introducing a a new effort. They’re working on under bay. That’s banner

on regulatory improvements for both BCDC’s program, and the way that we coordinate with our regulatory partners.

So why are regulatory improvements in area of focus? For they adapt and produce it easy. First and foremost, the need for this work became evident because of the consensus stricken, planning process that created the bay. That train platform

and the stakeholders who took part in that effort identified the getting adaptation projects approved by regulatory agencies and getting them built can be a big challenge. So they laid out a vision that permitting should not hold back, but actually accelerate resilient shoreline adaptation projects that align with regional goals.

And there’s more. There’s a few things that have to do with how BCDCdc. Hopes to grow as an agency. First, our recently adopted strategic plan. the new strategic plan stresses the importance of closely integrating our regulatory and long-range planning efforts

to better succeed in adaptation planning. And second, we’re developing a racial equity action plan that will identify objectives for improving our permitting program to advance equitable outcomes

and achieve greater community engagement in decision making.

So that was all. Why we are working on it, and the rest of the presentation is going to be about how we’re going to go about it. And when we initially presented this concept to a select group of commissioners.

one caution does that changing? The process isn’t going to be enough and paraphrased a quote by the management consultant Peter Drucker, who said. Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

What he meant is that establishing new rules, policies, or procedures? Option doesn’t work. If the people who apply them or implement them haven’t embraced the mindset behind the changes.

And that’s because people can always have rigid or unrealistic interpretations that frustrate the intended changes.

So for all that we admire about these uses culture. recognizing that it needs to evolve in response to the changing world. the question is, well, how do we do that? And We came across the study that they’re really happy to see that actually helps us sort of conceptualize how that might work.

There was a really fascinating paper published a few months ago by Dr. Amy Nichol, from Cal. State, Sacramento. and Dr. Nichol looked at the cutting, the Green Tape initiative which many of you will have heard of. It’s been embraced by the California Natural resource agencies

and agency, and many of the departments and agencies that are that are working in the State. you to BCDC. And cutting green tape aims to increase regulatory and permanent efficiency for multi-benefit environmental restoration projects in California.

Dr. Nickel says that cutting green tape may be on the verge of shifting the paradigm around the problems and setting out to address and to make the case nickel borrows from the work of historian and philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term paradigm shift.

I’m just going to describe quickly what Queue’s idea on paradigm shift was. and looking at science. Q, and said that science doesn’t actually follow a gradual linear evolution towards truth, but that rather it goes through big changes when established. Theories simply don’t hold up anymore.

So the changes in ideas can be rapid and they can turn everything on their head like how scientific thought changed radically with the emergence of germ theory or Darwin’s theory on natural selection.

Here’s how the process works. It starts with the current, well-established paradigm. That’s the current way of doing business. and something occurs outside of the paradigm. That that is it. He no longer makes sense. In certain circumstances.

It’s initially viewed as an anomaly

and When there are many anomalies, people start looking for new explanations in ways of doing things.

At some point a tipping point is reached and the current point, the current paradigm no longer works under the conditions. and there’s a shared perception of an impending crisis.

People respond by developing new ways of thinking and alternative paradigms are developed

eventually, an alternative idea that does a better job of explaining the anomalies and the current one does emerge and it’s embraced. And in that point a revolution occurs where people embrace the new idea, and it becomes the usual way of doing things.

And as a result the paradigm shifts and the alternative paradigm replaces the previous one.

So how does that hold up with cutting re-tape? Is it shifting the paradigm. You start by defining the current paradigm. It’s the model we’re familiar with for environmental regulation. And it’s behind the types of laws and the frameworks that Bcds uses, and that many other regulators have

which are based on preventing harm to the environment to restrict enforcement of what can sometimes be a cumbersome regulatory process. and that really really well in the context, that in which it was created and California was able to avoid significant damage to its environment by instituting a complex set of processes to review projects.

even if this complexity sometimes came at the cost of time, effort, and money for the people trying to get projects built.

Dr. Nichols says that climate change is the anomaly that’s challenging the status quo. It’s harmful effects on people in the environment is already evident, and will continue to emerge rapidly.

The current paradigm does not make sense for restoration and other environmentally beneficial projects that are necessary responses to this threat, though, because it’s close them down. we need them fast.

So for years our colleagues, inside and outside of government, have studied, written about, and proposed alternative solutions for how regulators should approach climate adaptation. but also something really interesting about paradigm shifts is that they happen when they’re embodied by practitioners, not necessarily just theorists or outside critics.

And this point goes back to the comment and culture each strategy.

Dr. Nickel interviewed practitioners and concluded that a tipping point has been reached because they recognize the current paradigm is contributing to the crisis, and protectioners are including all of us. Here are we need to really evaluate the way that we do our work.

Dr. Nickel thinks this means that we might be entering the final shift to this age. And we’ll know that we’ve achieved a culture ship.

When the agencies permanently reject those aspects of the old way of doing business, they contribute to problems of filling down environmentally beneficial projects. And it. I really do want to stress here that this is not a throw the baby out with the back water kind of situation.

It doesn’t mean eliminating permits or for going analysis necessary to prevent environmental harm. Rather, it means elevating the goals of effective nature, based and equitable adaptation

and ensuring that the old safeguards don’t prevent us from succeeding in the face of the newer challenge. Where they do, we need to look at how to change them

so you could look at all this as an effort that we’re trying to do to shift the paradigm here at PC. And to the extent that we can be effective and promoting it more widely within the larger regulatory environment. For San Francisco Bay.

We’re trying to make that happen by identifying the anomalies that are challenging our existing program. finding new alternative means of addressing what’s not working well as it needs to. and engaging in discrete projects that will result in shifts in thinking and shifts in action.

We’ve identified 5 key actions.

Sorry about that. That. we’re going to focus on in our work. And the first one shown here is that we’re working to make permeating faster and more efficient. So we need to spend less time and fewer resources, permanent adaptation projects that do align with the regional goals that Dana was discussing.

Instead of relying on doing things the way they’ve always been done, we’ll make changes to make our process more efficient and predictable. and the goal is to reduce the amount of time and money that good projects spend in order to obtain.

We, we permit some regulatory approvals.

Second, we’re working to navigate our regulatory program to make it easier to navigate. We don’t want applicants to the public to be uncertain about how BCDC works or what our goals are.

So we’ll develop resources so that less time and effort goes into understanding our program. And then more goes into working together to build good projects.

Third is, we want to remove roadblocks to effective nature-based adaptation projects we’ve committed through bay adap to prioritize natural infrastructure solutions that benefit ecosystems and the health of the day.

These projects prevent some unique challenges for permitting, because they involve uncertainty whether that’s because the efficacy of certain approaches hasn’t been firmly established yet.

but because we may have to consider trade offs between certain ecosystem functions. So we’re planning to put time and effort into addressing the problems, and we will work to convince the applicants who might undertake these projects that we’re partner to work with, and not an obstacle that they need to overcome amongst many others.

Fourth, we’re going to work together with our regulatory partners. we certainly can’t go it alone. You see, you see, is just one of many agencies that plays a part in reviewing and approving the adaptation projects

the region needs to build. so we can do a better job of coordinating, aligning our processes, and possibly even piloting new approaches, the ghastly streamline. The process adaptation projects need to navigate to in their approvals.

And, alas! We’re working to reimagine these roles in the region. adaptation presents issues that were never considered. When the legislature wrote the laws that established BCDC’s authority and jurisdiction.

So, building on the outcomes of the regional Showing adaptation plan, we take a close look at whether the region has the regulatory framework. It needs to ensure equitable and effective adaptation outcomes.

If there are gaps that BC, you could fill, we’ll work with commissioners, board members, and other interested people in organizations to understand how we might evolve as an agency to help implement the region’s adaptation vision.

This is a a very simplified version of work plan in the first stage where we’re assessing the current challenges and the methods to address these challenges.

So I just want to highlight 2 projects that we’re working on as part of this assessment. the first one is with the Department of Finance, who we’ve engaged with to conduct a mission based review of our permitting program.

And that mission-based review is going to focus really heavily on finding efficiencies in our existing permitting process. It’s a pretty unique opportunity for us to have a a small expert team come in from the outside and view our program.

And we’re gonna get some recommendations from the really great staff there to help us find improvements in our existing workflow.

The second is some background research that one of our newest staffers, Dominic Mccormick, who’s in the room. I don’t dummy as you can. has undertaken. He just joined us in May, but in the last month though, do right in and analyze a great wealth of research and policy work related to this very challenge. we didn’t want to reinvent the will.

So Dominican inv in identified 31 recommendations that provide a menu of options for us to consider as potential avenues for further work.

for example, one of the big lessons that Dominic identified was their very large range of opportunities for us to coordinate permanent review with our other regulatory partners. you know, these these include everything from aligning policies and practice.

and, you know, could even include implementing new forms of integrated permitting to streamline adaptation projects, approval processes.

Okay? So after we assess, we’re gonna take the findings of the assessment and create a plan that prioritizes key projects and initiatives and defines the needed resources and timelines to undertake these, and actually sets out a roadmap for implementation.

And then, of course, comes the work to advance and implement our projects. so that work involves a work internal to be Cdc. As well as the work of the undertaken joint partnership with the regulatory partners

to help achieve better outcomes on our notation projects. So that’s where we’re headed. We’ll provide you with updates as we define our priorities and begin to implement our projects.

And of course, today, we’re really interested, as we move into the discussion to hear more about how you think this work, my interface with the processes that are happening in these 2 boards.

just to plug. If you want to know more about any of the content you heard about today. or dive in on the joint platform, they adapt as a updated website that they adapt to work.

I believe we’re gonna pause here to do public comment. And then, After the public comment is over, we’ll put some discussion questions up on the board for you. Thanks.

Thank you, Ethan and Dina. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment, please raise your virtual hand to speak.

Remember, if you’re joining our meeting via phone, you must press Star 9, or your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment and to unmute yourself. Press star 6.

It looks like we have no public comment.

We will take it to board clarifying questions and discussions.

and I’ll just before we start out. Here’s the the discussion questions we’d post for you, and of course we welcome any other thoughts. But Initially, we put up as Advisory Board members. How and when would you like to participate?

Can engage in the efforts we just presented. And what resources would you recommend to support these initiatives?

Okay, well, there’s a great deal to digest there. And thank you both for those excellent presentations. you know, and even that we, a couple of us, had the opportunity to participate in this just

I don’t know a couple of months ago, and I can see you’re already, you know, making a lot more progress. So reporting prices. Thank you.

So I’m just thinking to make this as valuable as possible for the from the Dipp standpoint. I’m sure everyone will have some questions, but I think one way to get these 2 questions, and perhaps some other reactions would be to think about the challenges that we have encountered when we’ve been reviewing projects in the last couple of years. And that’s sort of extending out from, you know, to the ultimate step in the work that you’re doing. But I really think that in this challenges.

you know, bigger picture thinking to really succeed. You’ve got to be able to move from, you know, region down to sites back up to region to test. And I think.

you know, that will be something that we should, as a board. think about appropriate points to engage with you on, because, you know, we are looking at that type-specific challenge of adaptation all the time. So we could think about that in the context of the timeline that we showed and some key steps.

I think we’d all be really happy to engage with you at appropriate points along that timeline. there are. There were a couple of things that

It’s not exactly addressing those 2 questions, but a couple of things struck me, and and it really relates to some of the challenges that we see. And

I I think the first point I would talk to is is just the subregional adaptation plan for the work that progress that you’re showing there, and I think one of the struggles we have is you had a slide that showed all the issues that you’re considering in those. And

I think that’s sort of the fundamental challenge of land use and current land use. Basic designation is something that we struggle with, you know. Should we even be reviewing a housing project, you know, in this position along the bay.

So I, you know, I’ll just put that out there. We don’t have to talk about this right now. We might want others to weigh in with with other things that struck them. But I do think if we if we’re looking at a sort of a longer term integrated view around the bay. I think this question of of land’s designation becomes really critical.

And then I think 2 other things that strike me because we talk about these issues all the time, you know, in the anomalies. you know versus nature.

things that are being down versus nature- adaptation. And we talk about this a lot, and Bob often takes the lead. Thank you, Bob, for moving us in that direction so well.

but I think there’s often a challenge about. You know the consideration of the 200 foot designations that we have to where we really, you know, have the primary responsibility to determine how access is provided. But importantly, you know how.

you know, a Nature-based adaptation plan might work. And I think sometimes the you know we we we’re not always debating closely about. You know what could be done in that band, or could extend further on. But I think, as we get deeper into this process it would be

it might be good longer, you know, looking out

over the horizon. And the bigger picture this sort of thing is that 200 foot band. How do we think about that? Down the track? And then I think the other question that comes up with us quite often now is

this question of fill. And certainly when we all, 10 years ago, you know that that was a line you really didn’t cross. You know we didn’t talk about. We tried to avoid filling the bay, but in nature based

adaptation solutions. you know. Sometimes I’m sure the Ecrb talks about this a lot, but the you know the question of, you know some fill to accomplish a better outcome for Nature-based adaptation could be.

you know, worthwhile thinking about. So I think that that issue is something that we we could spend some time on refining. I love the fact that you’re all reimagining

well in the region, I mean, I just think, this is a very exciting time for BC, DC, because. you know, you’re stepping up, taking a strong leadership role. It’s always hard to see around the corner. You know where it’s misleading. But I think the

normally examples that you that diagram we showed us is, you know, I I completely agree that we are at the point where we sort of looking around the corner on that diagram to

where a new paradigm shift just the way sustainability was a massive paradigm shift. Back in the early 2 thousands.

No one talked about sustainability. Everywhere else in the world people were not everywhere, but in a lot of developed countries. They had been talking about sustainability for 10 years and doing great work in that area. And then America, United States got on board. And suddenly this tidal wave of change Tab happened. So you know that anomalies diagram is is very important.

So with that, I’m just going to hand to other members here to Just build on those few points to take other points. If you want to. lead off, we’ll just come down the line, I think.

sir, I’ll try. I’ll try to go first here. Thank you very much for those presentations. It’s actually really beneficial to have a better understanding of what you all have been working on

I don’t know how to answer these questions, but I’d like to build on a couple of things that you said, and then I just sent in, and maybe that will raise some other issues. the

one of the key things that comes up for me when thinking about a sub-regional adaptation plan is the vehicle through which that gets implemented.

and that the jurisdictions we’re setting an expectation. I I think I’m understanding this that they would do some area planning at a at a local level

that would actually address these issues, that you’re providing guidance before locally. And you mentioned vulnerability. shoreline adaptation, and the notion of creating an adaptation pathway.

and that.

you know, I in in my other day, Job, I see this through the lens of of housing, you know, housing production and what the State’s doing to basically accelerate that. And then they’re saying that most planners are actually really greatly overburdened

that you don’t have a lot of extra capacity, and there’s always that notion of like Oh, my gosh! I have to do another plan like I have to participate in this other thing. I have to deal with this whole other thing that goes beyond

my capacity, but also my area of expertise and sort of look at, and looking at it through that lens. Those of us who are planners who

are doing this work, but we’re not necessarily trained to do this work. and sort of understanding that burden. But I’m also thinking about the notion that

our our role becomes more important when the difference between what the local jurisdiction is telling the applicant to do and what BCDC. Is telling applicant to do are are far apart from one another.

And this notion of us actually sort of providing discretionary guidance about what happens in that shoreline. By the end it becomes more important when there’s not clarity between those 2 agencies.

and burling game is a community that they made a

effort to engage in shoreline planning through their general plan and through their update to their zoning ordinance.

All right.

in a way that you could say it. Actually it. It increases the amount of clarity between what’s being proposed. And this sort of great area that happens a lot where we’re in situations where we raise this question about what should be suitable in the shoreline band.

and the local jurisdiction says, Well. you know, our building setback is actually only 10 feet. and you know this has gone through all of these approvals. So there’s not much we can do at this at this point, because, you know, we’ve given sort of permission.

So I guess the

the Shoreline adaptation plan being able to reduce the difference between those 2, or be a mechanism for that, but also provide some guidance for the jurisdiction.

The entity that needs to implement the plan like, how do they do this? Is it another chapter to the general plan. this Opr provide guidance for that, so that it’s really easy for them to understand what those executions are. Those are some questions that I think they’re sort of going on in my mind.

And then the last thing I’ll say now and then. maybe I can talk more later. is this this idea that at this, at least at the state level, there’s a lot of legislation, that is.

it is geared towards incentivizing entities to do the right thing. And so there. I I I basically, I’m asking this question about. Could there be sort of a pathway to streamlining

where habitat creation and sort of a more objectively defined outcome for what happens in the shoreline? The end would actually result in

minimizing or reducing the need for discretionary reviews of that project. But there being an incentive to say, You know what we need to come to the board to make these decisions around permitting

when was happening in the shoreline band is not clear that if 100% of the strongline band is actually being created and reserved for habitat restoration and public access. Does it reduce our role, or does it reduce the necessity of our role? Or does it actually

potentially reduce the timeline or. promote a streamlined outcome? It actually can accelerate the the of that project. I’m going to make one more comment, and then I’ll shut up.

The What strikes me to about the sub regional adaptation plan is that the jurisdictions by a role locally in jurisdictions. There are silos that need to be overcome

in that. Like the shoreline adaptation plan. In some situations it could be entirely on private land owners, or it could become a land, use regulatory issue in other situations. It could be, while 70% of our shoreline band is actually public right away, public right of ways

and public works actually needs to be the primary decision maker, the primary implementer. And we see a lot of projects where. when it gets by the time it gets to us, the

the

the the hurdle of crossing the silos at the local jurisdictional level has not been made

right. We see a project through the lens of planning. You ask a question related to public works, and they say, well. we talked about that early on that we, you know, there was no way to collaborate within the jurisdiction within the silos, and so that couldn’t. We couldn’t think more creatively about something like a shortline adaptation.

and there’s other parts of the of the Bay area where,

and railroads retail transportation systems. They they are going to play an outside role in what happens at the shoreline, and they would sort of need to be involved.

And that’s a big question mark for me about how that happens consistently. and how they can come to the table in a way that actually has a consistently productive outcome.

Thank you. Thank you. Tom.

thanks. Thanks for your presentation. I’m total concurrence with the company step instead. And I just have really more generalized, maybe abstract sort of

you are the subject.

I think, touching on incentives. It’s critically important in this work.

I think that in motivations have to be understood.

the I read it quantified. But why do I want to do this? I don’t understand why I want to do this. What are you supposed to?

That’s the problem. Because, you know, cancelling a negative. You know that that doesn’t get you anywhere better. And people mayors, I see people they want to

enlarge their reputations. They want to, you know, have a feather there. Cap or developers want to make money, or all these kinds of things that actually make projects

proceed is the is the sense that we’re going to be better off. We’re going to be. Our our growth will be accelerated. We can quantify that. I mean that we can understand dollars and cents.

how we will be identified. It benefited an honest, precise schedule. Otherwise we don’t get on our stand. We’re talking about. We just sort of resources or or understanding for that. So

I don’t know how that’s done, exactly how how motivation and incentive these kinds of ways of measuring knowledge of people can enter the this process. But it seems like it’s it’s critical.

you know. and people need to envision. what could be which? And this you know, from the design side, we we have tools we can use to to energize people

renderings, video stories. things like that that will help him imagine something they haven’t seen yet. It’s always critical. As a designer you have to convince somebody that

this really could be. And this is how we can proceed with that and there have to be, I think, credible. they have to be credentials.

It’s got to be some some increment. or which everybody can say this, this works and this got done. and we see the path. You can see the benefit and the and the value that we can count up

how many people are benefited. You can kind of how much money somebody made. Whatever it is it would get. They would get people out of the chair and really want to do something like, I don’t know just all the some of the different

initiatives we’ve been involved in in the last 10 years. It’s always there’s a somebody, some voice that is there saying, you know I don’t. I don’t have time for this. Why do I want it? Why do I want to do this? That’s the basic question.

And I’m not. I’m not very good at identifying all that it’s the policies and and directors they’ll bring that about. But there, it seems like that’s that’s kind of the key

having credentials that people can in sight. I think it was fiftieth anniversary of 10 years ago now. And

yeah, and there was kind of a form of 4 time. I think it was. And Bill Mcdonald came to that. and he was probably probably all heard this, but he was saying, You may. It’s just not no good just cancelling a negative. You’ve got. The project has to not only

help people save people, but it’s got to advance into positive territory. And that’s kind of where I came off thinking that

the work we were doing. We had to. We had to do that and his designers. We, you know, we do have that potential. We do have the tools. We need. A you get in the hard nosed

engagement with economics and politics to to generate. You know

there is motivation. I think every project needs to answer the question, Why, why do I want to do this? Remember, I’m sorry this is so abstract. And I was just thinking about this for a period of time. Now it’s kind of seems like the without motivation, because I just

I see difficulties advancing.

So

thanks, Tom. Yeah. Very helpful. any any comments?

I think, just to start off. I’m thrilled to be here. This is my first hearing, and I’m still getting my bearings as a design board member. So this is a very exciting presentation. Thank you for All the details that were shared. I’m thrilled to see the vision and the big ambitions of thinking of this holistically as a bay, and

that is some of the roadblock that I see in my day. Job as an urban designer is the very narrow blinders of specific projects that we have. so I have a couple of very specific questions, the first of which is

around the sub area plans, and if there will be guidance that will either lay out a foundation or a framework, or provide incentives for cross sub area or cross project coordination.

and how? How can we help streamline that or create systems that different jurisdictions could latch on to so that this can help become a useful tool for

some of those silos that both of you were describing. that. And then a second question around. I think, Dana, you touched on it remains to be seen how voluntary or mandatory some of these guidance might end up being, and I’m curious to understand

what the pathway for that decision of the level of peace. But some of these guidance thesis could have is, and how much of that is already happening and underway, and what milestones there might be to

making those decisions. and will they, do you anticipate that they may vary kind of jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Or is it a similar level of teeth for the bay as a whole. I guess just, you know more

looking forward to keeping up with some of this work and on the milestones, and when and how I think it would be very helpful to hear I was thrilled to hear the lessons learned. There’s been a lot of good thinking, a lot of work that’s been done day wide by a lot of different jurisdictions. So updates on the lessons, learned updates on the community meetings that were planned. And the I think

those would be great opportune moments to bring together feedback from this board with the conversation in the wider community. Excellent points. Thank you. Thank you. And I don’t think we need to sort of answer the questions right now, I think what we’ll do is corral all these comments get around the rules.

Okay, how are we doing on time? So we need to.

Okay, I’ll try and keep it brief. I also very, very inspiring. You know the the presentation. I have to say I’m really, really encouraged, and I as a more of a designer, mind, I don’t completely understand the mechanisms for getting there, but I. But I do understand the diagram for paradigm shift, and I really want to engage in that. It reminds me very much of

you know some things that I’ve read, that jar and diamond wrote about how an individual who’s having a crisis or a nervous breakdown is the same as a society or an institution or a government which is having a crisis.

It involves the honest, the value on a self-evaluation commit to change throwing out the things that are dragging you down and holding on to the things that are that are working. And I think you’ve already described that that this isn’t a total start over that you’re going to keep the things that are working, and you’re going to build

And so then, when you get into how to make the bridge to projects on the ground. I think it becomes much more difficult for the reasons we’ve been hearing.

I, Tom, is kind of inspiring me to to think about. How are all of the projects come before the board, the short-term goal, short-term financial plan, and a schedule, and everything that you just talked about is about long-term costs.

and how how can you incorporate? You know, long-term cost of society from a project? So I from there, I just want to go to maybe a couple of specific examples of

project types that we look at all the time where I come away feeling like. you know, we’re doing what we can within the rules that exist. But I don’t feel like. you know, we’re we’re doing enough. Or maybe we’re understanding something that we should even be approving

that we don’t have the ability to turn it down and out. Just generally speaking, I think, for the last couple of years, many, many of the projects that we’ve been looking at are in the part of the bay that is going to suffer the biggest impact. So San Mateo, Berlin game, foster city, so on.

Why are we seeing so many projects come before us on the most problematic sites? That’s a question I have. And I think I you know, I can speculate and try and develop theories, but that’s a question

related to that is the levies that are being built that I don’t think is broadly known among the public, or even among the board.

I’m thinking specifically at Foster City. which is shocking to to go down and look at and drive along there and see these 20 foot walls rising in front of homes that formerly had safe views.

I’m thinking about a Lisa where there’s a massive project underway right now that I don’t think anybody knows about unless they have a reason to go to a visa for some reason. So I I asked the question. You know, how is it

if those projects can happen independently of the kind of oversight that that you’re talking about. and finally, I think the other is as Jacinta mentioned, and we’ve talked about many times are I have in my mind to a very separate category for single family projects and condominium projects on day, you know, sites that are endangered.

because the cost of implementing the 100 year adaptation plan or building a levy or a Se. Wall later falls on the Homeowners Association.

and we do approve projects where we’re kicking the can down the road. You’re you’re approving a project. A developer is. it’s making some money. They’re getting out, and the city or the region, or somebody is going to be left with a map of massive costs

which is not in. I mean those sites. yeah, I I feel bad about about The deferred cost of that. So I will leave it at that. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for all your hard work.

So do you want to wrap up the the dab? Yeah, I’ll be quick. first, in terms of engaging. Well, first, let me say, thank you for the presentation. It’s great. It’s nice to be in the room.

Be part of this really appreciate what you’re doing. But in terms of engagement I think it is really valuable for the boards to be updated and informs

about what Ecdc. Is is doing that we can do our jobs. And so I think we do that I don’t know. I think it is better to have some meetings and make a show up and listen and talk.

because a lot of us

I have lots of things to do, and an email may fall off the list occasionally.

secondly, on resources.

I think the Ecr. BCDCould be utilized to a broader extent. You know, the Foster city levees is an example, I don’t think that came in front of the Ecr because it wasn’t

New Base Hill. And but it’s a lot of big detail with geotechnical issues and personal engineering issues. So but I think also, the other thing to recognize is that the Ecr, the

is working with engineering criteria that are not available at a national or even at state level. We have policy, if you know, drivers and we have sort of arrived scenarios which are

find space by definition. But it’s not. There’s no ase code for that I’m aware of, for scale will rise for public access versus something over the water versus

a shipping terminal or a very landing, or anything like that. So we’re kind of making it up when in a way we’re we’re leading, I think.

But I think the Ucrb could help with that perspective. If it’s useful as you go into these regional plans and stuff like. how would that translate to

logic design criteria, you know. also the California Coastal Commission. I think you’re in contact with them. You know, there’s these coastal groups that talk in the States that I think that they’ve had to deal with

a lot of similar things. And in it, for example, a lot of different future conditions mapping. I’ve worked on some of those. And I know Justin’s working on the theme of maps. And and then there’s the cosmos to you. So you have all these maps, and

you know, what do you do with them? How are they used? And then, of course, the applicants to do something else. And you know, so I think they have a lot of experience. From what I understand in that world

it might be worth could be some shared benefits. As far as my general comments. I just this is great listening to what the Drd folks said.

you know, I really just want to highlight Tom’s motivations. topic. Because what we realize is that

that paradigm, that different people are different paradigms. Some people are like, okay, I I like it because it’s close to the coast. And now I need to build a sea wall. That that’s it, you know, if that’s the paradigm

and Whereas planning might consider other things. And that’s it can be a different. So there’s paradigms within paradigms. And it’s interesting that how you motivate people which I think is

classically, would be to identify those externalities and try to get those internalized into these parcel level local decisions.

But you know, anyway. and then the other thing that that Gary mentioned is what I would call legacy issues. I was going to mention this later. you know. So we designed for something, and we know it has a life, and

you know it’s got to work economically, or put it clear, or whatever. But what happens at the end of that? Because sea level rise is going to continue. And what we’re dealing with now are a lot of legacy issues.

And so it may be in economics. You have a close out consideration. But then. you know, you don’t want to stop development. So I don’t know. I think that’s a big challenge legacy stuff. And how this plan?

Where does it leave us? Recognizing that sea level is going to keep going up? Is it likely? so it’s a couple of quick comments.

so we’re moving in a we’re living in a moving frame of reference now, the LAN the census. Talk about the zoning or or land use planning.

you know, we’re every that’s moving that that sees coming up and the shores moving in, and the groundwater is coming up. And it’s more precipitate, higher precipitation, intensity. So it’s blood planes.

So you know. that we have. Your plan has the term shoreline. A lot of people use the term shoreline, which is, I guess, an old English navigation thing which is around me in high water, and that’s how

our laws are are based in our regulatory framework, and there is the bay on one side, and what’s not the bay on the other side, but in reality it’s all like a flood plane. and so I don’t know if we want to call it. You might want to call it the

your plane, or or the Bloodland, or there’s a Shoreland or something. But but you’re actually not managing the shoreline necessarily. If you’re really being resilient, you’re you’re maybe working out into the bay.

and maybe also likely, considering landward of the shoreline. So what is that? Where is that? Where is that going to be? So

those are. Yeah. I’ll just leave it at that. I could. I could go on forever. But okay, so good enough, probably. Thank you.

Okay, thanks. Thanks. Bob. And and everybody on the DRB. I there’s a lot of I real I

understand. And I agree with a lot of things that you’re you’re saying. I you know. Personally, I think this dynamic or this this

reference frame that Bob just mentioned is really important.

If you’ve got a condo association that is trying to replace a a retaining wall. are you? And and say the owners are going to be there for 10 years or 15 years? I don’t know what the the average of home ownership is. But if you’re forcing them to think about

100 year, to think a hundred years into the future and pay for that. it doesn’t seem as

realistic or equitable if you’re forcing that kind of decision and that kind of resource use on them. I you know I I almost feel like we need to have economists in the room here

talking about what, the how we allocate our resources. If we’re going to be talking about shoreline and and big changes. There’s this whole

economic and and that kind of or the and how you fund any of this.

the the management of your short one? because, you know, I know that things are going to

the change. But I just you know, I think that just it really for me it’s the timeframe of the change, and what your and if you’re going to build a bridge, you’re going to want to have a hundred years of of life.

But what you do, what you do at the end of that 100 years, have you? Just do you just build a new bridge. the tire, or it that that kind of decision making, I think, has to be

part of this process, and I think that in terms of what they adapt does. I would really. you know, like to see that type of thinking and incorporated into it.

so I’ll

let me just. I’ll get out. Well, one more thing I to answer directly these questions? You know I would really love, I agree. I I would really love to have regular update meetings and meetings like this, where we are allowed to hear what your progress is, and

you know to be able to offer some input and guidance from our perspective.

And in terms of the resources Bob mentioned American society civil engineers or design guidelines. I I think they are working on those things, but they are a long way

off. you know, we’re in technical committees, and we’re just talking about frameworks right now. I know the Navy is putting together workshops or a workshop on dealing with climate change, not just sea level rise, but

the storm intensities and things like that. And and that’s just an effort that’s starting. But there, the idea is, how do they change their design criteria?

For there, you know. relatively important structures or facilities to deal with kind of this uncertainty and changing of the climate.

So anyway, I’ll get off my soap box now when you pass it on to the Chris.

Thank you. and thank you for the presentation. It’s really great to see the progress that has been made. and it was really good to hear you mention rising groundwater. So it’s not just sea level rise.

It’s really important. But I really also want to urge you to include precipitation based flooding. I think many communities around the bay are very focused on, protect, protect, protect.

building the walls like at Foster City. and if they do not consider all of the sources of flooding, it will be mal adoption. We saw in 2,02313 back to back storms.

bomb cyclones. Those bring elevated bay water levels and intense precipitation at the same time. So I think it’s really important to that. We bring that in.

I also like the components talking about a paradigm shift and anomaly. 2023 is an anomaly. We’re in a wonderful bubble here in the Bay area.

but the rest of the world is struggling under intense heat. we’re recording record, high ocean temperatures, ice sheet melting. We could have passed tipping points.

Science right now, is going at light speed to try and figure out what’s going on. So it’s the work that we are doing. That you are doing is is really incredibly important.

to go along with the literature on paradigm shift. There is a growing body of literature that’s on transformative adaptation. which is very similar to the process that you discussed. But it is specifically focused on climate adaptation, equity centered. So I would encourage you to explore that base of literature if you haven’t done it already

110 billion dollars. I think that’s probably an underestimate But when you think about it, state level country level, it’s it’s huge. And at the shoreline.

where we have all of these compounding hazards. It would really be good to see the guidance embrace planned retreat. I feel like

we. Really it’s an uncomfortable conversation for people to have. But we need to start having more guidance and discussions on plan retreat, because we are going to need to do it.

maybe by 2050 or sooner. So if we don’t start talking about it now, we’re not going to be able to get there. I think it’s you know. It’s going to need land use changes. Policy changes

things that are outside the engineering criteria Review board. But I think they’re extremely important. And so I would encourage you to include that in the guidance that you’re looking on

with that compass a suggestion

great.

With respect to the first question, I I kind of ask myself a separate question of like, what is the relevance of these activities to the Ecrb in terms of evaluating a project

and just trying to think of like how these might interface with the Project level Review. and to some extent, I think some of the things I noted, you know. Maybe there’s some sorting out of like, what’s the responsibility of the Cdc staff versus the Ecrb. And and that’s fine.

but I was trying to kind of imagine a future world, a future Youcrb meeting, where a sub regional implementation plan exists and we’re evaluating a project that kind of fits within that

context. and so I think you know, one thing that would probably come up would would be sort of how to evaluate an individual project within the context of a of a plan, you know. Is it consistent?

How does it work with other projects and adjacent shoreline areas? thinking about the the feasibility of that project with respect, you know, within the plan and its adaptability and things like that.

And then also thinking about. is the project consisting with and compatible with the adaptation pathway that has been laid out in the in the implementation plan.

so those are a few things that came to mind there

with respect to the providing input on safe development of the planning guidelines. I think that potentially there could be a role for Thecrb to

maybe provide input like to the extent that the planning guidance would include they suggestions on different types of adaptation options that could be considered in an implementation plan.

maybe these here we could provide input on feasibility or suitability of different actions along different parts of the shoreline within the bay, for example. And then, with respect to the second question and other resources. I mean, I’m sure the Dcdc. Staff are

are as aware, more aware of. You know things within the Bay area, but I might just throw out that there’s probably other non bay precedents that could be looked at in other parts of the country where

you know. And maybe it’s like state level or regional level plans that have been developed. But just looking at how those kind of regional plans had been laid out. And you know just kind of

Rodney. The perspective. I know the Bay area is usually a leader in the space, but there may be other examples. It could be pulled in as well. so yeah, because of my comments.

I I just like to reiterate a point that Rod made what the struggles we have with how to how to address different types of

properties consistently. And in my line of work we work on a variety of projects from new developments, where we, I should say, redeveloping

2,000 feet of shoreline, transforming an industrial wharf into a pedestrian promenade or individual homeowners, or H ways

that are trying to do repairs or large industrial facilities or petrochemical facilities around that that maybe have more money and can afford things

And we we need to find a way to to address these consistently and be able to apply policy to the different types of projects. And that’s where I think we, as a board struggle.

And I think that’s something that we’d like to get some some guidance from. Ec. DC. On how to address. Thanks.

yeah. Talking as a geo-technical engineer to a non Geo technical type of topic at sea level rise. I do have a number of comments, I guess, as representing representing the engineering Criteria Review Board.

it seems like engineering criteria, sea level rise topic per se might be a practical, tractable problem. I’m not sure that the policy issue there

as as easily tractable. couple of questions that I have, that, I think should be addressed and be useful for the engineering criteria for Thecrb to have in hand is it was talked about best, best best available science.

And I’m curious. You know how narrow or broad is the best available science is there consensus? Is there a lot of dissent? It was mentioned earlier.

The idea that maybe the boards are overreaching. what does that mean? Are we able? And if these are non-mandatory issues it’s sea level, is there a number that’s mandatory issue? That’s a mandatory number? You have so many feet in in 2,050 somebody feed in 2,075. Somebody feed in in 2,100

or

But

and what is the design like who design sides of the design that you have a homeown, and it’s going to whether they’re an average of 15 years. We normally think of 50 years, but 50 years is kind of a

a stand in number that says that the last 50 years it’ll last forever. I mean that that’s kind of as far as we can imagine. all right. And and that’s basically stable. But that’s different with sea level rise. Because 50 years from now is different than 25 years now, and different than 75 years from now.

Somehow, someone needs to start thinking about what those who who decides divine life and what is mandated about that? If we’re talking about engineering criteria, the criteria is a mandate almost

anonymously. I lot of these issues are not mandates. So what is engineering criteria? Then? I had

a question about probabilistic sorts of studies. Maybe if there’s uncertainty about what sea level rise means As a genetical engineer we deal with earthquakes and earthquakes are.

in a sense. so the type of number that who knows? How do you put your finger on what’s gonna happen? And we put our finger on that. We thought that the Hayward was going to go again 10 years ago, and we’re not there yet, so

that we have to design for it. So But you know, maybe there’s a way that we come up and say, you know this is the Median number that you want you to design

for 2,050, which is the one you know, the one Sigma, the median plus mean plus one sigma value. And and that’s what single-family residences of that with subdivisions up to 10 units in the that’s what a a sea ball around Foster City for trying about.

you know. racy, just to say, you know, engineers, doctors have it easy. They just risk killing people one at a time. Engineers what

you know cities it. So the criteria for Foster City is, is it? You know what? What’s the statistical number that you’ve got on that it shouldn’t be a Median number. It’s probably not a a a one sign number.

It’s probably a 2 segment number or something like that that we think that this

really.

you know, something we really don’t want to see a problem with with loving around Foster City. And then I have a question. Some of these things are not mandated.

What is the permit means? If it’s not mandated, or what is a permit denial? I we need to get forward. you have to figure out what is Mandated? And then what is it

i’m an engineer, I don’t deal with it.

criteria and management.

thank you. What a very good exchange here. First of all. it’s almost 50 years to a day. I first got introduced to the Cdc. To a guy named George Maker

there. and At that time the mission was to keep the from getting fields. To mention was, you know, no more feels But

I think what we’re talking about is, how do we keep the day from flooding us out? And so the point that it’s really not shoreline. It’s the coastal flood zone that we really have to consider and what is going to happen within it.

and that requires a regional approach as an engineer. the engineering solution. If you want 20 food walls. we can build 24 foot walls. Do we want to live in an area

that’s basically surrounded by large moats. That’s an option. But I I don’t think it’s a desirable. You know. Hard engineering solutions are possible

soft solutions. They require regional approach. We really have to start thinking regionally the jurisdictions. Somehow we have to get the jurisdictions together. Think about it

holistically. You can’t have San Mateo having one approach in burling them another approach and call it perfect solution for everybody, obviously one of those.

They both may work, but they don’t lead to the same outcome. So, as as I said, from the engineering standpoint. in a way, once the criteria, once the societal criteria are established, it’s really what does the society like? What we we want

this to to be and keep in mind. It’s not just the bay little sea level that’s going up. If the base level goes up. the whole delta goes up. We’ve got I once you got flooding there.

It’s it’s a system. And and so, you know, I heard the suggestions of barriers in the bay like Venice. I’m sorry this is not Venice. This is a much larger area barriers.

yeah, you know, for a few years my pork. But we have a venture like this one that’s gonna work. Okay? So that’s that’s one thing that I was thinking. So looking at the common approach and the issue of 100 year horizon. That’s an interesting point.

San Francisco. August system is more than 100 years old. Still working. It’s amazing. We East pay much the same way. It’s amazing what was done to not thinking about a hundred years. But

as to last. So what we find is a lot of these engineering. you know, infrastructure solutions. They acquire a of their own, and we have to sort of think about it. You know, we have the

a short freeway network. Both sides.

At some point there will have to be sea walls around all of those, or they will have to be elevated and become the levees that everybody’s talking about. So I think

I I like this idea of engagement, and and especially looking at it holistically. I think that’s why? Because we need to as engineers. Really, the society needs to provide some guidance

on what is the outcome? That your desire? Because that can, you know in the end. It’s money. I’m sorry, you know. It’s 100 billion or more. But yes, we can do it.

But we have to have a common purpose. That’s the way I see that as an engineer I can help in that process. But I need to for some. you know, buying from But he questions. Yes, we’d like to have your help

rather than being there, saying, Not yet. You cannot do this.

thank you.

I think the bad part of sitting at the end of the table is, everybody who is so smart basically steal your thunder. But I think the elephant in the room is a global issue

that needs to be addressed on a project level. You can never do that unless you tell people, hey. you are submitting the permit to Bcdc to do whatever development you want.

You have to consider 5 photo of sea level. That’s the only way that you can address it. because you cannot

have this being a mandatory or voluntary. you have to address that. If you want to talk about incentives, you have to what they they are.

Okay. Tax incentive. The insurance incentives? Are they some sort of a credit against some other people almost like trading carbon incentives?

So so I think engineering wise like Nick said. is easy. You put a stupid looking barrier in front of the beauty of the bay. And yeah, it

don’t plot your development. That’s not what any of us want.

So I think

what I think is going on here is

really

just a a forum to discuss a global issue. And how do you bring it to I local project levels

and I don’t think you can. This has to be addressed regionally. There is no other way you can. You can handle this and how that is done is really the 110 billion dollars question.

which I think is probably a lot more than that, maybe by a factor of 10.

So that’s my 2 cents sitting at the end of the table. Thank you.

Well, I mean, you’re very good at.

anyway. Thank you very much for the presentation. Most of what I had written down were things that I mean just talked about. The only thing I would add to it is also at what Chris shared, that

it’s not that sea level rise, but you know a flood in from other sources is also part of it. Yeah. what

it’s hard for me. It’s the fact that this time is being looked at on a global level. in a holistic kind of way.

I think the issue of. you know, trying to determine what we break to it. It’s we are far from that. we have to get to a point of basically the only way that we can deal with the sea level rise like through a means that has to be original.

Now, even if you there was a mandate, that if you are developing a property on a shoreline and you have to put in a 10 foot tie wall. Well.

the C. Is not going to respect that temporal tide. Wall, it’s going to go around it right? So so you have to cover the whole shoreline, or you have to cover the whole region

So I think that society would have to basically decide that this is a crisis which affects us all and be committed to approaching it

on the suicidal regional national level. I mean, we talk about climate change. I mean, part of the challenge that they’ve had is that different countries, you know, have different levels of commitment.

but the one doesn’t respect the. And so if we in the Us. establishing all these policies to deal with climate change.

But China is not. Oh, Mexico is not. I mean, we are not being protected. So there has to be a sense of thanks, there being an agreement.

you know, on a suicidal level that this is so important that we are willing to command resources to dealing with it on the global type of level.

I think he talked about reimagining our role. I think it’s so true because the things we do now me nothing. If we had to look at things on a global type of level.

how we would come in would be join in with everybody else that society is committed to dealing with the issue on a societal level

we bring in, and our expertise, you know, and coming up with solutions to address the problem on that level.

Thank you.

Gail, do you have? And another comment

that was, I was raising my hand on behalf of my colleague, Mr. French, here earlier.

since we are sharing a camera.

Gary.

very quick, I think. 15 years ago I I I tend to talk about how the manager tree would be solved by insurance companies. And I think in the last couple of weeks we have seen that it’s had a big impact as they pull out. And that is something that I think

you know, transcends our ability. I think it addresses some of the things we’re we’re hearing, you know you can. We can say as much as we want. What we think is the right thing to do. But I think identifying what mechanisms there are to

bring into your policy. Evaluations are to inform people who are investing in the shoreline. Maybe maybe there’s something there I I would like to hear has. It’s more knowledgeable about that.

I’m just looking at timeline here because broad you my one way into actually the screen. just so much really important feedback from everyone. I think we could easily extend this for another couple of hours, going backwards and forwards. As we focus our minds.

we particularly some of the Atlantic comments. That’s What should our plan be? It’s by the clock. So What do you? What do you suggest

next on the agenda is adjournment? I think we heard very clearly that everyone is interested in engaging in this process more in the future. And so perhaps

we can schedule more dialogues like this.

I will look to Larry right. I I just wanted to say you know very frequent attendant of the the DRB. I always get to hear

very incisive comments at the project level. And it’s It’s just interesting to be talking about such a big issue in here, these high, level thoughts and

just really giving us a lot to think about. So I just wanted to say, Thank you for for all the comments.

Yeah, I I mean, I as much as it would be great fun to talk about this for another couple of hours. I think you probably have a lot to digest, and we probably also have a lot to suggest. I mean, we both were taking just pages and pages to know your comments were all just so insightful and thoughtful. Some stuff that we have thought about, and some stuff we haven’t yet. So

I’m not 100% sure how how we want to proceed forward. And in terms of coming up with a maybe just a briefing schedule or identify key points where, you know, we can bring you just really specific

pieces of information. but it does sound like it would be really mutually beneficial to continue this conversation. maybe just not nice.

Can I just make a conclusion remark on just on behalf of the DRB. I mean, I think you are already making really important progress. And you know, if we think about the beginning of the cycle of a project where a developer comes to you. Maybe a developer comes to you

right. and they have a project they want to develop. And I think it would be really helpful, for even at this point to the still something quite simple from everything that’s being studied at a more macro level.

just to distill to the developer that you know and use language like, even though it’s not figured out in details. But you know that

you know shoreline adaptation that adopts a natural approach is something that you’re going to view very favorably. you know they might be 3 or 4. Keep it simple, but you know, based on what you heard today.

Just things that you could already start in that first meeting with a a developer that might be helpful, because I completely agree. You know, these global macro

issues is something that at a project level, we can’t necessarily impact. But we can impact. You know, the next 25, or 50 years, and I think we should. you know, within the realm of what we can do. So

I think that would. I just would like to suggest that. But we, you know that we move ahead. We don’t to awake for 2 years before these conversations are held with potential developers and projects.

So you know, I in my day job kind of involved in 7 and a half miles of protecting 7 and a half miles of shoreline

I and I see how big a job that is. See how hard the you know our staff and our consultants are working to make this all all fit right, and

the the amount of resources involved are just mind mind-blowing. I I And so

this is all I think really great. And

but I I just it feels like to me. It I see it on a day-to-day basis, and it feels like just a absolutely impossible task. But I’ve got, you know. But there are people who are running the program.

We’ve got this idea in their head that it’s going to work somehow. So you know I’m I’m very hopeful, even though personally, maybe I’m like overwhelmed.

you know, I think this is all super It’s a very noble pursuit. right? And I I really encourage the staff to to think about the things that we’ve brought up. I mean, I still.

I still think that you know the timing of the sea level rise of what it means, you know, 20 years down the line, 50 years down the line, 100 years down the line.

I I you know that at some point even the tallest, you know, 8 foot 9 foot 10 foot wall that you build is going to be overrun at some point.

And what have you? And you’ve made all of these decisions now, or in the near future that are going to have to play out. And people. The next generations are going to have to live with that.

And so I you know, I think it really does require a lot of consideration and care on our part right now to to make sure that we’re making you know the best decisions that we can, but

also have some flexibility so that people can pivot. you know, in 20 years or 25 years.

No. sorry I’m getting off my my so box again.

So if I can, a couple of things. I I think the next step is to have a stiff drink. and and I mean that sincerely because this is the kind of discussion that thankfully Rod just said something at the end that I think we all need to hear. There are optimists here.

I think all of us are optimists here because I don’t think you would volunteer for BCDC. This. You’re optimistic about the way the Bay area can change. And the way the Bay Area needs to change. So with that, with that being said.

you know, I don’t think we have to have a zolop, you know concession out the door. I think there’s a reason that we can be optimistic.

my suggestion is that Dana and Ethan will compare notes and work hard to try to make something out of those notes that actually gives us

some type of organizational framework to use in terms of what the questions are that are really raised by this nationally, and and Jen will certainly be part of that

and we’ll share that with the chairs of the DRB. And Ecrb to make sure that they

think that that’s somewhat at least consistent with what you heard. So at least we’re working off of a framework that we can that we can use. and then what they’ll have to do. What we’ll have to do is Staff is figure out how those issues

are going to be raised, and when they’re going to be raised in this bay adap discussion. And as we do that, as we see that framework, we will then come back to you all in preparation for that, so that you all are prepared for those kinds of discussions to be had.

not only probably as part of your meetings, but as part of you know the Commissioner working group on rising sea level, to which you will all you know, to which you are all going to be notified and the like. And and as those issues bubble up to the surface, we want to make sure that you’re involved with at least understanding how the Commission’s viewing this.

So that’s sort of the logistical way that I see this happening. I will end by saying this. regulatory agencies, such as BCDC. Are created in order to provide certainty of the public.

The FDA exists so that the pills we take in the morning don’t kill us. They actually solve things. We get into airplanes that are certified not to fall out of the sky, and the pilots are trained to make sure that doesn’t happen.

BCDC is a regulatory agency that is facing an environment that is uncertain and permits are contracts

and contracts are based upon some kind of certainty. And so one of the things that we need to think through with you all and and and with all due respect. I think the engineers were really totally on target on this, because they see certainty. That’s what engineers do. Right? You can build a wall that’s going to last for 110 years a certain as long as we give you the specs or the the idea, you can build whatever you know, you’ll figure it out.

but we don’t know what’s going to be like in 20 years or 80 years, and for someone who has a 19 year old kid, and hopes that his grandkids, you know, live in a prosperous Bay area, we have to be adaptable.

So all that basically is a mishmash of I don’t know how we’re going to do this. but we’re going to depend upon your input as we move forward to try to figure out how to do it best.

So with that, I want to thank you all for participating, because it’s something that we haven’t asked you to do before. And now it’s something we’re going to ask you to do more. So we thank you for your help.

Cinder. Would you call it your name?

It’s I propose. We had joined the meeting someone. Second me. Thank you. Tom. Meeting adjourned.

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.