June 26, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting

1. Call to Order and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)
2. Staff Updates (5 minutes)
3. IItem of Discussion: Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Draft Guidelines
   The Engineering Criteria Review Board will hold its first review of BCDC’s draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) guidelines. When finalized, the RSAP guidelines will be used by local jurisdictions for developing Subregional Shoreline Resiliency Plans, required by Senate Bill 272 (Laird 2023), that effectively address local and regional sea level rise risks. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.
   [(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald]
   Presentation
4. Adjournment

Audio video

Recording

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME TO THIS HYBRID, IN-PERSON AND ONLINE ECRB MEETING. MY NAME IS ROD IWASHITA AND I’M THE CHAIR OF ECRB, AND THIS MEETING WILL BE RECORDED. I’D LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT BILL HOLMES HAS DECIDED TO RETIRE FROM THE ECRB AND NOTIFIED US LAST WEEK. HE HAS SPENT HIS 50-YEAR CAREER AS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND PRINCIPAL AT RUTHERFORD AND CHEKENE. HE WAS RECOGNIZED IN HIS STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND LEADERSHIP AND IMPROVING THE SEISMIC SAFETY OF BUILDINGS. HE HAS SERVED ON THE ECRB FOR 10 YEARS AND JENN WILL BE DRAWING UP A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE BCDC COMMISSION. AND I’D LIKE TO HAVE US ALL GIVE HIM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR HIS SERVICE. THANK YOU, BILL. [APPLAUSE]

>>WILLIAM HOLMES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU ON THIS FOR THE LAST 10-ISH YEARS, WHATEVER IT IS.

>>WILLIAM HOLMES: WE HAD SOME INTERESTING SITUATIONS. [LAUGHTER]

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. LET’S SEE. WE WILL BE WORKING ON A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO FILL BILL’S SPOT. PATRICK RYAN IS HERE IN HIS FIRST ECRB MEETING AS AN ALTERNATE BOARD MEMBER, SO I’D LIKE TO INTRODUCE HIM TO EVERYONE. PATRICK IS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND PRINCIPAL AND CO-FOUNDER OF RYAN JOYCE STRUCTURAL DESIGN, A SAN FRANCISCO-BASED ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRM. WELCOME, PATRICK. I THINK IT IS KIND OF FITTING THAT PATRICK AND BILL BOTH GOT RUTHERFORD CHEKENE ROOTS SO THAT’S KIND OF NEAT. I’D ALSO LIKE TO INTRODUCE MARGIE MALAN WHO HAS TAKEN GRACE’S PLACE FOR ASSISTING WITH THE RUNNING OF THE MEETING ON ZOOM. THANK YOU, MARGIE. OKAY. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELVES TO RESPOND AND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN AFTER RESPONDING. JENN, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>>JENN HYMAN: ROD IWASHITA, CHAIR OF THE BOARD.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: HERE.

>>JENN HYMAN: JIM FRENCH, VICE CHAIR.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: HERE.

>>JENN HYMAN: BOB BATTALIO.

>>BOB BATTALIO: HERE.

>>JENN HYMAN: GYIMAH KASALI. NOT HERE. KRIS MAY. I HEARD THAT SHE MAY BE JOINING US LATER REMOTELY. RAMIN GOLESORKHI.

>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: HERE.

>>JENN HYMAN: NICK SITAR. HE’S OUT ON VACATION. GAYLE JOHNSON, HE’S OUT SICK. THALEIA TRAVASAROU. DILIP TRIVEDI. JUSTIN VANDEVER. AND PATRICK RYAN.

>>PATRICK RYAN: HERE.

>>JENN HYMAN: AND I BELIEVE PROMOTING THE ALTERNATE MEMBER TO BOARD MEMBER TODAY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUORUM OF FIVE — AT LEAST FIVE PEOPLE PRESENT. [INAUDIBLE]

>>WILLIAM HOLMES: ROD, YOU’RE MUTED.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: SORRY. I SHOULD KNOW THIS. THANK YOU, BILL. I WANT TO START WITH SOME INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW WE CAN BEST PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SO THAT IT RUNS AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE. FIRST, EVERYONE, WHEN YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVE DISCUSSION, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR MICROPHONE OR PHONE MUTED TO AVOID BACKGROUND NOISE. FOR BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU HAVE A CAMERA, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ON DURING THE MEETING SO EVERYONE CAN SEE YOU. FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THAT IS PART OF AN AGENDA ITEM, YOU’LL NEED TO DO SO IN ONE OF THREE WAYS. IF YOU ARE HERE IN PERSON, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SO WE CAN CALL ON YOU AT WHICH TIME YOU MAY COME FORWARD TO THE ELECT — FORWARD TO SPEAK. IF YOU ARE ON THE ZOOM PLATFORM, PLEASE CLICK THE HAND AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN. THE HAND SHOULD TURN BLUE WHEN IT’S RAISED. AND IF YOU ARE ATTENDING VIA PHONE, YOU MUST PRESS STAR NINE ON YOUR KEY PAD TO MAKE A COMMENT AND STAR SIX TO UNMUTE OR MUTE YOURSELF. WE WILL CALL ON INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED THEIR HANDS IN THE ORDER THEY ARE RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. EVERY NOW AND THEN I MAY REFER TO THE MEETING HOST, MARGIE, WHO IS WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES TO ENSURE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY MOVES THE MEETING FORWARD SMOOTHLY AND CONSISTENTLY. AND PLEASE BE PATIENT WITH US IF IT’S NEEDED. OKAY. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AS SET FORTH IN BCDC’S REGULATIONS, A MEMBER OF THE ECRB SHALL NOT HAVE ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN COMMUNICATION REGARDING A PROPOSED PROJECT OR OTHER MATTER THAT HAS BEEN NOTICED TO BE CONSIDERED AT AN ECRB MEETING WITH A PROJECT PROPONENT, PROSPECTIVE APPLICANT OR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC EXCEPT ON THE RECORD DURING AN ECRB MEETING. BOARD MEMBERS, IN CASE YOU HAVE INADVERTENTLY FORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE THE STAFF WITH A NOTICE ON ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, I INVITE YOU TO REPORT ON ANY SUCH COMMUNICATIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME BY RAISING YOUR HAND AND UNMUTING YOURSELF. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, NO HANDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. OH, NO, I DO SEE ONE HAND. BILL HOLMES.

>>WILLIAM HOLMES: YES, MR. CHAIR, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TO RETIRE. I AM GOING TO GO GET IN MY CAR AND DRIVE NORTH AS WE SPEAK. SO I HAVE APPRECIATED SERVING BCDC AND ENJOYED WORKING WITH EVERYONE AND WE’LL SEE YOU AROUND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO. THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU, BILL.

>>JENN HYMAN: THANK YOU, QUESTION.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: I HAVE A QUESTION, QUICK. DO WE NEED BILL TO VOTE ON PATRICK OR DO WE LOSE A QUORUM?

>>JENN HYMAN: NO. THERE’S NO VOTING ON PATRICK TODAY.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: OKAY. BILL, DRIVE SAFE. HAVE FUN.

>>BOB BATTALIO: HAPPY TRAILS, BILL.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: I THINK HE’S GONE. [LAUGHTER]

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. AND NOW WE’LL HAVE A STAFF UPDATE FROM SENIOR ENGINEER AND BOARD SECRETARY JENN HYMAN. TAKE IT AWAY, JENN.

>>JENN HYMAN: THANK YOU, ROD, CHAIR IWASHITA. I’D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT UPCOMING MEETINGS. WITH REGARD TO UPCOMING ECRB MEETINGS, THERE ARE NO PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 24 OR THE AUGUST 21 MEETING, BUT PLEADS KEEP THESE DATES OPENED ON YOUR CALENDAR IN CASE SOMETHING COMES UP AT THE LAST MINUTE. ON SEPTEMBER 25, THE ECRB WILL HAVE ITS SECOND MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON THEIR SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT. CARGILL SALT SAID THEY’D LIKE TO ALSO RETURN TO THE BOARD TO ADDRESS THEIR QUESTIONS FROM THE LAST MEETING, ALSO IN SEPTEMBER. WE ARE THINKING OF SCHEDULING A SEPARATE MEETING FOR THAT ON SEPTEMBER 11 TO ALLOW YOU TIME TO REVIEW THE MATERIALS FOR THESE TWO COMPLEX PROJECTS OR WE COULD HAVE BOTH THE S.F.O. MEETING AND THE CARGILL MEETING ON THE SAME DAY, ALTHOUGH THAT COULD BE A VERY LONG MEETING, POSSIBLY MORE THAN FOUR HOURS. I WANTED TO SEE A SHOW OF HANDS FROM PEOPLE ON THE BOARD WHICH ONE YOU PREFER. SO SHOW OF HANDS OR SPEAK OUT IF YOU PREFER TO HAVE BOTH PROJECTS IN THE SAME MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 25? ONE PERSON. OH, AND JIM. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT HAVING TWO DIFFERENT MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER, TWO WEEKS APART? PATRICK, ROD, AND BOB. HMM. ALMOST A TIE. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT?

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: FROM ME?

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: I’M FINE WITH ALLOWING IT FOR MULTIPLE MEETINGS THOUGH I VOTED FOR ONE.

>>SPEAKER: I THINK ONE IS BETTER IN LIGHT OF THE FACT HE TOLD ME NOT TO BE AVAILABLE, BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND BOTH, SO I THINK IT’S BETTER TO HAVE ONE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAY BE A LONG MEETING, BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, I THINK IT’S BETTER TO HAVE MORE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT THAN NOT. THANK YOU.

>>JENN HYMAN: ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO HAVE FEELINGS ABOUT WHICH WAY TO DO IT?

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: SURE. I THINK BOTH OF PLEASE PROJECTS ARE PRETTY COMPLEX AND WE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR THEM, FOR THE APPLICANTS THE LAST TIME WE MET AND I’M SURE THIS WOULD BE MORE THAN A FOUR-HOUR MEETING IF WE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH ON THE SAME DAY. AND NOTICING —

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: YOUR VOICE IS KIND OF FADING A LITTLE BIT. IF YOU COULD SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: AND JUST, YOU KNOW, TODAY’S — THE PARKING LOGISTICS HERE ARE SOMEWHAT, YOU KNOW, DIFFICULT. I’D RATHER — I THINK IT’S EASIER FOR SOME OF US TO COME IN TWO DAYS AND BE HERE FOR THREE HOURS, SAY, THAN COMING IN FOR ONE DAY AND BEING HERE FOR SIX HOURS BUT THAT’S JUST MY OPINION.

>>JENN HYMAN: OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR CONCERN IS PEOPLE WON’T BE HERE ON THIS NEW DATE. MAYBE I COULD JUST SEE WHO’S AVAILABLE AND THEN WE CAN TAKE IT FROM THERE.

>>SPEAKER: YEAH, SURE. I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST MAYBE WE TAKE A POLL AND SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AVAILABLE AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION WHETHER ONE OR TWO. I DON’T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH TWO. I JUST THINK THAT THERE COULD BE PARTICIPATION ISSUES.

>>JENN HYMAN: OKAY. I’LL MOVE AHEAD WITH THAT PLAN, THEN. AND THOSE ARE ALL MY ANNOUNCEMENTS.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION, ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM ANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS? RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE. OKAY. I DON’T SEE ANY HANDS UP. SO LET’S SEE. LET ME TURN MY PAGE HERE. OKAY. NOW WE’RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE MAIN AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS THE PRESENTATION BY BCDC AND DISCUSSION ON THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN GUIDELINES, ALSO KNOWN AS THE RSAP GUIDELINES FOR SHORT. FIRST UP, DANA BRECHWALD, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE — EXCUSE ME — CLIMATE ADAPTATION — FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ, SENIOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANNER, WILL MAKE A 45-MINUTE PRESENTATION. DURING THE PRESENTATION, IT IS FINE FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, WE WILL OPEN THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS BASED — RELATED TO THE PRESENTATION. AFTER HEARING ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, THE ECRB WILL RESUME THE DISCUSSION WITH THEIR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND FEEDBACK ON THE RSAP GUIDELINES. AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION, I WILL ASK FOR FINAL COMMENTS AND THEN CLOSE THE AGENDA ITEM. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS AND PRESENTERS TO PLEASE TURN ON YOUR CAMERAS, IF YOU CAN. RAMIN. FOR ANY DISCUSSION DURING OR AFTER THE PRESENTATION. I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN IT OVER TO THE BCDC PLANNING TEAM TO BEGIN THEIR PRESENTATION.

>>DANA BRECHWALD: BEAR WITH US, WE’RE SHARING ONE COMPUTER BECAUSE IT’S EASIER TO NAVIGATE TO SHARE THE PRESENTATION. GREAT. HERE WE ARE. SO GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS. IT’S REALLY A PLEASURE TO SHARE WITH US — WITH YOU — FOR US TO SHARE WITH YOU TODAY WHAT WE’VE BEEN WORKING ON. WE LAST SPOKE TO YOU LAST — I THINK IT WAS JULY OR AUGUST LAST YEAR, ABOUT A YEAR AGO, AND WE WERE REALLY JUST STARTING ON SCOPING OUT WHAT THESE GUIDELINES WOULD LOOK LIKE SO WE’RE HAPPY TODAY TO SHARE WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS ARE THAT WILL GET US TO COMMISSION APPROVAL IN DECEMBER. SO WHEN JENN SENT OUT HER REPORT TO YOU, SHE SENT YOU A DRAFT OF THE GUIDELINES AND ALSO POSED SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU CONTEMPLATE TODAY, SO I’M JUST POSTING THEM HERE. I WON’T READ THEM OUT LOUD BUT JUST SETTING THIS UP AS A WAY OF FRAMING THE CONVERSATION THAT WE’RE HAVING TODAY. THERE ARE MANY COMPONENTS OF THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE MORE TECHNICAL IN NATURE THAT WE THINK YOU ALL CAN HAVE SOME PERSPECTIVE ON AND REALLY, WHAT ALL THESE QUESTIONS ARE ASKING YOU FOR IS, YOU KNOW, IS THIS THE RIGHT LEVEL? ARE WE MISSING ANYTHING? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE FLAGGED AS BEING ESSENTIAL TO MOVING FORWARD WITH THE GUIDELINES? SO WE’RE GOING TO START, ACTUALLY, WITH A VIDEO THAT OUR CONSULTANT TEAM PUT TOGETHER FOR US, AND THIS WILL REALLY HELP TO FRAME THE CONVERSATION AND SHOW YOU WHY WE’RE DOING THIS PROJECT TO BEGIN WITH. SO LET ME — HMM. OKAY. HOLD ON. TECHNICAL — STOP SHARING. SORRY. WE’RE HAVING ALL THESE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE WE LEFT AUDIO AND ALL THIS FUN STUFF. YOU’D THINK THE NUMBER OF TIMES WE HAVE DONE THIS PRESENTATION WE WOULD — WE WOULD — OKAY. NOW IT SHOULD — [LAUGHTER] QUICK QUESTION, WERE THOSE OF YOU ON — CAN YOU MUTE THAT? WERE THOSE OF YOU ON VIDEO ABLE TO HEAR THAT VIDEO AS IT WAS PLAYING?

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: I DO NOT HEAR. SORRY. IS THERE A WAY TO SHARE AUDIO? IT TAKES A VILLAGE, PEOPLE.

>>SPEAKER: IN THE SAN FRANCISCO REGION, ONE THING CONNECTS US ALL, THE BAY. IT’S WHERE WE GATHER TOGETHER FOR FRESH AIR, FOR EXERCISE, FOR THE STUNNING VIEWS. WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES ARE HOMES TO — HOME TO BIRDS AND FISH. THE BAY TRAIL LEADS US TO VISIT ONE ANOTHER. WHERE WATERLINES AND POWERLINES PROVIDES CRUCIAL SERVICES. IT’S WHERE WE LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY, MAKING THE BAY AREA A ONE OF A KIND PLACE TO CALL HOME.

>>SPEAKER: BUT ALL OF THAT IS AT RISK, AS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES THE WATER IN THE BAY AND GROUNDWATER BENEATH US TO RISE. WITHOUT ACTION, THOSE RISING WATERS WILL AFFECT ALL OF OUR DAILY LIVES. THE WAY WE TRAVEL TO SCHOOL OR TO THE GROCERY STORE, EVEN FLUSHING OUR TOILETS WILL BECOME LESS RELIABLE. AIRPORTS, BART, AND UTILITIES ARE ALL VULNERABLE. WE ALL WILL FEEL THE EFFECTS EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE IN A BAYSIDE COMMUNITY. SOME OF THOSE EFFECTS ARE ALREADY HERE. IN RECENT YEARS, RISING GROUNDWATER AND MAJOR STORMS HAVE LED TO TRANSIT STATION CLOSURES AND FLOODED HOMES. OUR SHORELINE IS CHANGING. OUR COMMUNITIES ARE AT RISK. AND SO HOW WE COEXIST WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT ALSO NEEDS TO CHANGE. IT’S A CHALLENGE OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE. IF WE DON’T ACT, 190,000 JOBS, 83,000 HOMES, AND 20,000 ACRES OF WETLAND ARE THREATENED WITHIN THE NEXT 40 YEARS.

>>SPEAKER: BUT WE’VE DONE TOUGH WORK TOGETHER BEFORE. IN THE 1960’S, WHEN THE BAY’S NATURAL AREAS WERE BEING FILLED FOR DEVELOPMENT, CONCERNED COMMUNITY MEMBERS LED THE WAY, FOUNDING SAVE THE BAY AND LEADING TO THE CREATION OF THE BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. AND NOW, THE BCDC IS ORGANIZING AROUND COLLECTIVE ACTION ONCE AGAIN, CONVENING REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING ON SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES WHILE SUPPORTING OTHERS TO GET STARTED.

>>SPEAKER: WORKING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH NATURE WE CAN HAVE A NEW SHORELINE THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF EACH COMMUNITY.

>>SPEAKER: IT CREATES NEW WALKING AND BICYCLE TRAILS.

>>SPEAKER: THAT ENSURES BAY NATURAL AREAS THRIVE INTO THE FUTURE.

>>SPEAKER: AND SO MUCH OF OUR NEIGHBORS LIVE IN PLACES THAT ARE AT HIGHER RISK OR HAVE ALREADY ENDURED PREVIOUS HARM AND OUR DUTY IS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS FIRST.

>>SPEAKER: BUT WE NEED EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING, BECAUSE THIS WILL AFFECT ALL OF US, EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE NEAR THE SHORELINE.

>>SPEAKER: IT’S A CHALLENGE THAT CAN’T BE SOLVED IN A SINGLE GENERATION. WE NEED TO WORK OVER TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE AHEAD. AND NOW YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A FUTURE BAY THAT CAN SUPPORT ALL OF US FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

>>SPEAKER: TOGETHER FOR THE FRESH AIR, FOR THE EXERCISE, FOR THE STUNNING VIEWS. WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES —

>>DANA BRECHWALD: BEAR WITH US. I DON’T KNOW WHY IT’S PLAYING AGAIN.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: IT WAS GOOD ONCE. IT WILL PROBABLY BE BETTER TWICE.

>>DANA BRECHWALD: OKAY. WE SHOULD BE GOOD. SO MANY THINGS TO CLICK ON. OKAY. SO AS YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO AND YOU’RE PROBABLY AWARE, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO THE BAY AREA FROM SEA LEVEL RISE AND NOT JUST ALONG THE SHORELINE BUT ON THE SYSTEMS THAT WE RELY ON SO THIS IS JUST A SNIPPET OF SOME FACTS THAT WE SHARED IN OUR ART BAY AREA REPORT WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN 2020 THAT TALKS ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO THINGS LIKE OUR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, THE AREAS THAT WE’RE PLANNING ON GROWING FOR HOUSING AND JOBS, OUR SOCIALLY VULNERABLE RESIDENTS AND OUR NATURAL HABITATS. THE POINT OF THIS SLIDE IS REALLY TO SHOW YOU THIS IS REALLY AN EVERYBODY PROBLEM, IT’S NOT YOUR A SHORELINE PROBLEM, AND SO THAT’S WHY BCDC HAS BEEN TAKING THIS ON AT SUCH A REGIONALWIDE SCALE. OUR MAJOR EFFORT RIGHT NOW THAT IS HELPING TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION IN THE REGION IS OUR BAY ADAPT INITIATIVE WHICH WE BRIEFED YOU ON LAST YEAR AND THIS IS OUR CONSENSUS-DRIVEN STRATEGY THAT LAYS OUT THE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ADAPT THE BAY AREA TO RISING SEA LEVEL TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT. THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN, WHICH WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, IS IMPLEMENTING SEVERAL TASKS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE JOINT PLATFORM. IT’S REALLY CRITICAL FOR US, AS YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO, AND THE SLIDES I SHARED TWO SLIDES AGO, EVERYTHING IS INTERCONNECTED IN THE BAY AND THAT’S WHY WE NEED TO APPROACH ADAPTATION FROM A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO A CITY-BY-CITY BASIS. WE NEED TO HAVE ADAPTATION PRACTICES AROUND THE REGION, THAT WE’RE ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES AROUND THE REGION, PARTICULARLY TO FRONTLINE COMMUNITIES AND THOSE LOST RESOURCE COMMUNITIES. WE ALL KNOW THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WETLANDS IS NOT JUST PARCEL BY PARCEL BUT IT DEPENDS A LOT ON INTERCONNECTEDNESS AND ALSO SPEED. THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE NOW. WE KNOW THAT IT’S GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO DO ALL OF THIS AND WE NEED TO BE REALLY STRATEGIC ABOUT HOW WE SPEND OUR DOLLARS AND IMPLEMENT PROJECTS AROUND THE REGION. WE WANT TO SET COMMON STANDARDS AND METHODS FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE REGION. WE WANT TO ESTABLISH A PIPELINE OF FUNDING AND KNOW WHERE THAT FUNDING WILL GO AND LASTLY, WE NEED TO TRACK ADAPTATION AS A REGION. WE ALSO ARE NOW — BCDC IS NOW MANDATED TO FULFILL S.B. 272. THIS BILL WAS PASSED LAST FALL AND STATES THAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS NEED TO DEVELOP SUBREGIONAL RESILIENCY PLANS AND BCDC IS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THE GUIDELINES THAT THOSE PLANS MUST FOLLOW AND THEN REVIEWING AND APPROVING OR DENYING PLANS BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE GUIDELINES. THIS BILL ALSO STATES THAT WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE STATE FUNDING FOR THESE PLANS AND FOR THE PROJECTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE APPROVED PLANS AND THAT THESE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE ADOPTED BY BCDC BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, WHICH IS WHY WE’VE BEEN WORKING SO HARD IN THE PAST YEAR SINCE YOU’VE SEEN US LAST. SO OUR ANSWER TO 272 IS THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN, AND WE ACTUALLY STARTED WORKING ON THIS BEFORE S.B. 272 WAS PASSED AND S.B. 272 JUST STRENGTHENS THE WORK THAT WE’RE ALREADY DOING. THE SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN IS A REGION-WIDE PLAN THAT CREATES — OF COORDINATED LOCALLY PLANNED SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION ACTIONS THAT WORK TOGETHER TO MEET REGIONAL GOALS. SO WHEN WE SAY THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN, THERE ARE ACTUALLY SEVERAL COMPONENTS THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. THE FIRST IS REALLY THE WORK THAT WE’RE DOING BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THIS YEAR. WE DEVELOPED A VISION THAT WILL — THAT WE’RE LEANING ON TO GUIDE WHAT ADAPTATION IN THE REGION SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND WE’LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN JUST A FEW SLIDES. THIS IS REALLY GOING TO DIRECT WORK ON THE GROUND. AND THEN ANOTHER KEY COMPONENT, AND THE COMPONENT THAT MAKES THIS REALLY TRULY REGIONAL IN NATURE IS WHAT WE CALL STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND THESE ARE AREAS THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF ADAPTATION AS A WHOLE, SOMETHING BIGGER AS A REGION, BUT ARE DEPENDENT UPON ACTION, VERY SPECIFIC ACTION IN LOCAL — IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. AND JACKIE WILL TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THESE ARE IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES. SO THIS IS THE WORK WE’RE DOING THIS YEAR, AND, YES, IT’S A LOT OF WORK, BUT WE ARE REALLY RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY — THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORK IS GOING TO HAPPEN AFTER WE ADOPT THE GUIDELINES AND ONCE THESE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS ARE ACTUALLY BEING DEVELOPED BY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THESE PLANS NEED TO BE FINALIZED BY JANUARY, 2034, ACCORDING TO S.B. 272, ALTHOUGH WE ARE WORKING TO ENSURE CITIES AND COUNTIES DO THEM EARLIER SO THEY HAVE PLANS IN PLACE. AND OUR GOAL IS THEY WILL REALLY LEAD TO MEANINGFUL LAND USE CHANGES AND ADAPTATION PROJECTS ALONG THE SHORELINE. I’LL ALSO MENTION HERE THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING AN ONLINE MAPPING PLATFORM THAT WILL CONTAIN A LOT OF THE DATA LAYERS THAT JURISDICTIONS NEED TO DO THESE PLANS, AND WE’RE ALSO DEVELOPING A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WE’LL LAUNCH NEXT YEAR THAT WILL HELP US PARTNER WITH CITIES AND COUNTIES AS THEY INTERPRET THE GUIDELINES AND DEVELOP THESE PLANS.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: DANA, ARE YOU PROVIDING GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF, LIKE, A TEMPLATE FOR WHAT THEIR PLANS SHOULD BE LOOKING LIKE?

>>DANA BRECHWALD: THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION. WE’RE ACTUALLY SCOPING OUT THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE LIMITED CAPACITY AT THIS TIME, ALTHOUGH IT DOES LOOK LIKE IN OUR BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR, FROM THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET, THAT WE’LL BE ABLE TO STAFF UP OVER TIME TO FULFILL S.B. 272. SO WE’RE — WE ARE AIMING FOR THINGS LIKE WORKSHOPS, WEBINARS, ONE-ON-ONE ASSISTANCE, BUT WE ARE ALSO AIMING TO PROVIDE SOME TEMPLATES. THE GUIDELINES WILL LAY OUT WHAT THE PLAN SHOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT ANY TEMPLATES AND JOB AIDS WILL ALSO BE HELPFUL. SO I THINK WE WILL BE DEVELOPING THOSE OVER TIME.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY, THANK YOU.

>>DANA BRECHWALD: SO I’M SHARING HERE THE ONE — THE ONE BAY VISION THAT IS GUIDING THE PLAN AND THE GUIDELINES. I AM NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THING HERE BUT THERE IS A Q.R. CODE HERE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT IF YOU’D LIKE TO READ IT ALL YOURSELF. BUT OUR OVERARCHING VISION AS SEA LEVEL RISE, WE TRANSFORM HOW WE LIVE, WORK, PLAN, ADAPT ALONG OUR CHANGING SHORELINES. WE ALSO HAVE THESE EIGHT TOPIC AREAS THAT ARE HOW WE’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT ORGANIZING THE ASSETS AND THE — OUR RESPONSES IN EACH OF THESE EIGHT CATEGORIES, AND WE ALSO HAVE A ONE BAY VISION — A SPECIFIC ONE BAY VISION GOALS FOR EACH OF THESE EIGHT TOPIC AREAS. SO IF YOU CLICK ON THE Q.R. CODE THAT WAS ON THE LAST SLIDE, IT WILL TAKE YOU TO THE WHOLE COMPREHENSIVE ONE BAY VISION. AND WHAT THIS VISION DOES IS IT REALLY SETS OUR DESIRED END STATE FOR ADAPTATION AND HELPS US DRIVE WHAT WE’RE ASKING PEOPLE TO CONSIDER AND WHAT WE’RE ASKING PEOPLE TO DO IN THEIR LOCAL ADAPTATION PLANS. SO THE GOAL IS REALLY AS EACH PERSON — AS EACH CITY AND COUNTY DEVELOPS THEIR OWN PLAN, ALL OF THE ACTIONS IN THOSE PLANS WILL ADD UP TO MEETING THIS REGIONAL VISION. AND I’LL ALSO MENTION HERE, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT OF HOW — HOW WE ACTUALLY CREATED THIS VISION. WE WENT TO 10 DIFFERENT POP-UP EVENTS AROUND THE REGION AND ASKED COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE AND ADOPT VOTING EXERCISE ON WHAT THEY CARED ABOUT NOW AND THE FUTURE AND WE ALSO HAD AN ONLINE SURVEY WHERE WE GOT RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC. AND THIS ALL HELPED US HONE IN ON WHAT THESE VISION STATEMENTS SHOULD BE. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT IS NOT DEFINED IN S.B. 272 BUT THAT WE ARE REALLY DIGGING INTO HERE IS, WHAT ACTUALLY IS A SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE RESILIENCY PLAN OR A SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN? WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE CALLING IT QUITE YET, ALTHOUGH WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT THIS MORNING. [LAUGHTER] OOPS. THESE ARE OUT OF ORDER. SO THE THREE BUCKETS WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON HERE WHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL PLAN, WHAT DOES THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS LOOK LIKE? AT WHAT SCALE SHOULD THESE PLANS OCCUR AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE? HOW DO THEY ALIGN WITH EXISTING PLANNING PROCESSES? YOU KNOW, WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATES AND ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN? WHAT’S IN A SUBREGIONAL PLAN? THERE ARE CERTAIN VERY MINIMAL, LEGAL MINIMUMS THAT S.B. 272 LAYS OUT. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK TO YOU A LOT TODAY IS THE PLAN GUIDANCE AND THE GUIDELINES THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING. AND THEN, ALSO, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE LEVERAGE AND EXPAND UPON EXISTING PLANS PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY DONE? AND LASTLY, HOW IS A PLAN SUBMITTED, ADOPTED, AND IMPLEMENTED? HOW DOES IT GET APPROVED LOCALLY? HOW DOES BCDC REVIEW AND APPROVE IT? HOW DO WE TRACK PROGRESS AND IMPLEMENTATION ON THE PLANS? SO WE’LL TALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THESE HERE. WE’RE STILL WORKING THROUGH A LOT OF THIS, PARTICULARLY IN THAT THIRD BUCKET HERE. THIS IS A NONREGULATORY PLAN. IT DOESN’T REALLY GIVE BCDC ANY ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES ON THE PERMITTING SIDE. THIS IS REALLY JUST A PLAN. AND SO WE’VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF INTERNAL THINKING ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT INCORPORATE THIS INTO OUR POLICIES AND INTO THE BAY PLAN IN THE FUTURE AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO TAKE ON, WHAT SORT OF PROCESSES WE NEED TO GO THROUGH? RIGHT NOW IT’S SEPARATED FROM THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: DANA, SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING AGAIN.

>>DANA BRECHWALD: YEAH.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: IT SOUNDS LIKE BCDC WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE — IN HELPING IN THE EVALUATION OF THE PLANS OR IS THAT CORRECT?

>>DANA BRECHWALD: I MEAN, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY. I DON’T THINK THERE IS A FORMAL ROLE FOR THE ECRB IN EVALUATING THE PROJECTS IN THE PLANS. OUR — THE AUTHORITY THAT WE’RE GIVEN WE CAN APPROVE OR DENY THE PLANS BASED ON THE GUIDELINES THAT WE PUT OUT.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: RIGHT.

>>DANA BRECHWALD: AND SO PRIMARILY I THINK WHAT WE’LL BE DOING IS CHECKING FOR COMPLETENESS OF THE PLANS AND ENSURING THEY’VE KIND OF CHECKED ALL OF THE BOXES. BUT NOT NECESSARILY REVIEWING INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE PLANS AND APPROVING OUR DENYING BASED ON THAT. THAT WOULD OCCUR, OBVIOUSLY, IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS. BUT WE DON’T REALLY HAVE A LEGAL MECHANISM AT THE MOMENT TO DO THAT IN THE PLAN ITSELF.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. AND JUST ONE QUESTION THAT I’M THINKING ABOUT IS — WHAT IF ADJACENT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DIFFERING VISIONS OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND THEY’RE NOT COMPATIBLE, SAY — DOES THAT GET ADDRESSED LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION?

>>DANA BRECHWALD: A LITTLE BIT. WE’LL ADDRESS IT IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. IT’S A GREAT QUESTION. IF WE DON’T ADDRESS IT TO YOUR SATISFACTION, FEEL FREE TO BRING IT UP AT THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION. ONE ANYTHING TO NOTE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THIS — EVEN THOUGH IT’S LEGALLY MANDATED, IT’S REALLY INCENTIVE-DRIVEN. THERE’S NO CONSEQUENCE IF A CITY OR COUNTY DOESN’T DO A PLAN. SO A LOT OF WHAT WE’RE REQUIRING IN THE GUIDELINES, LIKE, WORKING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, SHOWING THAT YOUR ADAPTATION PATHWAYS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, WE’RE REALLY RELYING ON THE GOODWILL OF PEOPLE TO DO IT AND TO SHOW US THAT THEY’VE DONE IT, BUT WE DON’T HAVE ANY FORMAL LEGAL TOOLS TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO DO THAT ASIDE FROM WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE SHARING IN THE GUIDELINES, WHICH WE SHARED WITH YOU BEFORE AND THAT JACKIE CAN TALK LIEU A LITTLE BIT. — TALK THROUGH A LITTLE BIT. ONE OF THE WAYS WE’RE HANDLING THIS IS THE SCALE OF THE PLAN. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS THERE ARE TWO SCALES OF PLANS, A COUNTY PLAN THAT COVERS THE UNINCORPORATED PARTS OF THE COUNTY. WE’RE ALSO HOPING THAT THE COUNTY WILL COORDINATE AND ORGANIZE — WILL TAKE LEAD IN COORDINATING AND ORGANIZING LOCAL PLANS. THEN, LOCAL PLANS WILL COVER, OBVIOUSLY, LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, AND WE’RE OFFERING THE OPTION TO DO A SINGLE JURISDICTION LOCAL PLAN. SO THIS IS FOR, YOU KNOW, LARGE OR HIGH-CAPACITY JURISDICTIONS OR THOSE THAT ALREADY HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE AND DON’T WANT TO REDO IT. BUT WE’RE ALSO REALLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDING THAT CITIES DO A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL PLAN. SO THESE COULD BE EVERY CITY WITHIN AN OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPE UNIT OR THAT HAVE A SHARED LANDSCAPE FEATURE LIKE A WATERSHED OR SHORELINE REACH OR SOMETHING LOGICAL THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO PLAN TOGETHER. WE ALSO THINK THIS IS SUITABLE FOR SORT OF SMALLER JURISDICTIONS WITH LESS CAPACITY BECAUSE THEY CAN GO IN ON A CONSULTANT CONTRACT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WHAT WE’RE REALLY ENCOURAGING IS FOR THE COUNTY AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO DO THEIR PLAN TOGETHER. WE’VE BEEN GOING OUT TO ALL THE COUNTIES, BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND TALKING TO ELECTED OFFICIALS AND A LOT OF WHAT WE HEARD IS PEOPLE ARE QUITE INTERESTED IN COMBINING THEIRS ALL INTO ONE. AND THIS IS A MODEL WE’VE ALREADY SEEN IN MANY AREAS FOR LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS. THEY’LL DO A COUNTY PLAN WITH LOCAL ANNEXES. SO WE’RE HOPING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE TAKE THAT ON AND THAT WOULD HELP WITH THE COORDINATION ACROSS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. WE EVEN HEARD SOME COUNTIES MAY WANT TO PARTNER WITH ANOTHER COUNTY. SO THAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE IN THE NORTH BAY WHERE THE SCALE OF THE LANDSCAPE IS LARGE AND IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO PLAN OVER MULTIPLE COUNTIES. THERE WILL ALSO BE SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAN UPDATES. SO THIS IS A CYCLE. PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO KEEP UPDATING THEIR ADAPTATION PLANS. ADAPTATION IS NOT STAGNANT. THERE’S SO MUCH WE DON’T KNOW THAT’S GOING TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, IN THE SCIENCE, AND HOW WE SEE THAT SHORELINE PROTECTIONS FUNCTION OVER TIME. SO WE’LL BE ASKING PEOPLE TO DO — AFTER THEIR INITIAL ADOPTION, THEY’LL DO A FIVE-YEAR LIMITED UPDATE THAT WILL ACCOUNT FOR UPDATED SEA LEVEL RISE SCIENCE OR PROJECTIONS, CHANGES TO MAJOR PLANS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL THAT WOULD IMPACT EITHER DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE SHORELINE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IF THERE’S ANY NEW LEGISLATION OR MANDATES, WE CERTAINLY ANTICIPATE S.B. 272 IS NOT THE END OF WHAT’S GOING TO BE COMING OUT OF THE STATE. NEW TRIGGERS OR THRESHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN CROSSED. AND PROGRESS ON PROJECTS. AT THE 10-YEAR MARK, EACH CITY WILL DO A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY WHERE THEY’LL UPDATE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE PLAN AND THAT WILL TRIGGER THIS CYCLE ONCE MORE. SO I’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JACKIE NOW AND SHE’S GOING TO TALK YOU THROUGH THE ACTUAL ELEMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: GREAT. THANK YOU, JACKIE PERRIN-MARTINEZ. SO DANA PROVIDED A NICE OVERVIEW OF BAY ADAPT AND KIND OF WHERE WE’RE STARTING FROM IN TERMS OF THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AND ITS COMPONENTS. I NOW WANT TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME KIND OF AN OVERVIEW HIGH LEVEL THROUGH THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED. SO YOU ALL RECEIVED WHAT WE’RE CALLING DRAFT ONE OF THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN. AND WHAT YOU’RE SEEING ON THE SLIDE IS WHAT THAT DRAFT LOOKED LIKE. WE’LL HAVE MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THIS BEFORE WE BRING THIS TO COMMISSION — BCDC’S COMMISSION FOR VOTE ON ADOPTION IN DECEMBER. AND THE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE SURE WE’RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THESE DRAFT GUIDELINES WITH A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE SURE WE’RE DEVELOPING THEM APPROPRIATELY TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS AND REALLY RESPONDS TO THE RISKS. SO IN THIS FIRST DRAFT, WE REALLY ASKED OUR STAKEHOLDERS AND ADVISORS TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND HALF OF THIS DRAFT BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE THE NEWEST CONTENT IS. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED THIS, WE’RE GOING TO BE CONTINUING TO REFINE THE INTRODUCTION AS WELL AS FURTHER DEVELOP OUR PRIORITIES. WE WERE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK ON THE SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN SO SOME OF THE CONTENT THAT DANA JUST SHARED ON THE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES WHICH I’LL GO OVER AT A HIGH LEVEL AS WELL AS OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH REALLY SUPPORT THE PLAN GUIDELINES AND PROVIDE MORE DEAL ON HOW TO ACHIEVE THOSE GUIDELINES. SO TO JUST HELP ORIENT YOU TO THIS DOCUMENT, WE HAVE AN INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT. WE WILL BE UPDATING THAT IN FUTURE — IN THE FUTURE. INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT ARE ONE BAY VISION WHICH DANA TALKED ABOUT. WE SHARED THIS WITH BCDC’S COMMISSION BACK IN FEBRUARY AND GOT KIND OF THEIR SUPPORT THAT THESE SERVED AS REALLY IMPORTANT LANGUAGE TO DRIVE THE REST OF OUR WORK. WE WILL KIND OF BE IN OUR FINAL ITERATIONS, LOOKING BACK ON THIS VISION AS WE DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY LINE UP APPROPRIATELY. THERE MAY BE SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS BUT WE FEEL LIKE THIS STANDS AS OUR REMAINING GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THIS WORK. AND THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES, DANA MENTIONED, AND I HAVE A FEW MORE SLIDES TO FURTHER ELABORATE WHAT THOSE ARE. IN THE DRAFT YOU RECEIVED, IT WAS A BIT OF A LIGHT TOUCH ON WHAT THESE ARE BECAUSE WE SPENT SOME TIME SINCE THAT FIRST DRAFT REFINING THEM FURTHER. BUT IN CONCEPT, THEY’RE REALLY AREAS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO IDENTIFY REGIONALLY, KEY ASSETS AND LOCATIONS WHERE WE THINK ADAPTATION SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED AND THESE ARE LOCAL PLACES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO A REGIONAL GOAL OR A REGIONAL SYSTEM. AND THE WAY THEY FIT INTO THE GUIDELINES, IF A JURISDICTION CONTAINS ONE OR MORE OF THESE, WE ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THAT REGIONAL PRIORITY IS BEING ADDRESSED IN THE LOCAL PLANS. TO MAKE SURE WE’RE ACHIEVING THAT REGIONAL VISION FOR THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES. IN TERMS OF THE SECTIONS THAT WE ASKED FOR THE MOST FEEDBACK ON, AGAIN, WE’VE ALREADY GONE OVER THIS, BUT REALLY THIS SECTION, CHAPTER 4, DEFINES, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL PLAN, WHO LEADS IT AND WHAT’S BCDC’S PROCESS FOR APPROVAL AND SUBMISSION? THE PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES THEN REALLY DEFINE WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THESE LOCAL PLANS. SO TO YOUR POINT EARLIER, IN SOME WAYS THIS IS A BIT OF A TEMPLATE IN TERMS OF THE CONTENT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE PLAN. AND THIS IS THE TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED AND SUBMITTED IN YOUR PLAN. WE ALSO HAVE A CHAPTER CALLED MINIMUM STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND YOU CAN KIND OF THINK OF THIS AS AN EXTENSION OF THE GUIDELINES AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LOOKED AT IT, YOU SEE THAT THE MINIMUM STANDARDS ARE REFERENCED WITHIN GUIDELINES. THEY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DETAILS NECESSARY FOR HOW TO MEET THE GUIDELINES. SO HOW TO MEET — WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF THERE ARE CERTAIN GUIDELINES THAT MIGHT ASK FOR A REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPING EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT PLAN THAT MUST MEET OUR EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT STANDARDS AND THAT LANGUAGE LIVES IN THE SECOND CHAPTER. IT PROVIDES MORE DETAIL. IN TERMS OF THE OVERVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES, I THINK WE’VE COMMUNICATED THIS PRETTY WELL ALREADY BUT, AGAIN, THEY ARE REGIONALLY IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES. WE’VE IDENTIFIED ONE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY FOR EACH OF OUR EIGHT TOPIC AREAS, AND THEY REALLY THEN ALLOW BCDC TO SET SOME PRIORITIES OF WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ARE ELEVATED AND INCLUDED IN THESE LOCAL ADAPTATION PLANS. OUR CHAPTER 5 ON THE PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES REALLY PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO WORK THROUGH A SET OF ISSUES AND THEIR LOCAL VULNERABILITIES AND IDENTIFY LOCAL PRIORITIES. SO WE PROVIDE A LOT OF GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT ON HOW LOCAL JURISDICTION MIGHT IDENTIFY THEIR OWN PRIORITIES. WE, THEN, ADD ON THE REGIONAL PRIORITIES, AND THEY ARE ALL SPATIAL. SO IN THIS WAY WE’RE ENSURING IF A LOCAL JURISDICTION DIDN’T, FOR EXAMPLE, IDENTIFY ONE OF THESE AS THEIR PRIORITY, WE’RE ENSURING THAT IT’S A PRIORITY THROUGH THE WAY THAT WE’VE MAPPED THEM. SO REALLY, THE IDEA IS A LOCAL PRIORITY IS SET AND THEN WE OVERLAY OUR REGIONAL PRIORITIES SO THAT IN THESE LOCAL SUBREGIONAL RESILIENCY PLANS, AGAIN, WE’LL REFINE THE LANGUAGE, WE HAVE BOTH.

>>SPEAKER: MARGIE, COULD I ASK YOU ONE OF THE REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND —

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: I HAVE THE FULLEST. SO I WON’T READ THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND I WILL NOTE WE ARE ALL HAVING THIS MEETING WITH YOU KIND OF IN OUR TURNING POINT FROM DRAFT ONE TO DRAFT TWO. WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT IS STILL DRAFT ONE AND WE’VE ADVANCED THESE FURTHER IN OUR OWN INTERNAL TEAMS AND WE WILL BE SHARING DRAFT TWO IN THE COMING WEEKS. BUT THEY’RE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. JUST A CONTINUED REFINEMENT OF THEM. SO AN EXAMPLE, WE CAN JUST USE THE FIRST ONE. WE HAVE A TOPIC AREA ON CRITICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE. OUR VISION IS THAT CRITICAL SERVICES ARE RELIABLE AND OUR STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY IS WE CAN IDENTIFY AND PROTECT REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT’S VITAL TO THE REGION’S PUBLIC HEALTH AND ECONOMY. THAT ONE MAY BE MORE OF AN OBVIOUS ONE. THE NEXT ONE I CAN MENTION IS HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS. AS DANA MENTIONED, SOME SYSTEMS ARE NETWORKED SYSTEMS AND THEY RELY ON AREAS THAT CROSS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. AND HABITATS I THINK IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT. HEALTHY BAY REQUIRES HABITATS ACROSS THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE. AND SO IN THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY WE WANT TO ENHANCE AND ACCELERATE WETLAND RESTORATION AND HABITAT CONNECTIVITY. SO WHAT WE’VE DONE IN OUR FURTHER ITERATION OF THIS WHICH KIND OF GOES BEYOND WHAT YOU SAW IN YOUR DRAFT GUIDELINES, IS WE’VE IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC DATA LAYERS FOR EACH OF THESE, WE MAPPED EACH OF THESE. FOR A LOT OF THESE WE’RE ALSO TRYING TO WORK WITH PARTNERS. SO FOR THE HABITAT ONE IN PARTICULAR, THERE’S A LOT OF WORK THAT THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE HAS DONE. THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURES. WE’VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ABOUT HOW TO MAKE SURE ALL THE WORK YOU’RE DOING IS REFLECTED HERE AND THAT WE’RE ALIGNING THESE REGIONAL GOALS? SIMILARLY, WE’VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH M.T.C. ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AND REALLY WORKING — MAKING SURE WE ALIGN WITH THE GROWTH GEOGRAPHIES. SO FOR TIME SAKE I WON’T CONTINUE TO READ THROUGH THESE BUT YOU ARE WELCOME TO. OH, GO FASTER. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS JUST AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE DRAFT GUIDELINES SECTIONS LOOK LIKE. SO YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THIS IN THE DRAFT YOU RECEIVED. AND THEN AS I MENTIONED, WE ALSO HAVE A LIST OF OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS. AND THESE, AGAIN, ARE — THEY SET REQUIREMENTS FOR HOW THEY MEET THE GUIDELINES AND THEY PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE TO SHARE HOW WE STRUCTURE THE GUIDELINES. SO DANA MENTIONED THE LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN, AND WE’VE REALLY LOOKED AT THE WAY THEY LAID OUT THEIR GUIDELINES AND SEEN IT AS A BIT OF A MODEL. SO THIS REPLICATES THEIR APPROACH IN SOME WAYS. WE HAVE A MAIN GUIDELINE. YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE. THIS IS THE EXAMPLE A-4 AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE ASKING FOR IN THIS EXAMPLE IS INCLUDE A ROBUST EQUITABLE PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND SUMMARIZE YOUR ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS. BELOW EACH GUIDELINE WE THEN HAVE SOME SUBCOMPONENTS, AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE TO SHARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFORMATION THAT WE’VE INCLUDED. IN SOME CASES, WE — DANA MENTIONED THE ONLINE MAPPING PLATFORM. WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE TO HELP LOCAL JURISDICTIONS UNDERSTAND WHERE TO ACCESS DATA AND INFORMATION. SO ANYWHERE IT’S POSSIBLE, WE TRY TO DIRECT THEM TO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE YOU TO DO AND HERE’S A PLACE YOU CAN GO TO FIND THAT INFORMATION. AND IF WE HAVE THAT DATA, WE ARE SHARING IT. THOUGH, WE’RE ALSO ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY THAT IF YOU HAVE BETTER DATA OR YOU WANT TO USE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT’S ALL RIGHT AS WELL. WE ALSO HAVE THIS — THIS NEXT EXAMPLE, AS YOU CAN SEE HOW GUIDELINE RELATES TO A STANDARD. SO IN ORDER TO MEET THAT GUIDELINE IN THIS A-4-B, IT SAYS THIS PLAN NEEDS TO MEET THIS STANDARD. YOU CAN SEE THE R AT THE END OF THESE SO WE’RE TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT’S REQUIRED, WHAT YOU MUST DO VERSUS, HERE’S SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE’RE CONSIDERING AS THE MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, BASELINE STANDARDS. THAT’S WHAT THIS LAST EXAMPLE HERE IS. WE REALLY WANT TO KEEP INFORMATION THAT IS GOOD PRACTICES CLOSE BY AS WELL AS PROVIDE SOME EASY WAYS TO ACCESS, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU MIGHT ACHIEVE THAT IF YOU DON’T ALREADY KNOW BUT IT’S NOT A REQUIREMENT. SO THAT LAST SUBCOMPONENT IS NOT REQUIRED AND JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPES OF INFORMATION WE’RE TRYING TO PUT INTO THESE GUIDELINES. ALL RIGHT. SO MY NEXT FEW SLIDES REALLY GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS. FOR TIMING, I WON’T GO THROUGH THEM IN GREAT DETAIL. AND WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO THESE. THEY KIND OF SERVE AS A REFERENCE TO US. ELEMENT A INCLUDES FOUR GUIDELINES REALLY AROUND SOME OF THE KEY COMPONENTS OF HOW YOU MIGHT PLAN, WHO ARE YOUR PARTNERS, WHAT IS THE AREA, HOW ARE YOU COORDINATING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS SO THAT POINT WITH THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION PROCESS, WE’RE ASKING FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THAT. AND THEN, OF COURSE, ENGAGEMENT. WE ALSO HAVE A CHAPTER ON EXISTING CONDITIONS. YOU KNOW, WE KNOW A LOT OF WHAT YOU’RE SEEING HERE IS BASED ON EXISTING ADAPTATION PLANS. WE REALLY WANTED TO BUILD ON WHAT WAS WORKING WELL IN THE REGION, AND SO EXISTING CONDITIONS IS, OF COURSE, NECESSARY FOR MAKING THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS SO WE INCORPORATED A LOT OF THAT, HOW YOU MIGHT BUILD ON EXISTING PLANS, WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS, WHAT IS THE POPULATIONS AND ASSETS IN YOUR AREA AND WHAT ARE THE EXISTING CAPACITIES SO THESE GUIDELINES SHOW WHAT WE WANT TO ENSURE IN ALL THESE PLANS. WE HAVE AN ELEMENT ON THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. AGAIN, BUILDING ON BEST PRACTICES NOW WE ARE STANDARDIZING THEM INTO THESE GUIDELINES. SO THIS INCLUDES LOOKING AT EXPOSURE, CREATING A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS MAKING SURE, THEN, TO PRIORITIZE WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT IN GREATER DETAIL. AND SO WE HAVE A QUESTION HERE FOR THE ECRB THAT WE CAN COME BACK TO ON, ARE THERE TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING SEA LEVEL RISE IMPACTS THAT NEED TO BE IN HERE? AND WE CAN THINK OF THE LEVELS OF INPUT OF WHAT’S REQUIRED, WHAT MUST EVERYBODY DO AND WHAT IS GOOD INFORMATION OR GUIDANCE THAT WE SHARE THAT MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE EVERYWHERE BUT ON STANDARDIZING ADAPTATION PLANNING. AND THEN WE HAVE ELEMENT D, OUR BIGGEST ELEMENT. AND THIS IS REALLY ABOUT IDENTIFYING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AS WELL AS ADAPTATION PATHWAYS. OKAY. GOOD. THAT DOESN’T SHOW UP ON THE SCREEN. SO HERE, WE REALLY HAVE A — AND AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING TWEAKS IN THIS VERSION SO THIS WILL BE PAIRED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN OUR NEXT I HAD RATION. — PARED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN OUR NEXT ITERATION BUT IT WILL FOLLOW THE SAME FLOW WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A LOCAL VISION THAT REALLY KIND OF TAKES THE REGIONAL ONE BAY VISION AND LOCALIZES IT AND REALLY KIND OF ADDS WHAT’S THOSE LOCAL PRIORITIES THAT DON’T CONFLICT WITH THE REGIONAL VISION BUT ADD THAT SPECIFICITY TO HELP DRIVE WHAT THE LOCAL ADAPTATION RESPONSES WILL BE. WE HAVE THIS GUIDELINE ON DEVELOPING CRITERIA. ALTHOUGH WE THINK WE WON’T NECESSARILY REQUIRE A SPECIFIC WAY TO EVALUATE IN OUR NEXT ITERATION, BUT WE WILL WANT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO EVALUATE ADAPTATION, BUT WE MAY NOT DICTATE EXACTLY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THIS IS ABOUT IDENTIFYING SHORELINE REACHES AND START THINKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL AREAS IN WHICH ADAPTATION IS MOST SUITABLE. DEVELOPING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVES THAT REALLY RESPOND TO THE RISKS THAT THEY IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY. AND STARTING TO THINK ABOUT ADAPTATION PATHWAYS. SO HOW MIGHT YOUR STRATEGIES CHANGE TO RESPOND TO INCREASING FLOOD HAZARD RISKS THAT ARE PROJECTED WITH SEA LEVEL RISE? WE WILL REQUIRE EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES, AND THEN, WE WANT TO SEE SOME ACTUAL CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT ARE THE PREFERRED STRATEGIES, ACKNOWLEDGING THERE MIGHT BE A PERIOD OF EXPLORATION OF THAT’S WHAT KIND OF THIS GUIDELINE D-4 IS EVALUATE AND EXPLORE WHAT’S FEASIBLE AND LOOK AT VARIOUS OPTIONS. EVALUATE THOSE OPTIONS AND THEN TELL US WHAT YOUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ARE. IN THESE, THROUGHOUT THIS GUIDELINE SECTION IS REALLY THEN WHERE WE POINT TO THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS AND THOSE REALLY PROVIDE A FURTHER DIRECTION ON HOW WE WANT TO GUIDE WHAT ADAPTATION CHOICES ARE IDENTIFIED LOCALLY TO ENSURE THAT WE’RE — WHEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING FOR THIS, THEY HAVE REALLY GOOD INFORMATION IN MIND TO MAKE THOSE CHOICES. SO WE HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS HERE AS WELL. ARE WE ASKING CITIES AND COUNTIES TO CONSIDER THE RIGHT QUESTIONS WHEN THEY’RE IDENTIFYING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES? AND I THINK THAT WILL COME OUT MORE AS WE GET TO THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS. HOW CAN CITIES AND COUNTIES EVALUATE STRATEGIES TO COME UP WITH PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES? IN THE DRAFT YOU SAW, WE LISTED EVALUATION CRITERIA BUT WE’RE NOT QUITE SURE WE NEED TO REQUIRE HOW EXACTLY THEY EVALUATE. HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE ADDRESS THIS EVALUATION OF STRATEGIES? AND THEN, SOMETHING THAT WE’VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, HOW DETAILED DO WE WANT THESE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO BE? HOW DO WE GO FROM THIS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF LANDSCAPE SCALE STRATEGIES TO PROJECTS? AND WHAT’S THE LINE — HOW FAR ALONG DO WE WANT TO SEE PROJECTS IN THESE PLANS? HOW FAR ALONG IS APPROPRIATE? SO WE’D BE CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS, AS WELL, ABOUT GETTING INTO THAT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. AND THEN CONTINUING OF THIS QUESTION HERE IS, WHAT ARE THE KEY PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT JURISDICTIONS NEED TO IDENTIFY TO GET TO IMPLEMENTATION? YOU’LL SEE IN THE NEXT FEW ELEMENTS THAT WE ASK FOR SOME PROJECT DETAILS AND IMPLEMENTATION NEXT STEPS, AND WE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT DO — WHAT DO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER TO HELP THEM GET FROM PLANNING SCALE TO IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSTRUCTION? THE NEXT ELEMENT IS THE PROJECT LIST. ONLY ONE GUIDELINE HERE AND THAT’S INCLUDE A PRIORITY PROJECT LIST THAT SUMMARIZES THE PRIORITY ADAPTATION PROJECTS IN YOUR KIND OF SHORT AND MEDIUM TERM. WE ALSO ASK FOR INFORMATION ABOUT LAND USE PLAN AND POLICIES. AND SO WE REALLY WANT TO ENSURE THAT AS JURISDICTIONS ARE THINKING ABOUT PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE CHANGES, THEY’RE ALSO THINKING ABOUT ASSOCIATED POLICY CHANGES AND WHAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THOSE EITHER ACROSS THE WHOLE CITYWIDE SCALE POLICY OR EVEN ZONING CHANGES OR, YOU KNOW, ACTUAL — HOW MIGHT WE THINK HOW STRATEGIES WILL EVOLVE AND WHAT TYPES OF POLICIES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THAT? AND THEN, LASTLY WE HAVE AN ELEMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. AGAIN, THIS IS GETTING TOWARDS THE SECOND HALF OF PLANNING. WE’RE REALLY STARTING TO THINK ABOUT, WHAT ARE THE PROJECTS, AND HOW DO WE ADVANCE THOSE, AND HOW DO WE FUND THEM? MAKING SURE FOLKS ARE INCLUDING MONITORING AND WE’RE ACTUALLY PUTTING INTO PLACE THE RIGHT MECHANISMS TO TRACK HOW WELL ADAPTATION IS DOING AS WELL AS THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT TRIGGER A DIFFERENT PATHWAY APPROACH. AND THEN A STRATEGY FOR PLAN UPDATES. SO THIS IS JUST A DIAGRAM OF ALL OF THE PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE’S THE OVERVIEW. WE KIND OF THOUGHT ABOUT WHERE SOME OF THESE CONNECT THE MOST EXISTING CONDITIONS, VULNERABLE ASSESSMENT, ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND D, E, AND F ARE OUR IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS. NEXT, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE AND I’LL ONLY DO A SELECT FEW NUMBER OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, BUT JUST AS A REMINDER THAT GUIDELINES SET OUT WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE PLAN AND WHAT WE WANT TO BE SUBMITTED AND THE STANDARDS PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON HOW WE WANT THAT TO OCCUR. SO THIS IS OUR FULL LIST IN DRAFT ONE OF OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS. I WON’T GO INTO DETAIL IN ALL OF THESE, AND EVEN THE ONES I’LL SHARE, I’LL KEEP IT HOPEFULLY HIGH LEVEL. TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE WHOLE LIST, WE’VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS WE HEARD IN THE FIRST ROUND, WE HAVE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS AND IT’S — IT CAN BE VERY CHALLENGING SO WE’RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE CAN REDUCE SOME PRESCRIPTIVENESS BUT PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT MORE LOCAL FLEXIBILITY IN HOW WE ACHIEVE THAT. WE KNEW THAT WAS IMPORTANT BUT IN THIS FIRST DRAFT WE HEARD WE NEED TO MAKE SOME FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO IT. IN TERMS OF OUR COASTAL AND FLOOD HAZARD STANDARDS, SO WE’RE LAYING THIS OUT TO VERY CLEARLY DEFINE, WHAT ARE THE HAZARDS WE WANT TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS PLAN? OUR FIRST DRAFT, WE HAVE THESE THREE HAZARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED. SEA LEVEL RISE, WHICH REFERS TO THE CHANGES IN THE TIDAL INUNDATION. 100-YEAR TIDES, SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED. AND THEN WE HAVE A SERIES OF RECOMMENDED HAZARDS HERE TO MAKE SURE THESE ARE ISSUES OF RISK BUT THEY MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO ASSESS AT SCALE, AT MORE MAYBE PROJECT OR DESIGN-LEVEL SCALES OR THE DATA MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE. SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ADVISORY GROUP IS TO PUT IT IN THE RECOMMENDED CATEGORY, BUT IF YOU HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS, WE’D BE GLAD TO HEAR THEM. THIS IS A BIT OF A BUSY TABLE, BUT THIS REALLY REPRESENTS OUR TIME HORIZONS AND HAZARDS SCENARIO STANDARDS. AND, AGAIN, WE WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CONSISTENCY IN HOW LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING FOR THIS RISK SO THAT WE’RE NOT PLANNING FOR VASTLY DIFFERENT VALUES OR NUMBERS. ALTHOUGH, AGAIN, IT’S A TRICKY BALANCE BETWEEN STANDARDIZING AND ALLOWING FOR SOME LOCAL FLEXIBILITY. SO THESE NUMBERS HERE REFLECT THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL. SO CALIFORNIA’S BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE ON SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS AND WHEN THEY’RE MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR. AND THAT GUIDANCE ALSO PROVIDES RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND WHAT WE’RE DOING IS WE’RE TAKING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FURTHER AND HAVING THESE STANDARDS AND THESE MINIMUM STANDARDS. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT WE HAVE A TIME HORIZON WITH THE HAZARD SCENARIO THAT COMES FROM THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL. THE INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO, THERE IS INTERMEDIATE HIGH AND HIGH SCENARIO FOR EACH OF THESE TIME HORIZONS. AND SO EACH KIND MUCH HAZARD SCENARIO IS OUR THREE REQUIRED. SO YOU CAN SEE IN THIS THIS TABLE HERE WE’VE GOT SEA LEVEL RISE, SHALLOW GROUNDWATER RISE AND STORM SURGE. AND THE ACTUAL CORRESPONDING NUMBERS. WE THEN HAVE CREATED REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT WE WANT TO BE LOOKED AT IN A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. AND THIS IS BUILDING ON THE OCEAN PROTECTION GUIDANCE TO LOOK AT THE 2050 ONE-FOOT SCENARIO WHICH IS LIKELY TO OCCUR AND ALSO AT THE 2100, THOSE ARE THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. THEY CORRESPOND TO THESE WATER LEVELS AND SO WE REQUIRE THESE BE EVALUATED FOR VULNERABILITY. WE THEN HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS FOR ADAPTATION, RECOGNIZING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE’RE ASSESSING VULNERABILITY ACROSS A WIDER RANGE OF WATER LEVELS BUT WHAT WE ACTUALLY PLAN FOR SHOULD BE BASED ON THE VULNERABILITY STANDARD AND THAT RISK. AND SO HERE WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS — AND THIS GOES BACK TO THAT GUIDELINE THAT SAYS, SHOW US YOUR PLANS, YOUR STRATEGIES AT THIS ONE-FOOT 2050 SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO AS WELL AS THE 2100 KIND OF INTERMEDIATE. SO THAT’S ON THE LOWER RANGE HERE. THAT’S A 3.1-FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO. AND THEN IN THE FIRST DRAFT YOU ALL SAW, WE INCLUDED A 2150 REQUIREMENT AND THE REQUIREMENT, THOUGH, IS THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION ON HOW MIGHT THESE STRATEGIES CONTINUE TO SUPPORT FLOOD RISK REDUCTION IN THIS TIME HORIZON AND THE INTENTION HERE WAS TO REALLY MAKE SURE AS JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE, THEY’RE CONSIDERING AND UNDERSTANDING THAT SEA LEVEL RISE ISN’T STOPPING AT 2100. WE OFFER TALK ABOUT THIS AS AN ISSUE THROUGH 2100, BUT THE WATER WILL CONTINUE TO RISE BEYOND THAT. SO HOW ARE WE ENSURING THAT THE DECISIONS WE MAKE TODAY HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING IN MIND ABOUT THE INCREASED FLOOD RISK? IN OUR NEW ITERATIONS, WE’RE ANYTHING ABOUT REDUCING THAT REQUIREMENT ON 2150. WE HEARD THAT’S REALLY FAR OUT. AND SO WE MIGHT INSTEAD TRY TO STILL ACHIEVE THAT SIMILAR TYPE OF INFORMATION BUT THROUGH THE 2100 HIGH SCENARIO. THAT MIGHT BE MORE DETAILED THAN YOU’RE HOPING.

>>SPEAKER: THE 2150, IT’S REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE ADAPTATION PATHWAYS, BUT IT’S NOT REQUIRED FOR THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. SO THAT SEEMS — SEEMS UNFORTUNATE TO CHECK TO SEE WHAT’S —

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: SO THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION. IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE NUMBERS HERE. LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS. THE 2100 HIGH OF 6.5 FEET IS QUITE SIMILAR TO THE 2150 INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO OF SIX FEET, AND SO THAT’S WHERE WE’RE THINKING OF MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO REALLY REQUIRE THAT KIND OF WORST-CASE SCENARIO DESCRIPTION AT THE 2100 LEVEL. AS YOU SAID, THEN, THERE WILL BE A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND IT’S A LITTLE GUESSWORK OF WE’RE NOT ASKING YOU, THEN, TO DO A FOURTH VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ON THE 6.5 VERSUS THE 6.0. OH, SURE. THE QUESTION WAS — WE HAD THIS REQUIREMENT TO ASSESS ADAPTATION FOR 2150 INTERMEDIATE BUT WE DID NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO ASSESS THE VULNERABILITY OF THAT SAME WATER. AND THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THE VALUES FOR 2100 HIGH ARE — HALF OF A FOOT OFF FROM THE 2150, BUT WE’RE GOING TO IN OUR NEXT ITERATION MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT SO THERE’S NOT A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN IT. YES.

>>SPEAKER: I AM A LITTLE SURPRISED BY THE ONE FOOT BY 2150. I’M HEARING THE BAY HAS RISEN ANYWHERE FROM SIX INCHES TO EIGHT INCHES ALREADY.

>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: IS THAT A REAL NUMBER? IS THIS A PLACEHOLDER? ARE THEY GOING TO BE REVISED?

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: THAT’S IN THE NEW GUIDANCE FROM O.P.C. AND IT’S FROM A YEAR 2000 BASELINE.

>>JENN HYMAN: SO IT’S A FOOT FROM THE YEAR 2000 TO 2050. AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IT’S SET UP THAT WAY IS THAT THE TIDE — MOST OF THE TIDAL DATA WE HAVE RIGHT NOW ARE ACTUALLY CALCULATED FOR ALSO ABOUT THE YEAR 2000. SO WHEN YOU ADD SEA LEVEL RISE ONTO THAT, THE TIDAL DATUMS, THEN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE TIDE IS IN THE FUTURE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>>SPEAKER: THIS IS AN INTERESTING —

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: BOB, I WANT TO ASK YOU TO TALK DIRECTLY IN THE MICROPHONE. I THINK SOME OF THE ONLINE PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING TO HEAR.

>>BOB BATTALIO: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION AND ONE THAT IS GOING TO KEEP GOING. ONE MY — YOU KNOW, REALLY WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE MEDIAN PROJECTION OF A BUNCH OF MODELS, WHICH SOMETIMES PEOPLE CALL PROBABILITIES. BUT I THINK NOW IT’S JUST, YOU KNOW, A DISTRIBUTION OF OUTPUTS WITH A LOT OF JUDGMENT, WHICH IS ALL GOOD STUFF. BUT THE QUESTION IS REALLY HOW RISK-AVERSE ARE WE? AND THAT’S WHERE I THINK A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION IS ON WHAT VALUES TO USE. SO I’LL JUST — WHILE WE’RE ON THIS TOPIC, MY RECOLLECTION OF HOW WE’VE BEEN HANDLING THIS ON THE ECRB SINCE I’VE BEEN ON THE BOARD IS SOMEWHAT OUTDATED BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THE MID-CENTURY — AND WE’RE ALREADY IN THE 2020’S. YOU KNOW, I’D LIKE THE FACT YOU WENT TO 2150 AND ALL THAT. BUT THE ELEVATOR SPEECH WAS DESIGNED FOR AT LEAST THREE FEET. AND HAVE AN ADAPTATION PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE AT LEAST SIX FEET AND THAT WAS MID CENTURY, END OF CENTURY. BUT IT’S ALSO A RECOGNITION THAT A LOT OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE — IF NOT ALL THE PROJECTS THE ECRB REVIEW ARE BIGGER PROJECTS WITH A LONGER PROJECT LIFE, MORE RISK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A HIGHER RISK CATEGORY FROM THE ASCE PERSPECTIVE. AND HENCE, YOU’RE TALKING AT LEAST 2070. YOU KNOW, 2050 IS — YOU KNOW, IF YOU’RE BUILDING A NEW WHARF OR SOMETHING, YOU ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING BEYOND 2050. SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS MORE LATER, BUT I THINK THAT’S A REALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC. AND BEFORE I SHUT OFF HERE, I DON’T KNOW — MAYBE WE SHOULD LET THEM CONTINUE. I SHOULD LET THEM CONTINUE, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR JENN AND THEN ALSO FOR THE BOARD BEFORE WE GET INTO THEIR QUESTIONS. I CAN’T REMEMBER HOW THIS MEETING IS — IS ORGANIZED. IS THAT THE WAY WE DO IT HERE?

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: SO WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS NOW, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. ONCE THE PRESENTATION IS OVER, I BELIEVE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THEN, AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED, THEN, WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD. AND I THINK ASKING.

>>BOB BATTALIO: AND IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JENN, CAN I DO THAT LATER?

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: YEAH.

>>BOB BATTALIO: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER]

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. I WILL SAVE IT WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE QUESTIONS. SO THERE’S A LOT OF CONTENT ON THE SLIDE. I AM NOT GOING TO READ IT ALL OVER BUT WE ADDITIONALLY HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT STANDARDS AND FOR ASSETS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED LOCALLY, REGIONALLY OR IN THE NEAR TERM IF THERE IS A RISK OF FLOODING, WE ASK FOR MORE ASSESSMENT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT’S GETTING FUNNELED DOWN THROUGH THE LOCAL RISK AND LOCAL PRIORITIES AND THIS NEAR TERM ONE-FOOT FLOODING. THIS PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION WHAT WE ASKED FOR IN THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. WE ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION ON A SUBSET OF THOSE ASSETS FOR SENSITIVITY, ADAPTIVE CAPACITY, AS WELL AS CONSEQUENCES. SO IF YOU HAVE — AND THIS IS AN AREA, TOO, WE’RE KIND OF WORKING TO REFINE TO SEE WHERE CAN WE PULL OUT REQUIREMENTS VERSUS WHERE CAN WE MOVE THIS INTO RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE TO MAKE THIS PROCESS AS CLEAN AND GETTING TO THE REQUIREMENTS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE WHILE PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION IN A REALLY ACCESSIBLE PLACE. SO IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THIS, WE’RE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. WE THEN HAVE THIS SECTION ON ADAPTATION EVALUATION STANDARDS. SO AS MENTIONED, WE’RE PULLING THIS OUT AS AN ADDITIONAL SECTION. IN THE NEXT SECTION WE HAVE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS WHICH DO SOMETHING SIMILAR. FOR THE PURPOSES OF REALLY CONSOLIDATING AND, AGAIN, MAKING THINGS CONCISE, WE’RE GOING TO LOOK THROUGH THIS LIST AND MAKE SURE ANY KEY CONCEPTS HERE ARE WELL REPRESENTED IN OUR ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS. IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THIS WE’RE HAPPY TO HEAR IT. THIS IS THE FULLEST IN THE DRAFT GUIDELINES YOU HAVE. WE GET TO THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY AND PATHWAYS STANDARDS WHICH WE THINK IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS WORK BECAUSE THIS IS GETTING TO, WHAT ARE THE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES? EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED TO HELP YOU GET TO THIS POINT, TO GET YOU TO RESPOND TO LOCAL RISKS AND SET UP GOOD ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE FUTURE. HOW WE SET UP THIS SECTION CURRENTLY — AND WE ARE OPEN TO SOME RECOMMENDATIONS — IS SETTING UP SOME REQUIRED ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS THAT ALL JURISDICTIONS NEED TO GO THROUGH AS THEY’RE DEVELOPING. AND YOU’LL SEE A LOT OF THE LANGUAGES LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THIS. WE DON’T ANYWHERE MANDATE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WHERE BUT WE TRY TO PROVIDE A LOT OF HELPFUL INFORMATION TO HELP LOCAL JURISDICTIONS MAKE THOSE CHOICES. WE THEN HAVE A SECTION ON ADAPTATION STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC IF YOU HAVE A STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY. SO AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE GOING TO BE IDENTIFYING REGIONALLY SOME KEY ASSETS AND KEY ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR LOCAL JURISDICTION, WE THEN SAY, WE WANT TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW YOU ARE RESPONDING TO THAT RISK AND WE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. SO THAT STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY SECTION IS APPLICABLE ONLY IF YOU HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES. WE THEN ALSO ORGANIZE THIS INTO ADAPTATION DESIGN STANDARDS. WE’RE NOT SURE IF THOSE SHOULD BE COMBINED. AS I SAID, WE’VE REALLY BEEN THINKING THROUGH THE SCALE AT WHICH THIS IS HAPPENING. THERE’S THIS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE LEVEL ABOUT THINKING OF ADAPTATION AND THERE ARE MORE SITE-SPECIFIC PROJECT SCALE CONSIDERATIONS. AND WE DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE LINE IS BETWEEN THOSE TWO. IT CAN BE TRICKY. AND SO WE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT, WE TOOK A STAB AT SEPARATING THEM OUT BECAUSE MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE TO THINK ABOUT THEM DIFFERENTLY BUT IF THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO KIND OF BRING THOSE TOGETHER, THEN WE’RE HAPPY TO DO THAT AS WELL. AND I THINK THAT MIGHT MAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE WHEN YOU SEE THE ACTUAL STANDARDS. SO I’M GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO THE OTHERS IN THAT I WON’T READ THROUGH ALL OF THESE. MAYBE I’LL JUST GIVE A COUPLE JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THESE ARE IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY READ THEM. AGAIN, AS WE ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH IDENTIFY ADAPTATION OPTIONS WE SAY THAT PREFERRED ADAPTATION STRATEGIES THAT YOU SELECT HAVE TO MEET THESE STANDARDS. AND SO THESE STANDARDS ARE, YOU KNOW, WHERE POSSIBLE, FIRST LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID FUTURE HARM AND REDUCE THE NEED FOR NEW ADAPTATION PROTECTIONS. THIS, WHAT YOU’RE SEEING HERE, IS THE FIRST LINE OF EACH OF THE STANDARDS. AND THEN, THERE’S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CONTEXT BELOW. THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE IDENTIFY AND INCORPORATE NATURE-BASED ADAPTATION SUITABLE TO THE LANDSCAPE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT FEASIBLE BEFORE USING NEW APPROACHES. TRY TO DO THIS FIRST, THAT’S HOW WE TRIED TO FRAME A LOT OF THESE. AND SO WE HAVE — WE’VE TRIED AS WELL TO INCORPORATE SOME OF BCDC’S CORE MANDATES IN THERE. STANDARD A-6 SAYS UTILIZE APPROACHES THAT AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND REDUCE BAY FILL. AND SO THERE’S 15 OF THESE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS NOW AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THESE, AGAIN, THROUGH A NEW LENS FOR THIS NEXT ITERATION. BUT FOR A NEW FEW EXAMPLES, SOME OF THE STANDARDS ARE LOOK TO INCLUDE MULTIPLE BENEFITS THROUGH ADAPTATION WHEN POSSIBLE. AGAIN, IT’S ADVANCING GOOD PRACTICES AND TO LOOK FOR THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FIRST TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE THE OUTCOMES THAT WE CAN GET FROM THESE CHOICES. SO THAT IS THE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES THAT EVERYONE IS BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT AND A LOT OF WHAT WE’RE ASKING IS DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU TRIED TO ACHIEVE THIS AND IF YOU COULDN’T, TELL US WHY. WE THEN HAVE A SET OF STRATEGY STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE REGIONAL PRIORITIES. I WON’T READ THROUGH ALL OF THESE BUT MAKE SURE WE HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES ARE INCORPORATED IN THE PLANNING. AND I WAS SAYING THIS LEVEL — WE ONLY HAVE FOUR OF THESE — THAT WE THOUGHT WERE MORE SPECIFIC TO DESIGN BUT MAYBE THEY DO BELONG IN THE BROADER ADAPTATION STANDARDS. YOU ALSO NOTICE THIS DOESN’T HAVE A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE ARE NOT SURE HOW FAR WE CAN GET REQUIREMENTS TO A PROJECT SCALE, HOW APPROPRIATE IT IS. WE HAD THIS INFORMATION. WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE IT. WE HAVEN’T BEEN SURE EXACTLY WHERE YET. BUT THIS IS THINGS LIKE INCORPORATE, YOU KNOW, FREE BOARD ABOVE FEMA. AGAIN, THIS IS ONE WE’RE THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN PROVIDE A BIT MORE LOCAL FLEXIBILITY AND MAYBE NOT DESIGNATE A NUMBER CONSIDERING A SETBACK, INTEGRATING CERTAIN FEATURES. SO, AGAIN, SOME OF THIS INFORMATION THAT WE FEEL IS A LITTLE BIT MORE PROJECT-SPECIFIC. OKAY. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY OVER — OUR OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN IS, WHAT’S IN THIS DRAFT AND WHAT IS IN THE STANDARDS. I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION. WE CAN GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION. WE CAN GO BACK TO THE SLIDES OR MOVE THE CONVERSATION FORWARD AS NEEDED. I’LL LEAVE THESE HERE. I DON’T THINK I NEED TO READ THROUGH THEM. SO THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU, JACKIE. THANK YOU, DANA. SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT THE BOARD HERE, BE LOOKING AT THESE QUESTIONS AND MAYBE COMMENTING ON THEM AT THIS POINT OR —

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: YEAH, I THINK THE INTENTION IS TO HELP SERVE AS A FRAMING. I THINK WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WANT TO BRING UP OTHER TOPICS THAT STAND OUT TO YOU, THIS IS REALLY NEEDING TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK. THIS IS A WAY TO DIRECT YOUR THINKING ON IT BUT WE’RE HAPPY TO HEAR FEEDBACK ON THESE QUESTIONS OR OTHERWISE.

>>JENN HYMAN: ROD, I’D LIKE TO RECOMMEND WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT NOW.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OH.

>>JENN HYMAN: AND ACTUALLY, KRIS MAY JOINED THE MEETING. AND I BELIEVE WE’LL PROBABLY BE PROVIDING HER COMMENTS AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SINCE SHE’S NOT HERE.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. WELL THEN, LET ME GET BACK ONTO THE SCRIPT AND SAY THANK YOU, DANA AND JACKIE. AT THIS POINT OF THE MEETING, WE’D LIKE TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT, SPECIFIC TO THE PRESENTATION. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND WHEN CALLED UPON. YOU WILL BE UNMUTED SO YOU CAN SHARE YOUR COMMENTS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS. YOU HAVE A LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. AS IN ANY PUBLIC MEETING, PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS RESPECTFUL. WE ARE HERE TO LISTEN TO EVERYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE MEETING. BUT AS ALWAYS, WE ASK EVERYONE ACT IN A CIVIL MANNER. HATE SPEECH, THREATS MADE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. AND ANYONE WHO FAILS TO FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINES OR WHO EXCEEDS THE ESTABLISHED THREE-MINUTE LIMIT WITHOUT PERMISSION WILL BE MUTED. OKAY. SO MARGIE, ARE THERE ANY HANDS RAISED?

>>MARGIE MALAN: WE HAVE ONE HAND RAISED BY GITA DEV.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. SORRY. KRIS MAY. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. OH, WAIT. IT’S GITA. SORRY. GITA DEV, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

>>GITA DEV: I SEE MY CONNECTION IS UNSTABLE. APOLOGIZE. WE CAN SEE THE SEE THE — THERE WERE SO MANY SLIDES. I WROTE THAT ONE DOWN. OKAY. SUBREGIONAL PLAN ELEMENT DIAGRAM. THIS IS A NICE SIMPLE DIAGRAM. SO I SHOULD SAY, FIRST, I’M GITA DEV. I AM WITH THE SIERRA CLUB’S BAY ALIVE CAMPAIGN WHICH IS A CAMPAIGN FOR THE SIERRA CLUB FOR THE BAY WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND REALLY — I’M REALLY, REALLY PLEASED TO SPEAK WITH THE ENGINEERING REVIEW GROUP BECAUSE I’M AN ARCHITECT. I WORK WITH ENGINEERS. AND I THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN A LOT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SIERRA CLUB. SO I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE BAY ITSELF IS AS MUCH AT RISK WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AS, YOU KNOW, THE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND IT. AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT I THINK A LOT OF US DON’T REALIZE. AND THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL DOES EVERY FIVE YEARS PUTS OUT THIS SEA LEVEL RISE DATA. YOU KNOW, THEY KEEP REVISING IT AND SHOWING IT ACCELERATING. WHAT I WANT TO BRING UP WITH OUR GROUP HERE IS THAT WHEN, YOU KNOW, YOU’RE LOOKING AT 2050 AND 2100, I THINK 2075 IS ACTUALLY A RATHER KEY DATE. BECAUSE 2050 IS ONLY 25 YEARS AWAY AND BONDS THAT WE’LL HAVE TO PASS IN ORDER TO GET — YOU KNOW, GET PUBLIC — YOU KNOW, PUBLIC VOTES ON BONDS, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT THEY ARE MORE THAN 25 YEARS SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF A 2075 AND I LIKE PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS, ALSO, THERE IS A TENDENCY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WANT IT TO KNOW THERE IS A SURE FIRE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A ONE AND DONE. YOU’VE DONE THIS BOND, AND WE ARE DONE FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. SO ONE SHORELINE OPERATES VERY MUCH LIKE THAT. THEIR ESTIMATES HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE’RE SHOWING IN THESE — IN THESE SLIDES. THE OTHER THING THAT I’M REALIZING IS THAT IN OUR CITIES AND COUNTIES, THE PUBLIC WORKS IS WHAT DEALS WITH THIS ISSUE OF SEA LEVEL RISE. AND THEY ARE MOSTLY CIVIL ENGINEERS. CITIES AND COUNTIES ONLY HAVE LAND USE AUTHORITY. THEY DON’T HAVE WATER USE AUTHORITY. SO THEY CAN’T DEAL WITH ISSUES AND THEY CAN’T APPROVE ISSUES WITHOUT FISH AND WILDLIFE, REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BOARD, A NUMBER OF AGENCIES CONTROL THE WATER AND THE MARSHES AND THE EEL GRASS AND ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT IN YOUR GUIDELINES. SO NUMBER TWO GUIDELINE IS THE BAY ECOLOGY IS ONE OF THE NUMBER TWO ITEMS IN YOUR LISTING OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. WELL, THERE’S NO WAY A CITY COUNCIL OR A COUNTY CAN COMMENT ON ISSUES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF LAND USE. THEREFORE, THERE’S A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS DIAGRAM WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE PURPLE — THE PINK ONCE SAYS ELEMENT D, PROJECT LIST, AND ELEMENT E, LAND USE PLAN AND POLICIES. BECAUSE IF NATURE-BASED IS PART OF OUR PLAN, THEN IT’S NOT ONLY LAND USE BUT WATER USE ALSO. SO I THINK THAT’S THE MAJOR FALL IS I IN — FALLACY OF THIS BEAUTIFUL PLAN WHICH I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING. I THINK YOU’VE DONE FANTASTIC WORK, BY THE WAY, BCDC STAFF. THIS IS THE PLACE, THE STUMBLING BLOCK, BECAUSE CITIES AND COUNTIES ONLY HAVE LAND USE AUTHORITY. THEY DON’T HAVE WATER USE AUTHORITY. AND A LOT OF THE SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION PLANS HAVE TO INVOLVE ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN THE WATER, MARSHES, AND SO FORTH. FISH, WILDLIFE HABITAT, ALL OF THAT, SO SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO REFIGURE THIS PARTICULAR DIAGRAM SO THAT — YOU KNOW, THE AGENCIES THAT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THOSE ARE ALSO PART OF THIS FINAL APPROVAL PROCESS BECAUSE HONESTLY, WHEN I TALK TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS, THEY ARE CLUELESS ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE WATER. AND WHEN I TALK TO THE ENGINEERING STAFF OF THE PUBLIC WORKS, THEY ALSO SAY, HEY, LOOK, THAT’S FISH AND WILDLIFE. WE CAN’T GO THERE. SO YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MAJOR FALLACIES THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT AS WE GO FORWARD. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMENTS THAT I HAVE, BUT I WANT THE ENGINEERING GROUP TO THINK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WHEN WE WORK ON PLANS, WE WORK ON IT ON THE GROUND. WE DON’T WORK ON THEM IN THE WATER. SO OYSTER REEFS, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN’T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT. SO SOMEHOW THE TEAM HAS TO INCLUDE THOSE KIND OF CONSULTANTS WHO HAVE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUNDS AND BIOLOGY BACKGROUNDS. AND THEN, THE PLANS — THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THE PLANS THAT INVOLVE NATURE INVOLVE MONITORING OVER TIME CERTAIN MEASURE OF UNCERTAINTY AND HOW DO WE GET THAT ACROSS WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO PASS BONDS THROUGH THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU.

>>MARGIE MALAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU, MARGIE. YEAH, KRIS MAY HAS HER HAND UP.

>>KRIS MAY: HI, THIS IS KRIS. SINCE I’M NOT THERE, I’M CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, BUT MY QUESTIONS ARE KIND OF COMING FROM MY BOARD MEMBER HAT. AND ONE OF THEM IS THAT I STRUGGLE WITH THE TERM OF ADAPTATION DESIGN STANDARDS BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF DESIGN STANDARDS WHEN WE’RE DESIGNING ADAPTATION PROJECTS. SO IT’S — I HAVE A HARD TIME THINKING ABOUT SEPARATING, LIKE, ALL OF THE DESIGN CODE STANDARDS THAT WE NEED TO THINK OF. WHEN WE’RE THINKING OF ADAPTATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS, I THINK IT’S REALLY CRITICAL THAT THEY INCLUDE THE WAVE CLIMATE AND RIGHT NOW CONSIDERATION OF WAVES IS NOT REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. I THINK THAT’S ONE OF MY BIGGEST COMMENTS IS THAT I THINK CONSIDERATION OF WAVE HAZARDS, THE WAVE CLIMATE, THE WAVE RUN-UP, IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED. I DON’T THINK WE CAN DO ANY ADAPTATION PLANNING APPROPRIATELY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WAVE CLIMATE. PARTICULARLY IF WE’RE LOOKING AT STRATEGIES ALONG THE SHORELINE. AND I SEE IT AS A BIG PROBLEM. WHEN I’M WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU’RE LOOKING AT NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS, UNDERSTANDING THE WAVE HAZARDS IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE STRATEGIES. IT’S ALSO, OF COURSE, INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR WHEN YOU’RE DESIGNING GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE. I KNOW, LIKE, WAVE DATA, WE LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT IT’S HARD TO GET, BUT I DON’T THINK YOU CAN DO JUSTICE ON ADAPTATION STRATEGIES WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING YOUR WAVE CLIMATE. AND THEN MY LAST COMMENT IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE BAY FILL IN PART OF THE STRATEGIES. A LOT OF THE COMMUNITIES I WORK WITH ARE LOOKING AT BAY FILL AS ONE OF MANY DIFFERENT STRATEGIES OR PART OF THE STRATEGY. SO IF THEY’RE SUBMITTING A PLAN THAT BCDC IS APPROVING AND SOME OF THESE STRATEGIES ARE INCLUDING BAY FILL, IT SEEMS LIKE IT CROSSES OVER INTO THE PURVIEW OF THE ECRB. AND I’M JUST — IT COULD GET, LIKE, CONFUSING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT’S ACCEPTED. YOU KNOW — I DON’T KNOW HOW IT’S JUST GOING TO GO, LIKE, ACROSS THE ECRB AND PERMITTING IF THESE THINGS ARE ACCEPTED AS PART OF A PLAN. BUT THEY MIGHT NOT BE PERMITTABLE OR THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE ECRB REVIEW. SO THOSE ARE KIND OF THE COMMENTS I HAVE FROM THE ECRB TYPE OF PERSPECTIVE.

>>MARGIE MALAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MARGIE.

>>SPEAKER: AM I ALLOWED TO FOLLOW-UP WITH KRIS?

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: I HAVE A QUESTION OF WHETHER KRIS IS A PUBLIC MEMBER OR BOARD MEMBER. I AM NOT IN A BOARD MEMBER AND I AM A REGULAR BOARD MEMBER AND I THINK KRIS IS EITHER.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: SO MARGIE, DO YOU — WAS THERE — IS IT BECAUSE KRIS WASN’T — IS NOT HERE OR IS IT THAT SHE WAS LATE?

>>MARGIE MALAN: WELL, I KIND OF —

>>JENN HYMAN: I KIND OF MADE THAT DECISION BECAUSE IN THE PAST BOARD MEMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: NO, THAT’S ONLY BEEN — I THINK, JENN, THAT’S ONLY TRUE IF PEOPLE ARE PRESENT THAT HAVE A CONFLICT LIKE ROD I THINK ONE TIME HAD A CONFLICT AND HE SPOKE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. BUT I THINK WE HAD REMOTE MEETINGS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN MEMBERS.

>>JENN HYMAN: I APOLOGIZE. IT’S A GRAY AREA THAT I’M NOT SURE THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT HONESTLY, SO —

>>SPEAKER: I MOVE WE ALLOW KRIS TO JOIN THE DISCUSSION AND THAT WE ALL TALK WHEN WE ALL TALK. WITH KRIS AND MAYBE EVEN JIM.

>>JENN HYMAN: THAT’S FINE WITH ME SINCE IT DOESN’T INVOLVE ANY PERMITS OR ANYTHING.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. SO WE DON’T EVEN NEED TO —

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION IF IT’S AN ORDER.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: THAT’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO AVOID, JIM. I’M TRYING TO AVOID A VOTE.

>>SPEAKER: I DON’T THINK WE NEED A MOTION. I COULD BE WRONG.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: NO, NO. I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION IS — IS GOOD.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: YOU ARE GETTING QUIET AGAIN A LITTLE BIT, ROD.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OH, OKAY. I AGREE WITH BOB. I WOULD PREFER THAT IF WE’RE HAVING A BOARD DISCUSSION THAT JIM AND KRIS ARE ABLE TO TALK FREELY AND CONTRIBUTE.

>>JENN HYMAN: SOUNDS GOOD.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY.

>>MARGIE MALAN: SHARE IWASHITA, WE HAVE ONE MORE — CHAIR IWASHITA, WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>>MANU CHOPRA: MY QUESTION IS — HOW DO [INDISCERNIBLE] HAVE PATHWAYS DEVELOP CRITERIA IN THE WORKFORCE OR THE WORKING [INDISCERNIBLE]?

>>BOB BATTALIO: I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THAT.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: I’M SORRY. I DON’T THINK WE UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION. CAN YOU REPEAT IT?

>>MANU CHOPRA: OKAY. HOW DOES ADOPTION HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE IN FOSTER HOMES OR FOSTER CARE?

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ADAPTATION PLANS AND STRATEGIES? YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT FOLKS WHO ARE IN FOSTER CARE?

>>MANU CHOPRA: YEAH. I THINK IN FOSTER HOMES. LIKE, WHEN THEY DON’T HAVE A HOUSE TO LIVE IN OR — AND THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO STAY?

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: SO THIS IS ABOUT ADAPTING THE SHORELINE. I THINK THE IDEA IS ADAPTING THE SHORELINE TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND GROUNDWATER RISE, IT IS NOT ABOUT FAMILY — NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT FOSTER HOMES OR — YEAH. IT’S NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT FOSTER HOMES.

>>MANU CHOPRA: OH, OKAY. OKAY.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION AND CONCERN.

>>MANU CHOPRA: THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY MORE — MARGIE, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS?

>>MARGIE MALAN: NOPE. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE, CHAIR.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. LET’S CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOW LET’S GET TO BOARD DISCUSSION. LET’S SEE. YEAH. BOB, DO YOU HAVE — YEAH, LET’S GO DOWN THE LINE HERE.

>>BOB BATTALIO: YEAH, I ACTUALLY HAD A COMMENT OR A QUESTION FOR JENN AND YOU, ROD, AS CHAIR, AND THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. BUT FIRST FOR JENN. YOU KNOW, AFTER THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING, I SENT AN EMAIL TO DANA AND MARGIE, RIGHT? JACKIE. WHY DID I SAY MARGIE? OH, SORRY, JACKIE. WE JUST MET AT THE LAST MEETING. I SENT MY EMAIL. I MEANT TO SEND IT TO YOU AS WELL. I THINK DANA GOT IT. THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP. AND IT HAD SOME COMMENTS ON IT. AND I SENT IT TO YOU, JENN, AND ALSO ASHLEY. I DON’T KNOW IF THOSE COMMENTS — THEY’RE NOT REALLY BOARD COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T GO THROUGH THE BOARD PROCESS. BUT I’M WONDERING IF THOSE COMMENTS COULD BE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD MEMBERS WITHOUT VIOLATING ALL OF OUR COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS OR RESTRICTIONS. AND YOU DON’T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. I’M NOT GOING TO SEND THEM TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO VIOLATE ANY KIND OF HATCH ACT OR WHATEVER IT IS. BUT THAT LEADS TO MY OTHER QUESTION WHICH I THINK IS FOR BOTH JENN AND ROD AND OTHERS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ALL OF THIS EVENTUALLY FUNNELS DOWN TO PROJECTS AND THE PLANNING THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT DOES GET CLOSER TO PUBLIC WORKS. AND SO I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THE ECRB, AS A GROUP OF ENGINEERS, ETC., TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE STAFF ON THIS PLAN FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. AND I’M WONDERING IF OTHER PEOPLE AGREE AND WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DEVELOP SOME SORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE OR PROCESS BY WHICH THE ECRB COULD PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A THOUGHTFUL INPUT. AND I DON’T KNOW IF THEY — DANA AND JACKIE WANT THAT OR NOT, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE — YOU KNOW, I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY AND I KIND OF — I’M TRYING TO DECIDE, SHOULD I JUST COMMENT AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR GO THROUGH THESE BOARDS? I DON’T KNOW.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: WELL, DANA OR JACKIE, DO YOU — I MEAN, I HAVE MY THOUGHT, TOO, WHICH IS THAT I BELIEVE WE GET ANOTHER BITE OF THE APPLE HERE, RIGHT? LIKE, YOU SENT OUT THE DRAFT. RSAP ALREADY. AND WE, AS ECRB MEMBERS, WE’VE BEEN ASKED TO REVIEW IT. WE CAN GIVE OUR COMMENTS NOW, BUT I THINK THERE’S NOTHING WRONG, BOB, WITH US SENDING QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO DANA AND JACKIE AND JENN AFTER WE HAD TIME TO DIGEST OUR STAFF GUIDELINES.

>>JENN HYMAN: WELL, SO, A COUPLE OF THINGS. I DID TALK TO MICHAEL, BCDC COUNCIL, BEFORE THIS MEETING AND HE DID SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A POLICY DISCUSSION, THAT DISCUSSION ON IT SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE WITH MORE THAN A FEW ECRB MEMBERS TOGETHER BECAUSE THEN IT’S — OUTSIDE OF THE MEETING. SO THOSE RULES WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THIS DISCUSSION. SO BOB, I THINK THE BEST — THE BEST THING WOULD BE TO MAYBE HIGHLIGHT YOUR KEY COMMENTS IN THIS MEETING ON THE GUIDELINES SO THAT EVERYONE COULD HEAR THEM AND DISCUSS THEM. AND IF YOU’RE ALSO — IF YOUR QUESTION SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS ALSO TOUCHING ON WHAT ROLE WOULD THE ECRB PLAY IN REVIEWING THE S.B. 272 PLANS, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT?

>>BOB BATTALIO: NOT NECESSARILY. I WAS THINKING THAT THE ECRB COULD PROVIDE A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STAFF FOR THEIR USE IN FINALIZING OR FURTHER DEVELOPING THE PLAN. AND IF NOT, THEN I KNOW THAT MY COMMENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING WILL BE PERSONAL COMMENTS. AND THEN, I’LL JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THAT. BUT I DO THINK THE ENGINEERING END POINT IS IMPORTANT, AND I THINK THE ECRB HAS A LOT OF CAPABILITIES. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ECRB HELP BCDC IN THIS VERY IMPORTANT ENDEAVOR. IT WOULD SEEM LIKE A MISSTEP TO NOT DO SO, IN MY OPINION.

>>JENN HYMAN: ONE OF THE THINGS YOU COULD ALSO CONSIDER IS ASKING DANA AND JACKIE TO COME BACK YET AGAIN FOR ANOTHER MEETING. I KNOW THEY’RE SUPER BUSY, AND I’M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD FIT INTO THE SCHEDULE BUT MAYBE THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

>>BOB BATTALIO: I’M GETTING SOME RESISTANCE AND I DON’T NEED TO BELABOR IT. I FEEL THE WAY I FEEL. IF BCDC DOESN’T WANT THE ECRB TO PROVIDE COLLECTIVE COMMENTS OR THE BOARD DOESN’T WANT TO DO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT’S A DECISION AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT ANOTHER TIME IF YOU WANT OR YOU CAN JUST ISSUE YOUR DECISION.

>>JENN HYMAN: YEAH. I AM NOT AWARE OF A WAY FOR THE ECRB TO PUT TOGETHER JOINT, LIKE, ONE SET OF JOINT COMMENTS BUT I CAN LOOK INTO THAT AFTER THIS MEETING.

>>BOB BATTALIO: OKAY. WE CAN PROVIDE THEM TO YOU AND YOU CAN PROVIDE THEM AS WE DO FOR PROJECTS OR NOT. I’M FINE EITHER WAY BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET SOME CLARITY. I DON’T THINK THESE MEETINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO GET INTO THE DETAIL. AND I THINK THERE’S MORE OF A DISCUSSION RATHER THAN EACH OF US TALKING TO EACH OTHER IN SHORT BLIPS. THAT’S MY OPINION. I’M NOT — I’LL LEAVE IT THERE. I DON’T MEAN TO BE — YOU KNOW, THE FUNNY THING IS, WE CAN’T SAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE UNTIL WE SHOW UP TO THESE MEETINGS SO I THOUGHT I WOULD BRING IT UP AND SORRY I DIDN’T GIVE YOU A HEAD’S UP ON IT. YOU KNOW WHERE I’M COMING FROM.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: AND MAYBE I’LL JUST SAY THAT I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH YOU PROVIDING COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO JENN AND JACKIE AND DANA AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THESE GET COLLATED AND COLLECTED AND IF WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE ANOTHER SESSION HERE, I’M SURE WE WOULD GO THROUGH THEM. THEIR RESPONSES.

>>JENN HYMAN: YES, THAT’S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. YOU CAN DEFINITELY GIVE US ANY COMMENTS IN ANY FORMAT YOU HAVE.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. I’M ASSUMING THAT THE LINE-UP IS LEFT TO RIGHT AND SO JIM FRENCH, YOU ARE NEXT.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: I THINK JUST FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT BOB WAS SAYING AND JENN WAS SAYING, WE CAN SEND COMMENTS TO STAFF AND THE STAFF HAS TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEHOW IN THE PROCESS OF RESPONDING TO BOB’S COMMENT, IF YOU INCORPORATE — THAT’S SIMILAR TO WHAT JIM WROTE TO YOU, ALSO — NOT THAT I HAD WRITTEN ANYTHING YET — IF THERE BECOMES A POTENTIAL MAJORITY OF BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION, EVEN IF IT’S CONNECTED, NOT DIRECTLY, BUT ONLY CONNECTED VIA JENN, THEN IT GETS TRICKY. JENN, TALK TO — THE NAME YOU JUST SAID — YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL ABOUT WHAT WE’RE DOING. AND I THINK WHEN BOB PROVIDES COMMENTS HE’S PROVIDING COMMENTS AS ECRB. I DON’T THINK IT TRIES TO MAKE SENSE — MAKE SENSE HE’S NOT ECRB WHEN HE PROVIDES COMMENTS BUT — TALK TO YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL. I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE TRICKY IF YOU TAKE TOO MUCH INPUT FROM US. I HAD A FEW COMMENTS THAT WERE NOT VERY TECHNICAL, I GUESS. A COUPLE QUESTIONS. FIRST THAT ARE SORT OF RELATED TO EACH OTHER. ONE SORT OF FAMILY OF QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY PLACE — I MEAN, SEA LEVEL RISE IS HAPPENING AROUND THE WORLD. IS THERE ANYPLACE ELSE IN CALIFORNIA OR EVEN THE U.S. WHO’S DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS?

>>DANA BRECHWALD: WELL, S.B. 272 APPLIES TO THE OUTER COAST AS WELL. THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THEIR LCP PROCESS TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF S.B. 272 AND WE’VE BEEN MEETING WITH THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS. OBVIOUSLY, OUR PROCESSES ARE VERY DIFFERENT. THEY HAVE THE LCP. WE DON’T. SO WE’RE STARTING A PLAN FROM SCRATCH.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: WHAT’S LCP?

>>DANA BRECHWALD: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. THEY ISSUE PERMITS ON THE OUTER COAST, BUT THEY ALLOW LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO DO A MORE SPECIFIC PLAN LOCALLY AND THEY CEDE THE PERMITTING PROCESS BASICALLY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION ONLY SEES PROJECTS ONLY WHEN THEY’VE BEEN ELEVATED — WHEN THEY BASICALLY THINK THE LOCAL JURISDICTION HAS NOT MADE THE CORRECT DETERMINATION ON THE SHORELINE PERMIT. SO THAT’S VERY DIFFERENT FROM BCDC AND THE OUTER COAST. SO THE WAY THAT S.B. 272 IS BEING IMPLEMENTED ON THE OUTER COAST AND IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION IS FAIRLY DIFFERENT BUT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY’RE COMPATIBLE, ESPECIALLY FOR COUNTIES THAT HAVE BOTH BCDC AND COASTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: WOULD IT BE SIMILAR TO PLANS REQUIRED FOR THE — WHATEVER DO YOU CALL THOSE? THE OUTBOARD COAST?

>>DANA BRECHWALD: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. NO. BECAUSE THE PLANS FOR THE OUTER COAST ARE REGULATORY IN NATURE. SO LIKE I SAID, INSTEAD OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEWING EVERY SINGLE PROJECT ALONG THE OUTER COAST THE WAY THAT BCDC DOES ALONG OUR BAY SHORELINE, THEY BASICALLY GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. SO WHEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TURN IN A LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, IT’S REGULATORY IN NATURE. WHEREAS, OUR SHORELINE — LOCAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS ARE NOT REGULATORY IN NATURE.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: WHAT I’M THINKING THEN, WHAT YOU’RE ASKING CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO DO IS TO WRITE UP A PLAN THAT MAYBE HAS NEVER BEEN DONE ANYPLACE IN THE WORLD BEFORE?

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: WELL, I MEAN, WHAT WE’RE DOING IS ACTUALLY I WOULD SAY A REALLY SIMILAR MODEL IS LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. IT’S DIFFERENT, FEDERAL. BUT THOSE ARE NOT REQUIRED PLANS, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE A PLAN THAT FOLLOWS FEMA’S GUIDELINES, YOU ARE THEN ELIGIBLE FOR FEMA FUNDING. SO THAT’S ACTUALLY NOT TOO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS. WE ARE DEVELOPING GUIDELINES THAT IF A LOCAL JURISDICTION FOLLOWS OUR GUIDELINES AND HAS AN APPROVED PLAN, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE FUNDING. SO I WOULD SAY THAT’S THE CLOSEST ANALOGUE. AND THESE LOCAL ADAPTATION PLANS ARE HAPPENING AROUND THE BAY AREA AND ELSEWHERE AND A LOT OF WHAT’S IN OUR GUIDELINES IS THOSE BEST PRACTICES, TRYING TO BALANCE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT GOOD ADAPTATION BUT WE WANT TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE TO JURISDICTIONS OF DIFFERENT CAPACITIES SO WE’RE TRYING TO SET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS BUT ALSO PROVIDE, WHAT DOES GOOD ADAPTATION LOOK LIKE? SO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING IN THE BAY AREA, ON THE OUTER COAST, USING DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND MODELS AND WE’RE TRYING TO STANDARD THAT AND PUT THOSE BEST PRACTICES TOGETHER. AND THEN, OUR GUIDELINES IS KIND OF A LAYER ABOVE THAT TO STANDARDIZE HOW ALL OF THAT PLANNING WORKS. COASTAL COMMISSION, AS DANA SAID, IS DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR, BUT THEIR LAW IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO PLAN FOR ALREADY IS BROADER THAN OURS. SO THEY’RE SIMILAR BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME BECAUSE OUR ENABLING LEGISLATION IS DIFFERENT.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: WHAT I’M TRYING TO GOT AT MAYBE IS JUST IF I WAS WORKING WITH THE JURISDICTION THAT NEEDED TO DEVELOP A PLAN, IF I HAD NOT EVER SEEN A PLAN BEFORE, IT’S — I’M JUST NOT SURE EXACTLY. DO WE NEED PH.D. LEVEL DISSERTATION KIND OF PROJECT OR DO WE NEED SOME SORT OF — JUST A MINOR EXPANSION ON FILL IN, EXPAND THE OUTLINE MORE OR LESS WHAT YOU’VE GIVEN OR WHATEVER? MY SUGGESTION, WHAT MIGHT BE USEFUL — I DON’T KNOW HOW PRACTICAL THIS IS. IF YOU COULD WRITE A HYPOTHETICAL PLAN FOR A — MAYBE A COMPOSITE TYPE OF JURISDICTION THAT INCLUDES SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAYWARD HAS AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SAUSALITO HAS AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SAN FRANCISCO HAS OR WHATEVER, I MEAN, YOU COULD MAKE IT AN ENORMOUS EFFORT FOR YOURSELVES, BUT IF I COULD SEE, THIS IS WHAT A PLAN OUGHT TO LOOK LIKE IN DRAFT LEVEL — IN DEVELOPING A PLAN LIKE THIS, IF I WAS JUST IN MY OFFICE AND I HAD A TEAM WORKING ON THIS ASSIGNED BY A JURISDICTION OR IF I WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A JURISDICTION, I WOULD DEVELOP AN OUTLINE AND THEN I WOULD BOUNCE THE OUTLINE BACK AND FORTH AROUND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AND THEN I WOULD — WE’D START TO FILL IN SOME PARAGRAPHS AND START TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CALCULATIONS AND WHAT FIGURES AND WHAT TABLES ARE NEEDED AND SO ON, IT TAKES A LOT OF EFFORT. AND YOU’RE GOING TO RECEIVE THAT AND YOU’RE GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH WHAT I’VE PRODUCED OR — NOT HAPPY WHAT I PRODUCED. AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING — MAKE IT SORT OF LIKE THIS, I THINK IT WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT OF WORK FOR YOU TO DEVELOP THIS SAMPLE PLAN BUT I THINK IN THE LONG RUN IT MIGHT MAKE LIFE A WHOLE LOT EASIER FOR YOU IF YOU START SEEING REPORTS A LOT LIKE WHAT YOU ALREADY ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO FILL IN. THERE’S LOTS THAT HAS TO BE FILLED IN. WHAT HAPPENS IN MY LOCAL — YOU KNOW, THE LITTLE STREAMS THAT ARE COMING UP — WATER COMING UP CREEKS OR WE HAVE — BERKELEY HAS HIGHWAYS THAT ARE GOING TO BE — WAVES ARE GOING TO OVERTOP HIGHWAY 80 GOING THROUGH BERKELEY WHICH IS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY. IF YOU CAN DO AN EXAMPLE LIKE THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS — A FINAL COMMENT. ALONG SORT OF THESE LINES, IT SEEMS LIKE A PARALLEL TYPE OF — AN ANALOGOUS TYPE OF PROJECT IS THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER ACT IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY — I GUESS IT’S NOT CENTRAL VALLEY BUT PRIMARILY CENTRAL VALLEY WHERE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO STANDARDIZE AND ALL THE DIFFERENT GROUNDWATER BASINS NEED TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR NOW THEY’RE USING IT. I KNOW I HAVEN’T BEEN VERY INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THIS EXCEPT FOR EIGHT YEARS AGO, I GUESS, I WAS WORKING FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL AND LOOKING AT GROUNDWATER AND HOW TO FIX WITH HIGH-SPEED RAIL. AND IT WAS A WIDE OPEN BROAD THING AND PEOPLE ARE KIND OF CONFUSED. THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO. IT’S REALLY HARD TO GET STARTED. AND HOW DO YOU HIRE A CONSULTANT? HOW DO YOU HAVE A SCOPE FOR WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? YOU MAY NEED TO TALK TO PEOPLE IN SACRAMENTO THAT ARE MANAGING THIS BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE MAYBE AN ANALOGOUS TO WHAT YOU HAVE FOR THE BAY HERE. JUST SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY GUIDELINES. SEA LEVEL RISE IS DIFFERENT THAN GROUNDWATER. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGULATIONS AND POLICIES AND GUIDELINES MIGHT BE PRETTY ANALOGOUS TO THE WAY YOU’RE HAVING — HAVING TO TRY AND JUGGLE ALL OF THIS COMPLICATED STUFF. I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW — THE TECHNICAL STUFF IS CHALLENGING ENOUGH, AND I THINK THAT’S WHAT ECRB IS PRIMARILY SUPPOSED TO BE FOCUSED ON. BUT I THINK THE WHOLE POLICY STUFF IS REALLY GOING TO BE TANGLY. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO TO HELP FIX THAT. AND I THINK IF YOU WERE TO TRY TO WRITE A DRAFT — EVEN IF IT NEVER SEES THE LIGHT OF THE PUBLIC, JUST FOR YOU TO SEE, THIS IS WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TRY TO FOLLOW THE OUTLINE THAT YOU’VE GIVEN, I THINK YOU’LL REWRITE YOUR GUIDELINES IF YOU TRY TO — TRY TO WRITE IN RESPONSE AS IF YOU ARE RESPONDING TO YOUR GUIDELINES. I THINK — NOT BECAUSE THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG, JUST BECAUSE THE HUMAN PROCESS, GOING THAT STEP BETWEEN WHERE YOU HAVE NOW AND AN ACTUAL REPORT ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF THE TIME INVOLVED AND YOU’LL MAKE A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS MORE EFFICIENT IN GETTING PRODUCTS TO YOU THAT WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANKS, JIM. RAMIN.

>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: THANK YOU. I’LL LOWER MY HAND. IS IT THE PLAN, IS IT A GUIDELINE, IS IT STANDARD? I THINK IF I HEAR JIM AND KRIS, WE ARE — MAYBE MYSELF, IT SEEMS, IT’S CONFUSING. IT NEEDS TO BE DIRECT. IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. AND IT NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT. STANDARD IS A REQUIREMENT. I GIVE YOU AN ANALOGY, AN EXAMPLE. AFC-7, WHICH IS A STANDARD FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, IS A STANDARD WHICH IS NOT A CODE TECHNICALLY, BUT IT’S A REFERENCE STANDARD. SO IT HAS EVERYTHING IN THERE. AND THEN THE CODE CYCLE TAKES IT AND MAKES IT INTO A CODE. AND THEN, IT’S ENFORCED BY JURISDICTIONS AND STATES, ETC. SO I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE A — THE DEFINITION OF THIS DOCUMENT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR. BECAUSE TO ME WHEN YOU CALL SOMETHING GUIDELINES, IT’S NOT A POLICY. YOU CAN TAKE IT OR YOU CAN LEAVE IT. THAT’S A GUIDELINE. STANDARD, THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT. MAYBE IT’S NOT AT THE LEVEL OF A REQUIREMENT OR A CODE, BUT IT GETS YOU THERE. SO I THINK IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES A LOT MORE CLEAR IN TERMS OF WHAT IT’S INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH. AND BY THE WAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. IT WAS GREAT. I APPRECIATE THAT.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, RAMIN. YEAH, DILIP, I WILL CUT IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A MINUTE HERE. I AGREE WITH WHAT RAMIN IS SAYING, THAT WE NEED TO BE — BUT WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT THIS IS — THERE’S NOT — I THINK YOU SAID THERE IS NOT REALLY TEETH, A REGULATORY AUTHORITY BEHIND THIS. YOU EITHER ARE SAYING YES TO A PLAN OR NO TO A PLAN. AND SO THERE’S THIS, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY ITERATIVE — LONG-TERM ITERATION ON THE PLAN. GETTING DOWN INTO ACTUAL DESIGN, THAT’S — I THINK THAT’S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF — THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PLAN, RIGHT? AND SO THAT’S WHERE ECRB WOULD COME IN WHEN THEY GET DOWN TO AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT AND THEY’RE LOOKING AT DESIGN CRITERIA, THAT’S — THAT’S WHERE WE — THAT’S WHERE THE BOARD WOULD COME IN. AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AND PARTICIPATING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN IF ONLY TO KIND OF HELP PROTECT OURSELVES OR MAKE THE PROCESS EASIER WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THE DETAILED INDIVIDUAL PROJECT LEVEL. OKAY. JUST KIND OF — OH, BOB, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

>>BOB BATTALIO: I’D LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. SO I THINK I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID, ROD, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN. I THINK THE REALITY IS, THIS IS KIND OF SOMETHING THAT WILL EVOLVE A BIT. AND WE’VE HAD SOME EXPERIENCE ON THE PACIFIC COAST. WE, INCLUDING THE COASTAL COMMISSION, AND FRANKLY, I THINK THERE’S A LOT OF COLLECTIVE LEARNING GOING ON AS THE PLANS WERE DEVELOPED AND IS STILL HAPPENING. AND I KNOW BCDC IS AWARE OF THAT BASED ON OUR PRIOR MEETING THAT THEY’RE CONNECTED WITH THOSE FOLKS. BUT I THINK THERE IS SOME NEED NOT TO BE OVERLY SPECIFIC RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, I THINK I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. WHERE IT ENDS UP, I DON’T KNOW, BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW I THINK THAT’S PART OF THE ISSUE. I’M NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THAT’S PART OF THE ISSUE.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: YEAH. MY COMMENTARY TO THAT IS, YEAH, IF WE’RE COASTAL ENGINEERING IS A VERY UNIQUE DISCIPLINE. AND MAYBE NOT ALL OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, NEED TO BE THERE ARE ACTUALLY DEFINED YET OR THERE’S CERTAINLY NOT A DESIGN STANDARD FOR SOME OF IT. I THINK THAT THAT IS RIGHT.

>>BOB BATTALIO: YEAH. JUST TO — I THINK THIS MAY BE MY ENTREE TO MAKE PUBLIC MY COMMENTS THAT I SENT TO JENN AND TO ASHLEY. ASHLEY BEING THE SECRETARY FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. I SUGGESTED THAT THESE GUIDELINES REFER MORE SPECIFICALLY TO COASTAL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AS DEFINED BY THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM, FEMA, WHICH HAS LINKAGES TO HAZARD MAPS, INCLUDING HIGH HAZARD ZONES, YOU KNOW, AND LESSER HAZARD ZONES. UNFORTUNATELY, THE FEMA MAPS ARE BASED ON EXISTING OR RECENT HISTORICAL CONDITIONS THAT DON’T INCLUDE ELEMENTS LIKE LONG-TERM EROSION AND SEA LEVEL RISE. BUT THE OVERALL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCT IS LINKED TO ASCE-7, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED, AND A LOT OF BUILDING CODES. AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT EVENTUALLY PUBLIC WORKS PEOPLE AND ENGINEERS HAVE TO DEAL WITH. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THESE GUIDELINES EFFECT PLANNING. IF YOU ARE IN A HIGH-VELOCITY ZONE, YOUR STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE ON A FOUNDATION THAT CAN HANDLE THAT, AND THAT’S TYPICALLY ON PILINGS WITH YOUR FIRST FLOOR ABOVE THE FLOOD LEVEL. SO I THINK IT IS WORTH CONSIDERING SOME LINKAGE TO THOSE GUIDELINES, AND I THINK THERE IS INTEREST IN EXPANDING THOSE GUIDELINES TO ADDRESS FUTURE CONDITIONS, PHYSICAL CONDITIONS SUCH AS SEA LEVEL RISE AND COASTAL EROSION. UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS PRIMARILY A CALIFORNIA INTEREST BECAUSE CALIFORNIA IS WAY AHEAD OF A LOT OF OTHER STATES WHO ARE NOT. SO I THINK THEY MAY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THIS BECAUSE IT’S NOT A NATIONAL ISSUE. ROD, YOU KNOW BETTER THAN I DO, I THINK, ON THAT ONE, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE CAN’T THINK AHEAD A LITTLE BIT. SO THAT’S KIND OF THE SUMMARY OF MY COMMENTS. I HAVE OTHER COMMENTS BUT I JUST — I WROTE THAT UP WITH SOME REFERENCES AND SENT AN EMAIL IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO SEE IT, THEY CAN ASK JENN. I AM NOT GOING TO SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU, BOB. DILIP.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: YEP.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: GREAT. I DID HAVE AN — I’LL BE BRIEF. I HAD ABOUT THREE COMMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS BASED ON ME ATTENDING AT LEAST ONE OF THE EVENTS OF THE RSAP. AND THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT IS THAT THIS IS AN UNREGULATORY DOCUMENT. IT IS A GUIDANCE FOR THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING THE PLANS WHO MAY HAVE STANDARDS BUILT INTO THOSE DOCUMENTS OR THEY MAY BE — BCDC PROVIDED STANDARDS SEPARATELY IN THE BAY PLAN OR AN ADDENDUM TO THE BAY PLAN ABOUT WHAT SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS OR WHAT TIME HORIZONS TO LOOK AT. SO JUST SORT OF A COMMENTARY UPFRONT. IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE RSAP GUIDELINES ARE REALLY TO HELP SHORELINE JURISDICTIONS TO DEVELOP THOSE PLANS. THEY WILL BE DEVELOPING THEM — THEY WILL BE USING THE APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE. THEY WILL BE USING FEMA. THEY WILL BE USING, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, NOAA AND FISH AND WILDLIFE, ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA. RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT. ALL OF THAT WILL BE DONE BY THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING THE PLAN. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE — AND JACLYN, CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG. BUT THIS IS THAT GUIDANCE WHICH IS GIVING THEM WHAT ELEMENTS TO LOOK AT AND ENSURING THAT THEY DON’T ONLY LOOK AT FLOODING. THEY LOOK AT OTHER ASPECTS, NATURE-BASED SHORELINES, THEY LOOK AT COMMUNITY RESILIENCE. THEY LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT. SO THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. THE COMMENTS I HAD, THERE’S THREE SPECIFIC ONES. YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS HAPPENS TO BE AN OPPORTUNE TIME WHEN BCDC WAS PUTTING TOGETHER THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DOCUMENT OR INITIATIVE. THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNE TIME, BY HAPPENSTANCE, THAT S.B. 272 HAPPENED AT THE SAME LEVEL. THIS DEALS WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND GROUNDWATER AND NOT LOOKING AT THE OTHER ASPECTS OF SHORELINE PLANNING. THE PRIMARY INFLUENCE IS THAT WE ARE SEEING AS A PRACTITIONER OUT IN THE INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW ARE NOT SEA LEVEL RISE. THEY ARE SEA LEVEL RISE INDUCED, BUT THEY ARE THE STORMWATER FLOODING. SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE AT THE FOREFRONT. ALL OF THE FLOODING THAT YOU HEAR AFTER A RAINFALL IS HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THE WATER NOT BEING ABLE TO GET OUT. IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF — IF IT ISN’T ONE INCH TODAY, RIGHT, SO I THINK THERE IS A LOST OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR BCDC AS A REGIONAL SHORELINE AGENCY, WHICH OVERSEES THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT TO NOT INCLUDE SOME OF THE OTHER HAZARDS. I WILL SECOND WHAT KRIS MAY SAID. IT’S NOT JUST LONG-TERM INUNDATION WITH SEA LEVEL RISE. IT IS WAVE RELATED. OVERTOPPING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. AND SO THE GUIDELINES CAN AT LEAST ADDRESS IT AND SAYS, AS YOU DEVELOP THE PLAN, YOU SHALL ALSO INCLUDE OTHER HAZARD COMPONENTS SUCH AS URBAN FLOODING. WHEN YOU ADDRESS URBAN FLOODING, THESE ARE THE METHODS AND THESE ARE THE MECHANISMS YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. THAT’S ONE. THE SECOND ONE — I’LL, AGAIN, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT BOB SAID, WHAT GITA DEV SAID, LOOKING AT 75 YEARS FROM NOW AND NOT LOOKING AT THE DESIGN LIFE WHICH IS 50 YEARS, FOR MOST OF US AS ENGINEERS, WE DESIGN SOMETHING TO A 50-YEAR DESIGN LIFE. IN HAVING A 75, I DON’T THINK THEY ARE GIVING ENOUGH GUIDANCE TO THEM TO START THINKING ABOUT THE REAL LEVEL WHEN IT IS GOING TO BE AT THE END OF THEIR PROJECT LIFE CYCLE ITSELF. AND THEN THE THIRD — LAST COMMENT HERE IS, GIVEN THE NATURE OF HOW PROJECTIONS HAVE CHANGED AND WILL CHANGE — I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT. I THINK I WENT INTO THAT, WHAT, 15 YEARS AGO AS WE STARTED DOING TREASURE ISLAND. THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO CHANGE. SO WE DECOUPLE THE TIME, THE YEAR FROM THE PROJECTION. AND I THINK THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY SEEING THAT HAPPEN OVER TIME. SO INSTEAD OF SAYING, YOU KNOW, 3.1 FEET BY 2075 OR SOMETHING, LET’S LOOK AT REAL PLANNING HORIZONS WHICH ARE — GIVE YOU SIMPLE NUMBERS AS TWO, FOUR, AND 60. WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS. WE KNOW THAT TWO FEET IS GOING TO OCCUR PROBABLY SOMETIME IN THE 2060 TIME RANGE OR 2070. FOUR FEET MIGHT OCCUR AT THE END OF THE CENTURY AND SOMETHING BEYOND THAT WILL HAPPEN BEYOND 2100. THE GUIDELINES DON’T HAVE TO BE MODIFIED WHEN THE PROJECTIONS ARE DIFFERENT. SO THOSE ARE MY OVERALL COMMENTS. BUT I THINK THIS IS A GREAT — THIS IS A START OF A REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE BAY. I THINK IT’S A FANTASTIC MOVE. I DO THINK WE SHOULD NOT LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY AND JUST FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, TWO COMPONENTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE WHEN WE ARE MISSING OUT ON DROUGHT AND WE ARE MISSING OUT ON FLOODING, WE ARE MISSING OUT ON WAVES, EARTHQUAKE. WE ARE NOT EVEN LOOKING AT SEISMIC. WE KNOW THAT PROBABILITY OF A SEISMIC EVENT MIGHT BE EVEN HIGHER IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS THAN 2100, YOU KNOW.

>>JENN HYMAN: DO YOU THINK I COULD JUMP IN AND ASK A QUESTION AS A FOLLOW-UP?

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: SURE.

>>JENN HYMAN: SO DILIP, YOU POINT OUT THAT STORMWATER FLOODING, WHICH IS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE, YOU KNOW, STORMS HAPPEN IN THE WINTER, WHICH IS ALSO WHEN KING TIDES HAPPEN AS WELL IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY. SO THE WORST FLOODING THAT WE’RE GOING TO START SEEING RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE IS KING TIDES AND STORMS WHEN THEY HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME. WE’RE ALREADY SEEING THAT, ESPECIALLY IN SAN RAFAEL. IT’S TYPICAL FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS TO HAVE A TYPICAL STORM THAT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE TO MODEL, AND ONE OF THE NUMBERS I SAW, JACKIE, WAS A 10-YEAR STORM. AND I’M CONCERNED THAT TRADITIONALLY THE WAY THIS IS USED BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS IS GOING TO BE INADEQUATE CONSIDERING, AM IN ONE, STORMS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE FREQUENT, COULD BE MORE SEVERE. AND I GUESS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS FOR ALL YOU IS, ARE YOU AWARE OF PREDICTIONS FOR HOW TO MODEL STORMS IN THE FUTURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SEA LEVEL RISE? ARE THERE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ON THAT THAT WE CAN REFER TO?

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: YOU HAVE THE LADY WITH THE HAND UP, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.

>>BOB BATTALIO: SOME OF THE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES, COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ARE AWARE OF THE LIKELIHOOD OR THE FORECAST, INCREASED PRESCRIPTION INTENSITY WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. AND ARE ALREADY PROVIDING GUIDELINES ON HOW MUCH HIGHER IN TERMS OF PRESCRIPTION INTENSITY OR FLOW RATE A 10-YEAR EVENT MIGHT BE IN 2100 OR WHATEVER. AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS FUNDED GUIDANCE OR MODELED RUNS THAT PROVIDE THESE NUMBERS. SO I THINK THIS WOULD FIT, IN MY MIND, INTO A COASTAL FLOODPLAIN — BECAUSE COASTAL FLOODPLAINS INCLUDES GROUNDWATER. THERE ARE FLOODPLAINS OF MULTIPLE SOURCES. AND THE OTHER COMMENT I THINK I MADE IN THE DRB MEETING WAS TO COMMUNICATE WITH COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES AND BRING SOME ENGINEERS INTO THE FOLD EITHER, YOU KNOW, THROUGH ECRB OR OTHERWISE. BECAUSE THIS IS BECOMING MORE STANDARD. I’VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A NUMBER OF THOSE STUDIES FROM THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, AS PART OF THE COASTAL RESILIENCE. AND WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA BASED ON WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS HOW — THE DISTRIBUTION OF POTENTIAL PERCENT INCREASES IN PRESCRIPTION AND FLOW RATE ARE. SO IT’S NOT HARD TO PICK A NUMBER WITH SOME JUDGMENT, IN MY VIEW. I DON’T KNOW IF OTHERS HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: YEAH, IF I COULD ANSWER AT LEAST SOME PART OF THIS BEFORE KRIS HAS DONE WORK ON HOW RAINFALL INTENSITY IS LIKELY GOING TO CHANGE. AGAIN, KEEPING IN — YOU KNOW, KEEPING IN SYNC WITH WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDELINE DOCUMENT IS, IT’S A GUIDELINE FOR LOCALS, MAY BE DOING SOMETHING THAT FEMA AND OTHERS HAVE DONE WHICH IS, GIVE THE LIBERTY TO THE PLAN PREPARERS BUT GIVE THEM DIRECTION THAT RISK-BASED METHOD SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THEIR ASSESSMENTS OF JOINT PROBABILITIES OF RAINFALL AND KING TIDES, OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND WILDFIRES OR THINGS LIKE THAT, RIGHT? THE BIGGEST — I THINK LIKE I SAID, THIS IS A GOOD START BUT YOU ONLY START WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS 100 FEET WITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION, WHEREAS THE WORK IS GOING TO BE MILES UP INTO THE WATERSHED. RIGHT. I THINK THIS IS A CATALYST, I WILL SAY. AND I THINK IF YOU GET THIS RIGHT BY ADDRESSING ALL OF CLIMATE CHANGE-RELATED HAZARDS, THEN I THINK IT WILL BE REALLY A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OTHERS TO START BUILDING UPON THE EMISSIONS, THE AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENTS, ALL OF THOSE HAVE A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT WHICH IS A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE BAY. KRIS.

>>KRIS MAY: THANKS, DILIP. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS — I MEAN, MOST OF US WORKING ON, YOU KNOW, STORMWATER, WHEN WE’RE LOOKING AT INTENTION, WE LOOK AT NOAA ATLAS 14 WHICH LOOKS AT HISTORICAL CLIMATE TO DEVELOP THESE I.D.F. CURVES. BUT DEVELOPING THE FUTURE-LOOKING ONES HAS BEEN A BIG DATA GAP. NOAA IS WORKING ON ATLAS 15. YOU KNOW, THE FUNDING WAS CUT DURING THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. SO HAVING THOSE COME OUT FOR PEOPLE TO USE IS PROBABLY STILL FIVE YEARS AWAY. SO WE COMPLETED A STUDY WITH LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LAB DOING REGIONAL CLIMATE MODELING FOR THE BAY AREA SO THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN USE THIS STUDY TO TAKE THE NOAA ATLAS 14 I.D.F. CURVES AND PROJECT THEM INTO A FUTURE CLIMATE. YOU CAN DO YOUR FIVE-HOUR, THREE-HOUR, YOU CAN DO YOUR 10-YEAR, 24-HOUR. AND IT’S REALLY SCARY BECAUSE THE PRESCRIPTION CHANGES THAT ARE COMING ARE POTENTIALLY, LIKE, REALLY BIG. BUT I AGREE WITH DILIP’S COMMENT. IF WE’RE DOING A PLAN TO GET FEMA ACCREDITATION OR WE’RE WORKING WITH THE ARMY CORPS ON A PROJECT, WE DON’T NEED TO LOOK AT THE SHORELINE DESIGN. THEY WANT US TO LOOK AT THE IMPACT WILL BE ON STORMWATER FLOODING AND DO THAT INTO YOUR DRAINAGE MODEL. SO IT’S NOT JUST THE WAVES. IT’S LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE SOURCES OF FLOODING. AND THAT EXTREME PRESCRIPTION STUDY IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A REALLY GREAT RESOURCE FOR PEOPLE TO USE TO UNDERSTAND HOW OUR LOCAL PRESCRIPTION HERE IS GOING TO CHANGE. BECAUSE I THINK THE FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE STILL A WAYS OFF.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU, KRIS. RAMIN, I SEE YOUR HAND’S UP. SURE.

>>DANA BRECHWALD: KRIS, THIS IS DANA. I AM NOT ON CAMERA. I AM SITTING NEXT TO JACKIE. THERE YOU GO. I THINK THIS CONVERSATION IS FANTASTIC. WE’RE GOING TO BE INCLUDING A LOT OF LINKS TO DATA LAYERS OR RESOURCES ON HOW TO APPLY DATA WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SO ANYTIME YOU HAVE — LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, BACK WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN THE CONVERSATION WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT WAVE — WAVE CONDITIONS, WHAT WE — IF YOU CAN TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO TELL PEOPLE AND WHAT DATA WE CAN POINT THEM TO, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHAT WE’RE INCLUDING IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE DATA IS INCONSISTENTLY AVAILABLE AND SO WE DON’T WANT TO REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN’T DO, BASICALLY. BUT WE DO WANT TO PROVIDE AS MANY RESOURCES. AND IF YOU LOOK ON ONE OF THE SLIDES, ON SLIDE 32, WE HAVE A TON OF RECOMMENDED DATA LAYERS THAT WE WOULD LIKE PEOPLE TO ALSO INCLUDE. AND THE MORE WE CAN PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND LINKS TO DATA, THEN THE MORE LIKELY PEOPLE ARE TO ACTUALLY INCORPORATE ALL OF THAT, ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: GREAT.

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: SORRY. ON THAT POINT, TOO. WE’VE BEEN THINKING A LOT WHAT HAZARDS TO BE INCLUDED AND WHAT’S REQUIRED AND WHAT’S NOT AND SOME OF THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN, WHAT’S NECESSARY TO DO AT A, LIKE, LANDSCAPE SCALE VERSUS WHAT’S MORE SUITABLE FOR A SHORELINE REACH PROJECT LEVEL DESIGN? AND SEWS THAT — AND SO THAT’S WHY IT HAS MOVED DOWN TO RECOMMENDED. WE ARE NOT SURE IF WAVE RUN-UPS, WE DON’T HAVE THAT EXPERTISE, BUT WHO WE TALKED TO IN OUR ADVISORY GROUP, THIS IS MORE SUITABLE TO A DIFFERENT SCALE. SO EVEN LETTING US KNOW, MAYBE THERE’S RECOMMENDATION — REQUIREMENTS AT THAT SCALE BUT, AGAIN, THAT KIND OF COMES BACK TO THIS QUESTION, HOW FAR DO WE REQUIRE PROJECTS TO GO? SO REALLY GOOD TOPIC AND WE’RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO HAVE AN OVERARCHING ANALYSIS VERSUS MORE WHAT’S APPROPRIATE.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: WHO IS THE CONSULTANT? THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE WITH THE ADAPTATION ATLAS WILL ANSWER A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT — SO THEY LOOKED AT THE LANDSCAPE SCALE.

>>DANA BRECHWALD: THEY ARE OUR DATA AND MAPPING CONSULTANTS SO THEY ARE PLAYING A HUGE ROLE IN ENSURING WE’RE UTILIZING THE BEST DATA THAT THEY KNOW.

>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: I WILL BE 91 BY 2050 OR PROBABLY DEAD FOR A FEW YEARS, BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THESE MODELS THAT SAYS IF IT RISES — IF IT RISES X NUMBER OF FEET IT’S GOING TO BE OUT THERE, DOES THAT MEAN — I DON’T MEAN TO SOUND LIKE A LAND GRAB BUT THAT MEAN YOUR BCDC JURISDICTION IS INCREASING NOW? AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN YOU HAVE A MUCH GREATER ROLE TO PLAY. IT SEEMS TO ME. AND EVERYBODY’S LOOKING — PEOPLE ARE ASKING ME, BECAUSE I AM ON THE BOARD, WHAT IS BCDC’S REQUIREMENT FOR SEA LEVEL RISE? AND I THINK YOU ARE IN A VERY UNIQUE POSITION TO TAKE THAT LEADERSHIP ROLE AND DRIVE THE BUS, SO TO SPEAK.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, IT’S PEGGED, TOO. I MEAN, HIGH TIDE. SO IF HIGH TIDE CHANGES — WHEN IT CHANGES, NOT IF — WHEN IT CHANGES THE JURISDICTION ROLLS UP. WHEN MARSHES EXPAND INWARD, JURISDICTIONS ROLL UP. FIVE FEET ABOVE, YOU KNOW, ABOVE SEA LEVEL. SO, YES, IT DOES CONTINUE GROWING.

>>JENN HYMAN: THAT IS CORRECT. I HAVE TRIED TO — MEAN HIGH WATER RIGHT NOW IS DETERMINED BY NOAA ON AN EPIC-BY-EPIC BASIS. SO OUR MEAN HIGH WATER WILL JUMP IN A FEW YEARS WHEN NOAA REDOES THE STATISTICS ON TIDES. AND THAT’S WHEN OUR JURISDICTION WILL CHANGE. BUT IT IS — IT WILL MOVE WITH SEA LEVEL RISE.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: I’M SORRY. DOES THAT MEAN YOU POTENTIALLY ARE CAPTURING WAY MORE INFRASTRUCTURE? LIKE, DRAINAGE AND ALL OF THAT, THAT RIGHT NOW ISN’T IN JURISDICTION BUT —

>>JENN HYMAN: WELL, IT WILL MOVE UP VERY SLOWLY. SO — SO IN 2050 IN THEORY WHEN SEA LEVEL RISE IS CLOSE TO A FOOT, YOU KNOW, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE SLOPE OF THE SHORELINE. IF IT’S STEEP IT WON’T CHANGE THAT MUCH.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: IT HAS BEEN A PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO MARSH RESTORATION, BAYLANDS. THAT HAS MOVED IT HUNDREDS OF FEET, THOUSANDS OF FEET IN WHEN WE ARE DOING, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS LIKE SOUTH BASALT PONDS AND NORTH BASALT PONDS.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DILIP. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS AND I THINK HOUSING. IS THERE A DEFINITION — IS THERE GOING TO BE A DEFINITION OR IS THERE A DEFINITION THAT’S ALREADY OUT THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, LETS YOU — IF YOU’RE GOING TO USE A G.I.S. MAP OR SOMETHING, KIND OF MAP THAT WITH SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, DEFENSIBLE — YEAH, DEFINITION?

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: YEAH, I COULD RESPOND TO THAT. WE ARE REALLY KIND OF ACTIVELY WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE — OUR SENIOR MANAGER FOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM IS HELPING US TO — THERE ARE DEFINITIONS THAT EXIST. SO THERE’S DEFINITIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND THERE’S ALSO DEFINITIONS — THEN, FOR THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY, ONE THING WE’RE LOOKING AT IS CONTAMINATION WITHIN — IN OR NEAR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES AS A PRIORITY TO MAKE SURE THOSE GET LOOKED AT AND REALLY INCORPORATE INTO PLANNING. AND SO WE’VE BEEN TALKING TO THE WATER BOARD STAFF ABOUT HOW THEY LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES. THEY USE SOME CAL ENVIRON SCREENS. WE LOOK HOW THAT CAN BE INCLUDED? WE HEARD JURISDICTIONS NEED TO DEFINE THEM FOR THEMSELVES. THERE IS LOTS OF DIFFERING OPINION. WE ARE NOT EXACTLY SURE THE APPROACH. WE SET OUT A DEFINITION. AGAIN, IF IN OUR NEXT VERSION WE NEED TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY BEYOND THAT, MAYBE WE CAN HAVE A — AGAIN, I’M CAUTIOUS NEED TO USE THE WORD "STANDARD" BUT HAVE A STARTING POINT AND MAYBE HAVE SOME DEVIATION FROM IT.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. RYAN. PATRICK, SORRY. EVERYBODY GOES BY FIRST NAMES HERE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>>PATRICK RYAN: I DO.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY.

>>PATRICK RYAN: I LIKE JIM’S SUGGESTION OF SORT OF A TEMPLATE OR AN EXAMPLE PLAN BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD REALLY — YOU WANT TO SET THE JURISDICTIONS UP FOR SUCCESS IN THIS PROCESS. I THINK THAT WOULD HELP A LOT IN DOING IT. IF YOU FIND THAT YOU DON’T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR EVEN IF YOU DO, ANOTHER THING YOU MIGHT DO TO SORT OF BRING THE THING TO LIFE A LITTLE BIT WOULD BE TO WORK SOME EXAMPLES INTO THE ACTUAL TEXT. THERE’S A LOT OF JARGON AND A LOT OF ABSTRACT THOUGHTS BY NECESSITY. IT’S ALL VERY GOOD STUFF. YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB. BUT YOU DO START TO TRY TO — YOU TRY TO — YOU START TO LOSE TRACK OF WHAT’S ACTUALLY MEANT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN SECTION A-7, WHICH IS ON PAGE 62, YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT UPZONING, AND THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH THERE IS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOUSING. I’M LEFT WONDERING, DO THEY REALLY JUST MEAN HOUSING OR COULD IT BE A LOT OF OTHERS? SO IF YOU WERE TO WORK INTO THAT PARAGRAPH, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IN FOSTER CITY, UPZONING MIGHT MEAN THIS, OR IN SAN FRANCISCO, MAYBE IT’S NOT A VIABLE OPTION. THOSE SORT OF THINGS I THINK WOULD HELP TO BRING THE THING TO LIFE A LITTLE BIT. WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT CATEGORIES AND ASSETS, THERE’S A TABLE ON PAGE 55 WERE YOU LIST THINGS AND SOME OF THEM ARE VERY SPECIFIC WHEN WE’ TALKING — WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE FLOOD CONTROL AND INFRASTRUCTURE. IT’S LEVEES, PUMPS, DRAINS, CULVERTS, THAT SORT OF THING. IN SOME OTHER AREAS IT SEEMS A LOT LESS SPECIFIC. MAYBE THAT’S INTENTIONAL. BUT I’M TAKING A WALK DOWN THE SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT IN MY MIND AND I’M — YOU KNOW, I’M THINKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, RESTAURANT, MUSEUM, TOURISM. AND I CAN’T REALLY FIGURE OUT WHERE THOSE WOULD BE IN THE TABLE OR WHETHER THEY’RE REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A SEAPORT WHICH MAYBE COULD COVER A LOT OF THAT BUT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE IT’S WHAT’S INTENDED. THERE’S JOB SPACES WHICH IS REQUIRED. THERE’S ALSO WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED. MARINAS, ARE THEY REQUIRED? YOU MAY CONSIDER MORE SPECIFICITY IN THAT TABLE AND WHAT’S REQUIRED AND WHAT’S NOT REQUIRED. AND THEN, I GUESS, AS I WAS READING THROUGH IT, I KEPT WANTING TO HAVE A MAP. AND YOU’VE MENTIONED THERE’S SOME MAPPING CONSULTANTS AND THERE’S A LOT OF G.I.S. AROUND. I GUESS I’M WONDERING, JUST STARTING WITH THE BASIC JURISDICTIONS, IS THERE A MAP THAT OVERLAYS THE BCDC JURISDICTION WITH THE CITIES AND COUNTIES? AND IF THAT EXISTS, SHOULD THAT BE HERE? BECAUSE INEVITABLY, SINCE THE BURDEN HERE IS ON THE INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTIONS, THERE’S GOING TO BE GAPS BETWEEN THEM, IT SEEMS LIKE. AND SO ONE, SEEMS LIKE BCDC’S LOGICAL — A LOGICAL ROLE FOR BCDC TO MAKE SURE THOSE GAPS ARE FILLED, BASICALLY. BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN JUST THE JURISDICTIONS, I’M CURIOUS. I THINK ABOUT DRIVING DOWN HIGHWAY 80 TOWARDS THE BAY BRIDGE GOING THROUGH EMERYVILLE COMING AROUND THE CURVE. WETLANDS ON THE RIGHT. I’M ON THE HIGHWAY. AND I HAVE HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL ON THE LEFT. SO CALTRANS I THINK IS NOT A JURISDICTION THE WAY THAT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN. SO NOT REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE, UNCLEAR IF THEY CAN BE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE FUNDING OR NOT BECAUSE THEY’RE NORTH PART OF IT. BUT THE JURISDICTION THAT’S THERE, THE CITY OR COUNTY, WHETHER IT’S EMERYVILLE OR WHOEVER IT IS, THAT’S A BIG PART OF THEIR PLAN IS PROBABLY. SO I THINK IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE BCDC SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND MAP EVERY HOSPITAL, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT SHOULD BE THE LOCAL JURISDICTION. BUT SOME OF THESE VERY REGIONAL, YOU KNOW, ASSETS, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY MIGHT BE IDENTIFIED AND BE ON A MAP JUST TO GET PEOPLE ALL HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU.

>>BOB BATTALIO: CAN I JUMP IN ON THAT?

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: SURE.

>>BOB BATTALIO: WE’VE SEEN THAT A LOT. FOR EXAMPLE, OUT AT OCEAN BEACH, THE BIG — IN SAN FRANCISCO, THE BIG ISSUE IS THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES. SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZATION THAT HAS ASSETS CLOSEST TO THE SHORE, WHETHER IT’S A ROAD OR RAILROAD OR WASTEWATER, WHATEVER, TEND TO BE KIND OF DRAGGED IN TO SHORE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY. AND SO THOSE ASSETS HAVE A LOT OF DENSITY. LIKE INERTIA IN TERMS OF PLANNING SO I THINK THAT’S A GREAT COMMENT THAT WAS MADE. SOMETHING WE’VE SEEN. AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT YOU WILL START SEEING IT EVERYWHERE.

>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE’VE BEEN WORKING WITH LARGE WASTEWATER DISTRICTS. THEY ARE ALL INTERESTED. I CAN’T SPEAK FOR ALL OF THEM. BUT WE ARE — SINCE THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO A PLAN BUT THEY ARE SO CRITICAL BECAUSE THEY OWN ASSETS AND IN MANY CASES THEY’RE LANDOWNERS ALONG THE SHORELINE AS WELL, I THINK THERE’S MUTUAL INTEREST. THERE’S INTEREST IN THE CITIES ENGAGING THEM IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY AND IN A WAY THAT ISN’T AS AD HOC IN AN ORGANIZED WAY. THEY’RE ALSO INTERESTED IN ENSURING THAT THE PLANNING THAT THEY’RE DOING IS ALIGNING WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS SO WE HAVEN’T FIGURED OUT EXACTLY HOW WE’RE GOING TO MAKE THAT MATCH YET. WE’RE REALLY AWARE OF IT AND TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT HOW TO EASE THAT CONNECTION. AND ALSO RECOGNIZING THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS ALONG THE SHORELINE THAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS MAY NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER BECAUSE THEY’RE OWNED BY ANOTHER LANDOWNER, A LARGE LANDOWNER. AND SO HOPING THAT — HOPING THAT PEOPLE CAN GET, YOU KNOW, ENGAGEMENT AND BUY-IN, BUT IF NOT POSSIBLE, RECOGNIZING THAT AS LONG AS PEOPLE HAVE SHOWN THEY’VE TRIED TO ENGAGE — LIKE, WE’RE NOT GOING TO DENY A PLAN BECAUSE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK — OR THE RAILROADS. THE RAILROADS ARE A BETTER EXAMPLE BECAUSE THEY DON’T PARTICIPATE. YEAH, IT’S AN EXCELLENT POINT. I THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE CONTINUE WORKING ON IT OVER TIME AND LEARN HOW THE ADAPTATION PLANNING IS ACTUALLY GOING ONCE THE GUIDELINES ARE COMPLETED. LIKE YOU SAID, THIS IS SO ITERATIVE. WE ARE GOING TO BE LEARNING HOW TO DO THESE PLANS FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. I WON’T BE AROUND THEN, BUT —

>>BOB BATTALIO: AND WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK EVERYONE IS RECOGNIZING THAT. GOING BACK TO THE LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WASTEWATER IN PARTICULAR, THE WASTEWATER GROUPS — AND THEY’RE KIND OF LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. SOON AS THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO UPGRADE, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PERMITTING PROCESS. AND THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IS FREQUENTLY REQUIRING AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION AS WELL AS ON THE PACIFIC COAST IS REQUIRING CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT IT’S SUSTAINABLE OR HOVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, ACTUALLY OF PERMITTING. SO THERE ARE SOME — THESE FACILITIES DO HAVE SOME SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION PLANS, BUT IT’S HARD FOR THEM TO DO IT ON THEIR OWN, I THINK, GIVEN THEIR INERTIA, MASS, EVERYTHING ELSE. SO I THINK JOINT PLANNING WILL — GOING BACK TO YOUR GUIDELINES, IT MAY BE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IDENTIFIED AS A SPECIAL STUDY OR A DATA GAP IN THE LONG TERM. THE RAILWAYS AND ROADS CROSSINGS OF THE BAY DO PROVIDE A FLOOD PATHWAY. AND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED. YOU COULD ADDRESS IT WITHOUT SOLVING IT, BUT PERHAPS HAVING A SPECIAL STUDY, YOU KNOW, IN YOUR ADAPTIVE FRAMEWORK IS WHAT I’VE SEEN HAPPEN OR START TO HAPPEN ANYWAY.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU, BOB. I MAYBE JUST ADD I THINK IT’S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO USE THIS AS KIND OF THE CATALYST. I AGREE.

>>BOB BATTALIO: AND IN CALIFORNIA, THEY REALLY HAVE TO.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: YEAH.

>>BOB BATTALIO: I MEAN, IT’S NOT EASY FOR ANYONE, BUT I THINK — YES, I THINK WILL WORK TOGETHER ON IT.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: GREAT. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE BY THE BOARD?

>>BOB BATTALIO: I HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT. YOU KNOW, I THINK I MENTIONED THIS IN THE D.R.B. MEETING, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES IS DEALING WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK YOU HAVE SOME GOOD LANGUAGE IN THE DRAFT. I HAVEN’T STUDIED IT IN DETAIL, BUT I NOTICE THE CHANGES IN ZONING AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE ABILITY TO ADAPT LAND USE AT THE — TO ACCOMMODATE OR OTHERWISE ADAPT TO SEA LEVEL. BUT I THINK THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS KIND OF A TOUGH ONE BECAUSE UNTIL SOMEBODY DECIDES THEY NEED A PERMIT OR THEY TRY TO DO — I MEAN, WHAT’S THE HOOK? HOW DO THEY DO IT? ESPECIALLY SOME PEOPLE, ENTITIES ARE IN VERY DIFFICULT SITUATIONS. THIS IS SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T PLAN FOR, SO I THINK THAT’S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE HARDEST PIECE OF THIS.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU, BOB. I SEE JIM WITH HIS HAND UP.

>>V. CHAIR, JAMES FRENCH: I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST — THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A TRANSITIONAL COMMENT. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF PUBLIC UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT SEA LEVEL RISE MEANS TO ME OR WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO MY LOCALE OR WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO THE BAY TRAIL THAT I RIDE MY BIKE ON? AND YOU GUYS HAVE JUST THIS AWESOME TOOL IN THE BAY SHORELINE FLOOD EXPLORER, I THINK IT’S CALLED, MAYBE. AND IF YOU CAN GET THAT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND IF PEOPLE START TO SEE, HEY, THIS IS WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE TALKING ABOUT AND KIND OF WHAT DILIP WAS TALKING ABOUT, I GUESS, WHERE YOU TIE THE NUMBER OF FEET INTO WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE RATHER THAN A SPECIFIC YEAR, BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS ARGUE, IS TWO FEET GOING TO HAPPEN 2050, 2075, 2080? BUT PEOPLE START TO SEE, HEY, THERE ARE REAL NUMBERS. I CAN THEN IMAGINE — AND THERE IS NOT A HUGE LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT 24 INCHES, HOW THAT EFFECTS THE BAY. THERE’S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY EXACTLY WHAT YEAR IT WILL HAPPEN. WHETHER IT’S — THERE’S SOME UNCERTAINTY. BUT 24 INCHES IS PRETTY EASY TO DO G.I.S. AND YOU GUYS HAVE THAT REALLY AWESOME TOOL. IF YOU GET IT INTO NEWSPAPERS AND HAVE PUBLIC PEOPLE GO ON THEIR COMPUTERS AND CLICK THAT BUTTON AND PLAY WITH IT, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT OVER THE WATERCOOLER OR ZOOM MEETINGS. PEOPLE DON’T GO TO WATERCOOLERS BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS WORKING FROM HOME. WHEREVER THAT HAPPENS, I THINK IF YOU CAN GET SEA LEVEL RISE TO BE PART OF, NOT THIS VAGUE POLITICAL QUESTION, IS SEA LEVEL RISE HAPPENING OR NOT, BUT START MAKING IT CONCRETE AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT 24 INCHES MEAN. THIS IS WHAT ONE FOOT MEANS. THIS IS WHAT THREE FEET MEANS. YOU NEED TO SELL IT SO PEOPLE VISCERALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON HERE. WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF AWESOME INFORMATION THAT’S REALLY HARD FOR MOST PEOPLE TO WADE THROUGH ALL THAT BUT THE MAP YOU HAVE WILL CONNECT WITH PEOPLE’S VISCERA AND STARTS TO MEAN SOMETHING. AND THEN, THEY CAN START TO SAY, OH, I SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THIS, THEN, AND THEY CAN START READING THE TEXT THAT TAKES MORE EFFORT.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: AS A FOOTNOTE THAT, LIKE I KEEP SAYING, THERE’S BEEN SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON SEA LEVEL RISE, PLANNING ITSELF OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS AND WE PAID LESS ATTENTION TO THE HAZARDS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH BEFORE SEA LEVEL RISE. AND WE ARE DEALING WITH THOSE RIGHT NOW ON AN ANNUAL BASIS EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN ATMOSPHERIC RIVER EVENT, EVERY TIME WE HAVE A SUPER STRONG SOUTH WIND. AND SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE RESULTING IN PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR ABATEMENTS AND SHORELINES AND SEA WALLS. IT IS NOT SEA LEVEL RISE. IT IS ALL OF THOSE NEW CULVERTS AND NEW PUMP STATIONS BECAUSE OF URBAN FLOODING THAT IS RESULTING IN THE PROJECT PERMITS THAT ARE COMING IN. SO I THINK A LITTLE MORE — AND, AGAIN, IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE BCDC. I THINK OTHERS HAVE DONE IT. FINDING THE RIGHT — AND I THINK WE AS A BOARD CAN LIKELY HELP YOU WITH FINDING THE RIGHT DATA SOURCES FOR, YOU KNOW — WAVE HEIGHTS HAVE INCREASED OR THE FREQUENCY OF WHAT WE CALL 25 YEARS HAS NOW CHANGED TO 10 YEARS. THOSE ARE RESULTING IN ISSUES. THERE ARE SOME SOURCES OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE CAN PROBABLY — INFORMATION THAT WE CAN PROBABLY HELP YOU WITH PUTTING INTO — I DON’T KNOW WHAT FORMAT. I DON’T KNOW WHERE WE ARE WITH THE BAY ADAPT. IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED? IS IT GOING TO BE FINALIZED AND ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION OR IS THIS — YOU KNOW.

>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE HAVE A TIMELINE WE CAN SHARE TO WRAP UP. AND I WILL GIVE THE BAY ADAPT SUMMIT ON AUGUST 8 WHICH WILL BE AT THE EXPLORATORIUM AND HUGE SHOUT-OUT TO KRIS MAY WHO IS ONE OF OUR AWARDEES AND SHE WILL BE HONORED AT THAT EVENT. SO THAT IS ONE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN ENGAGE WITH REALLY A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC AND ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE HAVE C.B.O.’S COMING AND PROFESSIONALS LIKE KRIS AND ALL OF YOU. SO THAT’S ONE WAY WE CAN START TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION. AND WE’LL HAVE PRESS THERE AS WELL.

>>BOB BATTALIO: I JUST WANT TO JUMP IN. USING SEA LEVEL RISE AS A THRESHOLD IN THE ADAPTATION PLAN, THE AMOUNT OF SEA LEVEL RISE OR THE SEA LEVEL I THINK IS A GOOD ONE. IT’S SOMETHING THAT RECENTLY PACIFICA USES THAT APPROACH. CITY OF PACIFICA HAS THAT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE. AND I THINK, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO MY COMMENT ABOUT THE ELEVATOR DESIGNED FOR THREE TO SIX AND IF YOU DESIGN FOR LESS THAN SIX FEET OF SEA LEVEL RISE, HAVE AN ADAPTATION PLAN TO DEAL WITH THAT HIGHER AMOUNT. I THINK GOING BACK TO YOUR NEAR-TERM PLANNING, I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPLIT THAT BETWEEN SOMETHING OF GREATER RISK TOLERANCE LIKE A TRAIL OR SOMETHING AND WHAT YOU HAVE THERE SEEMS ONE FOOT OF SEA LEVEL RISE LOOKS PRETTY REASONABLE OR EVEN LESS, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING. BUT THEN, WHEN YOU GET INTO A PROJECT THAT COSTS MORE, IS MORE SENSITIVE OR WHATEVER, HAS ANY KIND OF LIFE SAFETY COMPONENT, THEN, YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO WITH TWO FEET, FOR EXAMPLE, AT LEAST, OR THREE IF IT’S GOING TO GO OUT TO 2070. I THINK IT’S PROBABLY GOOD TO GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE A LITTLE BIT. AGAIN, THOUGH, THIS COMES DOWN TO RISK TOLERANCE AND, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH FAITH YOU HAVE IN THE MEDIAN AND IT’S A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE, AND I THINK IT’S ALSO A MATTER OF RESPONSIBILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY. SO A LOT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IS BASED ON, YOU KNOW, SHORTER TERM THINKING, PERHAPS. SO I THINK THAT’S WHY THE STATE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN RISK-AVERSE, KNOWING YOU DON’T WANT TO BE AT THE MEDIAN BECAUSE THE IMPLICATION OF A ROLL OF THE DICE OR 50/50 IS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME PROBLEMS. THAT’S MY PERSPECTIVE ON WHY THIS STATE HAS BEEN A LITTLE MORE CONSERVATIVE IN THE SENSE OF BEING RISK-AVERSE. I DIDN’T MEAN TO SAY CONSERVATIVE. I THINK THAT’S A BAD WORD. I’M NOT SURE. BUT ANYWAY, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: WELL, AND MAYBE I’LL — I WANT TO JUST COMMENT ON THAT. PUBLIC FUNDS, CITIES, RESOURCES ARE LIMITED. YOU KNOW, YOU’RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN WITH WHAT YOU GOT. AND SO I AGREE. IF YOU CAN BUILD MORE RESILIENCE INTO YOUR SYSTEM, BY ALL MEANS YOU SHOULD BE DOING IT. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THIS OTHER, YOU KNOW, CURVE OF HOW MUCH MONEY IS AVAILABLE OR WHAT RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE. AND THAT KIND OF IS THE COUNTERPOINT TO THE RISK. SO —

>>BOB BATTALIO: NO, I AGREE. A DOLLAR TODAY IS WORTH MORE THAN A DOLLAR TOMORROW. AND THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT I THINK, YEAH, ARE HARD TO DECIDE HERE. GOING BACK TO SOMETHING THAT DILIP SAID. I THINK THE ECRB COULD HELP WITH SOME OF THE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS AND THE DATA SOURCES. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED IF THAT’S JUST THE JUMP BALL WITH A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN PUBLIC MEETINGS. I THINK THE BOARD DOES HAVE SOME EXPERTISE AND IT MIGHT BE USEFUL. YOU KNOW.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE PERMITTED BY BCDC, THE BOARD WILL HAVE INPUT ON IT. BUT, YEAH, I’M ALL FOR US BEING ABLE TO SHARE OUR EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE UPFRONT IN THE GUIDANCE BUT IN THE END, IT WILL BE THE BOARD, I THINK, THAT HELPS SAY YEA OR NAY ON A PERMIT. IS THIS A SAFE DESIGN? IS THIS A REASONABLE DESIGN? OR IS IT —

>>BOB BATTALIO: YEAH, I THINK YOU’RE RIGHT. FOR THE BIGGER ONES ON NEW BAY FILL. GOING BACK TO THE FOSTER CITY PROJECT, WE DIDN’T REVIEW THAT BECAUSE IT WAS — I DON’T THINK THE ECRB REVIEWED THAT, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, BECAUSE IT WAS ON OLD BAY FILL. IT WASN’T PART — IT DIDN’T FALL INTO THE ECRB PURVIEW. THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DID LOOK AT IT. THAT WASN’T REALLY — THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DOESN’T HAVE THE SAME ENGINEERING — THEY WEREN’T PROVIDING ENGINEERING COMMENTS, REALLY. SO I THINK THERE IS A GAP HERE. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN, NOT NEW FILL INTO THE BAY, NECESSARILY. YEP. THANKS.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. WELL, SEEING AS HOW I HAVE A 4:00 DEADLINE WITH MY PARKING, I THINK WE’VE ASKED — WE’VE KIND OF ASKED AND MADE OUR COMMENTS. ONE OF THE NOTES HERE — ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS WHETHER A FOLLOW-UP IS CALLED FOR. DANA, JACKIE, I KIND OF THINK IT IS. BUT I’LL LEAVE IT TO YOU AND JENN TO, YOU KNOW, DECIDE. I THINK THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF GREAT INPUT, A LOT OF GREAT QUESTIONS HERE TODAY. AND, YEAH, I’M EXCITED TO SEE THE NEXT DRAFT. WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN IT’S, YOU KNOW, GOING TO BE IN A STATE THAT’S SHAREABLE WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES WHO MAY HAVE MORE INPUT.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: WE ARE NOT APPROVING THIS, RIGHT? I DON’T SEE A MOTION — THERE’S NO MOTION OR ANYTHING. IT’S AN INFORMATIONAL —

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: YES.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: BUT I THINK THE MORE FOLKS IN THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY WHO KNOW ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING AND WHAT’S GOING ON HERE THE BETTER. SO I THINK THERE WAS A NOTE TO NOT SHARE THE RSAP GUIDELINES NOW, BUT WHAT MY COMMENT WAS ABOUT WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHEN THAT IS — WHEN IT IS SHAREABLE, WHEN IT’S IN A STATE TO BE SHAREABLE. I GOT COLLEAGUES WHO THEY KNOW WE’RE — I’M ON THE BOARD HERE. THEY WANT — THEY WANT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION AS WELL.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: I’M HOPING BEFORE THE FINAL DRAFT THAT WE HAVE A JOINT — I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S DOABLE. BUT A JOINT ECRB AND D.C.B. THERE IS A HEAVY COMPONENT THAT’S BEING LOOKED AT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE ENGINEERING PRACTITIONERS AND WE ARE LOOKING AT IT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE PLANNERS AND THE COMMUNITY PLANNERS AND THE LANDSCAPE, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTS. SO SOMETIMES MAYBE THAT’S A DISCUSSION INTERNALLY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE WITH YOU, JENN, TO SEE IF IT’S — IF IT’S POSSIBLE, IF IT’S A GOOD IDEA. I’M THINKING ABOUT HOW THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, OUR DESIGN COMMITTEE DOES IT WITH THE D.R.B. FOR CERTAIN ASPECTS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE GOOD? AND SECONDLY, I’M HOPING WITH THE NEW RELEASE OF THE 2024 THAT I THINK THERE WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGES WITH THE WAY WE’RE LOOKING AT PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. INTERNALLY, MAYBE WE HAVE AN ECRB MEETING DEDICATED TO WHAT ARE THE NEW STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD BE USING FOR PERMIT REVIEW? RIGHT NOW, IT’S VERY SIMPLE. MID CENTURY, YOU KNOW, MID CENTURY, ADAPTABLE TO END OF CENTURY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO DO IT. ADAPTABLE TO THE END OF THE CENTURY, SO IT’S AN INTERNAL THING. I’D LIKE TO BRING IT UP TO JENN. AND THE BOARD.

>>KRIS MAY: YEAH. THIS IS KRIS. I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT AS WELL. IT’S GOING BACK TO BOB’S COMMENT NEAR THE BEGINNING. I THINK IT’S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO NOT HARNESS THE BRAIN TRUST OF THIS ECRB AND DIALOGUE TO SUPPORT THIS PLAN BEFORE IT GOES OUT TO THE BROADER ENGINEERING COMMUNITY AND TO ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO TALK AND DO SOME INPUT TOGETHER. AND I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT COULD HAPPEN BUT I FEEL LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT AT SOME PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE HOW WE CAN COMMENT ON THINGS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND THINGS RELATED TO, LIKE, THE FOSTER CITY PROJECT AND THIS PLAN. SO IF THERE’S A WAY TO MAKE THAT KIND OF DIALOGUE HAPPEN, I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU, KRIS. SO I SEE NODDING HEADS, JACKIE AND DANA.

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: I’M HAPPY TO SHARE WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS ARE AND MAYBE THAT CAN HELP SUPPORT WHAT THE NEXT STEPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF YOUR GROUP MIGHT BE. WE HAVE A TIMELINE GRAPH UP HERE. WE HAVE FINISHED DRAFT ONE. SO YOU HAVE ALL SEEN THAT. THE OTHER THING WE DIDN’T KIND OF EXPLICITLY NOTE IN THIS MEETING BUT SOME MAY BE AWARE. WE HAVE AN ADVISORY GROUP WHO HAS BEEN SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING. IT’S ABOUT 40-PLUS FOLKS. A DIVERSE RANGE OF EXPERTISE. WE HAVE COASTAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, HABITAT RESTORATION SPECIALISTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. KIND OF THE WHOLE SPAN OF TOPIC AREAS IS KIND OF HOW WE HAVE IDENTIFIED ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND THEY KIND OF SPAN THE BAY AREA GEOGRAPHIC-WISE. SO WE — OBVIOUSLY, YOUR INPUT IS HIGHLY VALUABLE AND IMPORTANT, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO ENSURE THAT FEEDBACK HAS BEEN INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT. AND I JUST NOTE THAT BECAUSE THAT’S ON THIS LIST. SO WE CALLED OUR FIRST DRAFT THE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO GET AN INITIAL FEEDBACK FROM THOSE FOLKS. AND THAT WAY WHEN WE’RE SHARING IT ADDITIONALLY, WE’RE ABLE TO REFINE IT FURTHER AND MAKE SURE WE’RE PUTTING OUT OUR BEST QUALITY WORK. WE ALSO HAD A SERIES OF COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION WORKSHOPS. DILIP ATTENDED ONE IN EAST OAKLAND AND IT WAS OUTDOORS. I WON’T TALK TOO MUCH TO THOSE. THAT WAS TO GET INITIAL FEEDBACK ON OUR DRAFT GUIDELINES WHICH WE’VE ACTUALLY BEEN INCORPORATING. THIS IS A SHORT TIMELINE, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE. WE ARE VERY RAPIDLY TURNING AROUND A SECOND DRAFT. THIS WILL GO TO OUR ADVISORY GROUP FOR A TWO-WEEK REVIEW PERIOD IN JULY. SO IN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS. WE’RE ALSO PLANNING ON HOLDING A PRACTITIONER WORKSHOP. REALLY KIND OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ON THIS BEFORE THAT IS A LITTLE BROADER BUT WE NEED TO GET THESE GUIDELINES AND PRACTITIONERS — IN FRONT OF PRACTITIONERS. THOSE IN PUBLIC WORKS. WE HAD FOCUS GROUPS ON SUBREGIONAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT DANA PRESENTED EARLIER SO WE HAD A SERIES OF FOCUS GROUPS FOR CONSULTANTS AS WELL AS THE NONJURISDICTIONAL GROUPS SO WE INTEND TO ENGAGE THOSE FOLKS AGAIN IN DRAFT TWO REALLY GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE GUIDELINES AND THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME SELECT ECRB MEMBERS TO ATTEND. THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING TOO MANY FOLKS. THAT’S KIND OF THE NEXT INPUT OPPORTUNITY. WE WILL THEN TURN AROUND THOSE COMMENTS TO HAVE A PUBLIC DRAFT. DRAFT THREE FOR A ONE-MONTH PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENT. SO THAT IS REALLY THE FIRST PUBLIC VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT THAT WE’LL HAVE OUT. AND AROUND THAT WE’LL HAVE A COMMISSION BRIEFING. BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT WE’LL HAVE A COMMISSION HEARING. AND WE WILL BRING THIS FOR COMMISSION VOTE AND HOPEFUL ADOPTION IN DECEMBER.

>>JENN HYMAN: JACKIE MENTIONED THERE IS A PRACTITIONER WORKSHOP. THAT’S NOT A PUBLIC MEETING. AND UP TO FOUR ECRB MEMBERS CAN ATTEND THAT. IT HAS TO BE SORT OF LESS THAN HALF OF THE BOARD NUMBERS. [LAUGHTER]

>>JENN HYMAN: AND YOU CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: I NEED TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THAT ONE. THE WHOLE BOARD GOES ON A BIKE RIDE AND BAY TRAIL, DOES THAT STOP US FROM DOING A LOT OF THINGS? [LAUGHTER]

>>JENN HYMAN: UNLESS YOU’RE JUST ATTENDING AS A PRACTITIONER. AND NOT A BOARD MEMBER. BUT YEAH.

>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: WE’LL HAVE A FOLLOW-UP, I BELIEVE. WE HAVE NOT PUT OUT OUR SAVE THE DATES YET. IT’S TENTATIVELY JULY 23.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. I THINK THAT CONCLUDES TODAY’S PRESENTATION OF THE — CONSIDERATION OF THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DRAFT GUIDELINE. AND SO LET’S MOVE TO ADJOURNMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IS THERE — ADJOURN.

>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: I MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?

>>SPEAKER: SECOND.

>>CHAIR, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSES AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. I THANK YOU, ALL, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.

>>DILIP TRIVEDI: THANK YOU SO MUCH. JACLYN AND DANA, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.

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.