May 16, 2024 Commission Meeting

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comment Period
   (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.
   (Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]
4. Approval of Minutes for May 2, 2024 Meeting
   (Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]
5. Report of the Chair
6. Report of the Executive Director
7. Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters
   Supplemental Listing
   (Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]
8. Public Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.002.00
   The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program for existing gas and electrical transmission structures throughout the Commission’s jurisdiction, excluding the Suisun Marsh
   Application Summary
   Staff Presentation
   Applicant Presentation
   (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]
9. Public Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.003.00md
   The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program of existing gas and electrical transmission structures in the Suisun Marsh.
   Application Summary
   (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]
10. Public Hearing and Possible Vote on 505 East Bayshore Road Permit Application
    The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Regis Homes Bay Area, LLC, to redevelop an approximately 2.54-acre industrial parcel with a new residential project consisting of 56 for-sale townhouses, as well as shoreline public access and open space areas, within the Bay and 100-foot shoreline band at 505 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City, San Mateo County.
    Application Summary
    Letter of Support
    Letter of Support
    Staff Presentation
    Applicant Presentation
    (Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]
11. Commission Authorization of an Interagency Flooding and Sea Level Rise Memorandum of Understanding
    The Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BCDC and the member agencies of the Bay Area Regional Collaborative (BARC). The purpose of the MOU is to coordinate efforts to address the threats of flooding and sea level rise the San Francisco Bay Area.
    Attachment A
    Presentation
    (Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]
12. Adjournment

This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting.

Administrative Permit Applications

The Commission has received the following minor amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program for certification since the last listing.

Articles about the Bay and BCDC

China Basin revealed: How a ‘complicated land-use deal’ yielded a new gem by the bay

Will Travis Obituary

Minutes

Audio recording

Audio transcript
>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

LET’S CALL THE ROLL.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR

WASSERMAN?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

ADDIEGO?

>>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER AHN? AHN HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER BEACH?

>>SPEAKER: PRESENT.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

ECKLUND?

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

GILLMOR?

>>SPEAKER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

GUNTHER?

GUN HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ?

>>V. CHAIR, KARL HASZ: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: KIM

BAIL?

>>SPEAKER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: NELSON?

>>BARRY NELSON: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

MOULTON-PETERS?

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

PEMBERTON?

>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: PINE?

>>DAVE PINE: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? RAN.

>>SPEAKER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: HAVE WE

MISSED ANYONE?

>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER

JOHN-BAPTISTE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK

YOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN, YOU HAVE

A QUORUM. THANK YOU FOR THOSE

OF YOU WHO ARE HERE VIRTUALLY

WHO ARE MEETING OUR STATUTORY

REQUIREMENT TO HAVE SOMEBODY IN

THE BUILDING. WE ARE NOW AT

ITEM THREE PUBLIC COMMENT SIERRA

DO WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE

SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

THIS IS TO ADDRESS MATTERS THAT

ARE NOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY FOR

WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE A HEARING.

YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THERE ARE

NO COMMENTS IN-PERSON AND NO

HANDS RAISED.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO MY

— OH I’M SORRY. THAT BRINGS US

TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF

MAY 2ND, 2024. WE HAVE BEEN ED

DRAFTS OF THOSE MINUTES DO I

HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO

APPROVE?

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I MOVE

APPROVAL, PAT EKLUND.

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I’LL

SECOND.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ECKLUND,

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER

KISHIMOTO. ARE THERE ANY

OBJECTIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE

MINUTES?

>>MARIE GILMORE: ONE

ABSTENTION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER GILLMOR ABSTAINS.

>>SPEAKER: I WILL WILL BE AB

STAINING.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: TWO

ABSTENTIONS. THE MINUTES ARE

APPROVED. THAT BRINGS US TO MY

REPORT I WANT TO START BY

THANKING THE GOVERNOR, LARRY

WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILIS

WANT TO RECOGNIZE ON BEHALF OF

THE COMMISSION THAT THE

GOVERNOR’S MAY BUDGET DOES

INCLUDE FUNDING TO START

IMPLEMENTING SB272. AND IN THIS

VERY DIMPLE BUDGET YEAR, WE NEED

TO THANK HIM FOR DOING THAT AND

HIS COMMITMENT TO SHORELINE

RESILIENCE AND OUR — AND THIS

IS A VERY BROAD OUR,

A VERY BIG TENT — ABILITY TO

START DISSEMINATING THESE

GUIDELINES AND START

IMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY WE THEM

AND PROJECTS TO SAVE US ALL FROM

THE INUNDATION THAT IS COMING.

I WAS PLEASED IN A NUMBER OF

WAYS ON TUESDAY BAY

PLANNING COALITION HOSTED THEIR

SPRING SUMMIT FOCUSED ON

FINANCING ADAPTATION TO RISING

SEA LEVEL.

THEY HAD A FULL ARRAY OF

SPEAKERS AND PANELISTS TALKING

ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING HAPPEN

AND THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS. WE

WERE KICKED OFF WITH A KEYNOTE

BY FORMER MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF OF

OAKLAND, WHOSE THEME WAS HOPE,

CHANGE, ACTION. AND SOME OF THE

THEMES THAT WE’RE STATED

THROUGHOUT THE VARIOUS SPEAKERS

WERE, WE DO NEED TO WORK

TOGETHER. WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE

THAT WE CAN ONLY ADDRESS THIS AS

A REGION, THAT IT’S GOING TAKE,

AS WE WELL KNOW, SOURCES, FUNDS

FROM MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES TO

MEET THE COST, THE ESTIMATED

$110 BILLION COST, AND WE ALL

THAN’S A LOW FIGURE, A SCARY

FIGURE, BUT LOW FIGURE. THERE

WAS ALSO SOME EMPHASIS ON THE

IMPORTANCE OF STORY TELLING,

BOTH FOR OURSELVES AND AS WE

COMMUNICATE OUR ISSUES TO

ELECTED LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS

AND TO THE PUBLIC THAT, WE NEED

TO KEEP IN MIND STORY THAT

CONVEY BOTH WHAT MAY HAPPEN, AND

THE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN, IN

FACT, ADAPT AND FUND

ADAPTATION.

I HAD THE CHALLENGE OF

SUMMARIZING SOME FIVE HOURS OF

PRESENTATIONS IN TEN MINUTES.

AND I THINK I ROSE TO THE

CHALLENGE. BUT IT WAS A VERY

GOOD CONFERENCE. I WANT TO

THANK EVERYBODY WHO WAS AT THE

METRO CENTER TWO WEEKS AGO. OUR

ABILITY TO MEET TOGETHER, I

THINK, DOES ENHANCE OUR ACTIONS

AS A COMMISSION. RECOGNIZING

THAT FOR MANY, THE CONVENIENCE

OF BEING ABLE TO ATTEND BY ZOOM

IS IMPORTANT, AND

ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL.

NONETHELESS N DOING THIS WORK,

WHICH IS NOT EASY, HAVING PEOPLE

MEET TOGETHER AND BE ABLE TO SEE

EACH OTHER AND TALK OFFLINE A

BIT, IS ALWAYS VERY HELPFUL.

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER HAS ASKED

FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO

COMMENT ON THE SEA LEVEL RISE

PRESENTATION THAT WE HEARD AND

HE NOW HAS THE FLOOR.

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU MR.

CHAIRMAN. JUST VERY BRIEFLY, I

WANT TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY

THAT IN THINKING ABOUT BEN

HAMILTON’S PRESENTATION, AND THE

FACT THAT THE HIGH SCENARIO FOR

SEA LEVEL RISE IS NOW LOWER, AND

THAT WE WON’T SEE — WE REALLY

DON’T HAVE A CHANCE, ACCORDING

TO THEIR NEW PROJECTIONS OF

SEEING THREE METERS OF SEA LEVEL

RISE UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE

22nd CENTURY, THAT MEANS

EVERYTHING THAT WE’RE DOING NOW,

PARTICULARLY THE WETLANDS

RESTORATION IS GOING TO RESULT

IN ANOTHER HALF OR MAYBE A FULL

CENTURY OF BENEFITS TO THE

REGION BEFORE THEY’RE FINALLY

INUNDATED. AND THE SAME THING

GOES THROUGH FOR ANY HARD

STRUCTURES WE PUT IN THERE. SO,

I THINK IT AD ADDS TREMENDOUS

FRAME OF THE VALUE OF WHAT WE DO

IN THE PRESENT DAY. THAT BEING

SAID, I ALSO WANT TO SHARE THAT

THE WHOLE PROCESS OF ICE SHEET

COLLAPSE, WHICH IS THE MECHANISM

THAT’S DRIVING THAT HIGH

SCENARIO, IS STILL VERY, VERY

UNCERTAIN. AND I HAVE A

COLLEAGUE LOOKING AT THESE

ISSUES FROM A CONCERNED

SCIENTIST BOARD AND SHE SHARED

WITH ME THAT HE THINKS IT’S A

LITTLE TOO EARLY TO PUT THE IDEA

IN OUR POCKET THAT WE’RE NOT

GOING TO SEE ONE OF THESE REALLY

EXTREME SCENARIOS. SO, WITH

THAT PROVISO, I THINK THE

INFORMATION THAT WE GOT INFORMS

THE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING

TODAY PARTICULARLY TO

RESTORATION BECAUSE IT’S GOING

TO PAY OFF FOR THE FUTURE OF THE

REGION THAN WE THOUGHT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. IT’S AN IMPORTANT

REMINDER THAT AS WE FOCUS OUR

EFFORTS ON THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE

IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR A FUTURE

THAT IS MODERATELY FAR OFF, THE

THINGS WE DO WILL BENEFIT US IN

BETWEEN, AS WELL. OUR NEXT

MEETING WILL OCCUR IN TWO WEEKS,

ON JUNE 6TH, THE MEETING WILL BE

HELD IN THE METRO CENTER, AND

—

SORRY, I’M PAUSING BECAUSE I

NEED TO SWITCH BETWEEN

DOCUMENTS. WE EXPECT THAT WE

WILL HAVE PRESENTATIONS ON —

SORRY. THE AGENDA WILL INCLUDE

A PRESENTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT

OF FINANCE DESCRIBING THE

MISSION BASED REVIEW OF BCDC’S

PERMITTING PROCESS AND SYSTEMS

CONTRACT TO DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL

SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND

THIRD UPDATE ON PROGRESS ON THE

COMMISSION’S STRATEGIC PLAN.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO EX

PARTE MATTERS. IF THERE IS ANY

COMMISSIONER WHO WISHES TO

REPORT ON A COMMUNICATION

CONCERNING A COMMISSION MATTER,

THAT THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY PUT

ON THE RECORD, NOW IS THE TIME

TO SHARE THAT. THIS IS ON

ADJUDICATORY MATTERS, NOT

MISCELLANEOUSLY MATTERS OF

POLICY, AND YOU DO NEED TO FILE

SOMETHING IN WRITING. BUT NOW

IS THE TIME TO SPEAK, AND I SEE

COMMISSIONER ECKLUND HAS HER

HAND UP.

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: NOT EX

PARTE I WANTED TO QUESTION YOU

SAID IT WAS AT THE METRO CENTER

WE CAN COME INTO THE OFFICE OR

INTO THE MEETING ROOMS THAT WAS

YOUR POINT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME

EMPHASIZE PARTICULARLY AS WE

TALK ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN I

THINK HAVING AS MANY THERE AS

POSSIBLE MAKES IT A PRODUCTIVE

MEETING.

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANKS

FOR CLARIFYING THAT. WASN’T

QUITE SURE WHAT THAT MEANT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO

THE REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR.

>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU

CHAIR WASSERMAN, JUST TO LET

PEOPLE KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER

GILMORE IS HAVING SOME TECHNICAL

ISSUES SO SHE’LL BE TRYING TO

GET BACK IN IF SHE’S NOT HERE

NOW. FIRST I WANT TO APOLOGIZE

TO THE COMMISSION, AND AGAIN TO

STEVE GOLDBECK FOR HAVING TO

VACATE THIS BUILDING TWO WEEKS

AGO 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE

COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH MEANS

THAT STEVE HAD TO SIT IN MY

CHAIR UNEXPECTEDLY AND I MISSED

HIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS

RETIREMENT. I HAD ALREADY JUST

A FEW MINUTES EARLIER THAT MY

WIFE HAD TESTED FOR COVID SO I

FIGURED YOU ALL WOULD BE MUCH

HAPPIER IF I LEFT THE OFFICE AND

BEGAN TO ISOLATE. THAT I DID,

ALTHOUGH I HAD TO TAKE BART TO

GET HOME SO I WE’RE A MASK.

WHILE LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW AT

BART I SMILED AT HOW FAST I

COULD GET TO OUR HOME OVER 20

MILES AWAY. NOT ALWAYS THE CASE

OF COURSE LINOLEATE HAS IT ON

THIS DAY MAY 18th FIRST

REGULARLY SCHEDULED MISSISSIPPI

STEAMBOAT HEADED SOUTH LIKELY AT

FOUR MILES PER HOUR. A GREAT

COINCIDENCE 134 YEARS LATER ON

THIS DATE THE FIRST REGULARLY

SCHEDULED AIRPLANE SERVICE

BETWEEN NEW YORK AND LONDON

BEGAN JUST AS TRAVEL TIMES

CONTINUE TO GET SHORT YOU CAN

GET STUCK IN A 90 MINUTE TRAFFIC

JAM JUST TO GET TO THE BAY

BRIDGE AS WE DID ON SUNDAY AFTER

THE GIANTS GAME. WITH REGARD TO

BUDGET AND STAFFING BCDC HAS

SELECTED ALYSSA PLEASE TO JOIN

KATHARINE PAN SHORELINE

DEVELOPMENT PERMITTING TEAM AS A

COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST ALYSSA

IS A GOLDEN BEAR HAVING EARNED

HER UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM

CAL LANDSCAPE TECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING JOINS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND

GENERAL PLAN POLICY DEVELOPMENT

RELATED TO COASTAL PLANNING

CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY.

GREATER NEWS CHAIR WASSERMAN

GOVERNOR NEWSOME’S MAY REVISE

BUDGET PLAN INCLUDES FULL

FUNDING FOR BCDC AND THE COASTAL

COMMISSION TO HIRE STAFF TO

IMPLEMENT SB272 LEGISLATION

AUTHORED BY SENATOR JOHN LAIRD

REQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO

CREATE RISING SEA LEVEL

ADAPTATION PLANS THAT EITHER WE

OR THE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL

NEED TO APPROVE. YESTERDAY I

SPENT THE DAY IN SACRAMENTO

WATCHING ASSEMBLY AND SENATE

BUDGET HEARINGS, AND I THINK

THAT I’M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT

NONE OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE

MEMBERS DEALT AT ALL WITH RISING

SEA LEVEL FUNDING, LEADING US,

PERHAPS TO HOPE THAT NOBODY WILL

QUESTION ITS IMPORTANCE.

LEADERSHIP OF THE RESOURCES

AGENCY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE

OF THE SMALL AMOUNT OF FUNDING

IN THE GOVERNOR’S PLAN AND I

KNOW THEY WILL BE WORKING ON OUR

BEHALF. MORE INFORMATION TO

COME WHEN WE RECEIVE IT.

NOW FOR SOME NOT SO GREAT BUDGET

NEWS, AS PART OF THE BUDGET PLAN

BCDC AND ALL OTHER STATE

ORGANIZATIONS WILL FAIRS FACE A

GENERAL FUND CUT OF SOMETHING

LIKE 8% NEXT YEAR WE HAVE

STARTED TO PLAN FOR IT AND WILL

KEEP YOU UPDATED ON

RAMIFICATIONS. GOOD NEWS, MANY

OF OUR STAFF ALONG WITH

COMMISSIONER AHN TO MY RIGHT

PARTICIPATED IN A WORKSHOP WITH

OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

ADVISERS LAST WEEK AS PART OF

THE ORGANIZATIONALITY

DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING CONTRACT

THAT AIMS TO INCREASE

COMMUNICATION AND ALIGNMENT

BETWEEN BCDC AND OUR ADVISERS.

EACH OF US WHO ATTENDED HAVE

REALTY POSITIVE THOUGHTS ABOUT

TIME SPENT TOGETHER AND WE HAVE

TALKED AT LENGTH HOW TO BEST

WORK AS COLLAB RURALITYS I AM

SURE WE’LL HAVE MORE TO REPORT

IN THE FUTURE. I’M RELATIONSHIP

TO REPORT THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN

YOU APPROVED LAST NOVEMBER HAS

BEEN APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA’S

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

THIS PAST TUESDAY THEREFORE THE

NEW SEAPORT PLAN IS NOW IN

EFFECT. GREAT NEWS GOVERN ALL

THE WORK THAT CORY AND THE TEAM

PUT INTO IT STARTING, REMEMBER,

WITH THE HOWARD TERMINAL ISSUE.

FULL OF GOOD NEWS TODAY

ESPECIALLY TO MY LEFT AS

COMMISSIONER BEACH WATCHES.

THIS WEEK THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF

ENGINEERS 2024 WORKPLAN WAS

RELEASED AND WE’RE EXCITED TO

NOTE THAT THE CORP HAS RECEIVED

FUNDING TO INCLUDE THE BEL MARIN

KEYS UNIT INTO THE HAMILTON

WETLANDS PROJECT WHICH WILL

BRING THE TOTAL HABITAT

RESTORATION TO 26,000 ACRES AS A

RESULT OF OUR 2016 COALITION

THAT SPURRED CHANGES TO THE

AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION THE CORP

WILL SPEND ANOTHER $7 MILLION TO

INCREASE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF

SEDIMENT IN THE BAY DURING THE

NEXT YEAR. TWO FINAL NOTES,

FIRST PERHAPS SOMETHING OF AN

ANTIDOTE TO THE GIANT’S

DISAPPOINTING FIRST QUARTER OF

BASEBALL, I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY

VISIT — I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY

VISIT THE NEW CHINA BASIN PARK

ACROSS McCOVEY COVE FROM THE

BALLPARK I WAS POSITIVELY

THRILLED TO ASK TO SPEAK AT THE

GRAND OPENING LATE LAST MONTH

AND IT’S TREMENDOUS. AT THE

BCDC PERMIT THERE IS AN AUDIO

TOUR OF THE SHORELINE FROM THE

FERRY BUILDING DOWN TO MISSION

ROCK NOW KNOWN AS CHINA BASIN

PARK THAT IS NOW LIVE IT’S A FEW

YEARS LATE, A DIFFERENT FORM OF

PUBLIC ACCESS THAN WHAT BCDC

NORMALLY REQUIRES FOR SURE AND

WE’RE WORKING WITH GIANTS TO

MAKE SURE IT’S PUBLICIZED WELL.

FINALLY ANOTHER NOTICE FOR THE

BCDC BOOK CLUB. COMMISSIONER

AHN’S NEW BOOK ENTITLED

ADVOCATE, A GRAPHIC MEME WHAT OF

FAMILY, COMMUNITY, AND THE FIGHT

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS NOW

AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE. IT’S

ABSOLUTELY SUPERB AND IF YOU

FOLLOW COMMISSIONER AHN ON

SOCIAL MEDIA, YOU WILL KNOW WHY,

AND WE ALL RECOMMEND IT HIGHLY.

IN ADDITION THE COMMISSIONER HAS

ASSURED US THAT HE IS MORE THAN

HAPPY TO SIGN ALL AVAILABLE

COPIES AT A SMALL PRICE. WITH

THAT, CHAIR WASSERMAN, I’M HAPPY

TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

[LAUGHTER]

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY

QUESTIONS FOR LARRY?

>>EDDIE AHN: A QUICK COMMENT

FROM COMMISSIONER AHN. THERE IS

NO PRICE. IT WILL BE DONE

ABSOLUTELY FREE OF CHARGE

[LAUGHTER]

THANK YOU, THOUGH. VERY MUCH

APPRECIATE YOUR PRAISE FOR THE

BOOK.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

WELL, THERE IS A PRICE, YOU NEED

TO BUY THE BOOK, AND YOU

SHOULD.

BUT NO PRICE FOR THE SIGNATURE.

I WAS ACTUALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT

WE ARE NOT ALL TOGETHER, BECAUSE

I HAVE MY BOOK AND HOPE TO GET

HIM TO SIGN T BUT I WILL

HOPEFULLY DO THAT AT OUR NEXT

MEETING.

ONE OF THE THINGS SAID REMINDS

ME OF ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE,

THERE WAS A REPORT IN THE SAN

JOSE MERCURY LAST WEEK ABOUT THE

HOWARD TERMINAL SETTLEMENT, THE

SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM BY

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION AND

OTHERS AGAINST BCDC REGARDING

OUR ACTIONS, AND THERE WAS A

STATEMENT IN THAT ARTICLE THAT

WE HAD IN THAT SETTLEMENT, MADE

A DEAL AND CHANGED THE TERMS OF

WHAT WAS GOING ON TO PUT THE

HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE

SEAPORT PLAN. THAT IS NOT

ACCURATE. WE MADE NO CHANGE IN

THE DEAL. WE SIMPLY DISMISSED

— AGREED TO DISMISS THE

LAWSUIT. STATE LAW WHICH

AUTHORIZED THE USE BY THE AS OF

HOWARD TERMINAL, HAD AN

EXPIRATION DATE IN IT WHEREBY IF

THE PORT AND THE A DESERT NOT

REACH A BINDING AGREEMENT, BY A

DATE, WHICH I THINK WAS SOMETIME

THIS YEAR, SOMEBODY MAY CORRECT

ME ON THAT — IT — THE

EXCLUSION OF THE PROJECT, FROM

THE TIDE LANDS TRUST, OR THE

DETERMINATION THAT THAT USE WAS

CONSISTENT WITH THE TIDE LANDS

TRUST WOULD EXPIRE, WE DID NOT

MAKE ANY CHANGE IN IT WE WILL

CONVEY THIS TO THE MERCURY. I

KNOW THE PORT OF OAKLAND KNOWS

THAT, BUT WE WILL MAKE THAT

CLEAR, AS WELL.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN,

CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

MATTERS. WE HAVE RECEIVED THE

ADMINISTRATIVE — THE DRAFT OF

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.

ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS

ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIST?

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS

RAISED.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I SEE

NOTHING FROM COMMISSIONERS. SO,

ONCE AGAIN, DIRECTOR ROSS GETS

OFF WITHOUT BEING GRILLED.

ONE OF THESE DAYS, YOU MAY FIND

YOU’RE GETTING GRILLED. THAT

BRINGS US TO ITEMS 8 AND 9,

WHICH WE ARE GOING TO COMBINE

AND HEAR AS ONE ITEM. THEY ARE

VERY SIMILAR. THEY INVOLVE TWO

DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, BUT

THE ISSUES ARE ESSENTIALLY

SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. THESE

ARE HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE VOTES

ON PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

APPLICATION FOR NEW FIVE-YEAR

PROGRAMMATIC OPERATIONS

MAINTENANCE PERMIT EXISTING

ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES

THROUGHOUT THE COMMISSION’S

JURISDICTION OUTSIDE SUISUN

MARSH AND INSIDE SUISUN MARSH

WHERE WE DO HAVE SOME

JURISDICTION. THE PRESENTATION

WILL BE — SO, WE’RE HAVING ONE

PUBLIC HEARING TO COVER BOTH OF

THESE ISSUES. ROWAN YELTON OF

OUR STAFF WILL MAKE THE STAFF’S

INTRODUCTION AND THEN INTRODUCE

SPEAKERS FROM PG&E.

>>ROWAN YELTON: THANK YOU CHAIR

WASSERMAN. IS THAT SHOWING UP?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

IT’S SHOWING UP WITH YOUR NOTES

WHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOT

IT.

>>ROWAN YELTON: MY NAME IS

ROWAN YELTON, I AM A COASTAL

PROGRAM ANALYST ON THE BAY

RESOURCES TEAM.

>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: FOR YOU ALL

WHO ARE ONLINE THERE IS

CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE METRO

CENTER THAT’S MAKING IT HARD FOR

US TO HEAR. I’M LOOKING AT YOU

ALL SO I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU CAN

HEAR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

IF YOU CAN’T HEAR — ALL RIGHT,

ROWAN, YOU’RE GOING TO NEED TO

YELL INTO THAT MICROPHONE. USE

YOUR OUTSIDE VOICE.

>>ROWAN YELTON: OKAY I’LL USE

MY OUTSIDE VOICE. I’M

PRESENTING TWO PERMIT

APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PROPOSED BY

THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY. APPLICATIONS ARE FOR

FIVE YEARS PROGRAMS OF

MAINTENANCE REPAIR REPLACEMENT

REMOVAL RETIREMENT AND

MODIFICATION OF PG&E FACILITIES

ACTIVITIES WOULD BE LIMITED TO

EXISTING FACILITIES AND

STRUCTURES AND WOULD NOT RESULT

IN PERMANENT NET BAY FILL THOUGH

SOME TEMPORARY FILL WOULD BE

INSTALLED FOR SITE ACCESS.

THERE WOULD NOT BE PERMANENT

ADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC

ACCESS.

BASED ON THE APPLICATION, WE

EXPECT THAT HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS

WILL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THIS

PERMIT EACH YEAR. MOST PROJECTS

INVOLVE REPAIRS TO ELECTRICAL

TOWERS AND POLES SUCH AS

REPAIRING CRACKS AND TOWER

FOUNDATIONS TRIMMING VEGETATION

NEAR TOWERS AND LINES AND

REPLACING DAMAGED HARDWARE

INSTIGATEULARITIES AND

STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF TOWERS

AND POLES. LESS FREQUENT

ACTIVITIES INCLUDE REPLACEMENT

OF ENTIRE STRUCTURES SUCH AS

TOWERS AND PIPELINES. THE

PROGRAM WOULD INCLUDE ACTIVITIES

IN ALL NINE COUNTY BAY AREAS,

BCDC’S BAY SHORELINE BAND, WATER

WAYS SALT PONDS AND MANAGED

WETLANDS JURISDICTIONS THE

PROGRAM SPLIT INTO TWO

APPLICATIONS ONE FOR ACTIVITIES

PRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF THE

SUISUN MARSH AND FOR ALL OTHER

LOCATIONS THE TWO PERMITS WOULD

HAVE IDENTICAL AUTHORIZATIONS

AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ONLY

DIFFER IN FINDINGS. BCDC

PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TWO PERMITS

FOR SIMILAR OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS IN 1987 AND

1989. THESE PERMITS WERE

REPEATEDLY AMENDED AND EXTENDED

AND WILL BOTH EXPIRE ON MAY

30TH, 2024. IN 2021, PG&E

APPLIED FOR FIVE-YEAR EXTENSIONS

TO BOTH PERMITS. WHEN

APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED BCDC

STAFF REVIEWED THE EXISTING

PERMITS AND DETERMINED THAT THEY

WERE OUTDATED FOR THE FOLLOWING

REASONS: AUTHORIZATIONS WERE NO

LONGER SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL

OF PG&E’S ACTIVITIES AND SPECIAL

CONDITIONS NEEDED SIGNIFICANT

CHANGES TO BRING THEM UP-TO-DATE

WITH CURRENT BCDC LAWS AND

POLICIES, ENGINEERING CODES AND

STANDARDS, CURRENT STATE OF THE

BAY ENVIRONMENT, AND OUR

SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE

BAY ENVIRONMENT.

SO, THE PREVIOUS PERMITS WERE

PERMITTED ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT

AT THIS TIME WE ARE LOOKING TO

ISSUE MAJOR PERMITS

FOR THEM BECAUSE ALTHOUGH EACH

INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY QUALIFIES AS

MINOR REPAIRS OR IMPROVEMENTS

THE PERMITS WOULD COVER A LARGE

NUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE

ENTIRE BAY AREA OVER FIVE YEARS

THEY CANNOT BE REASONABLY

CONSTRUED AS A SINGLE ACTIVITY

AND SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED

ADMINISTRATIVELY. WHEN WRITING

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OUR

CONCERN WAS ENSURING THAT THE

PROJECTS WOULD NOT HAVE

SIGNIFICANT PERMIT IMPACTS OR

ENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS

IMPACTS ADDRESSING CONCERNS TO

SPECIAL CONDITIONS INCLUDED

REQUIRE PERMITTEE TO RESTORE

CONSTRUCTION SITES TO ORIGINAL

CONDITION OR BETTER WHERE

APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK

AVOID MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESS

IMPACTS BEST MANAGEMENT OF

PRACTICES IN MARSHES IN THE BAY

AND SENSITIVE HABITATS COMPLY

WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS BY

THE RESOURCE AGENCIES SPECIAL

CONDITION LIMIT TO ALLOW

ACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT RESULT IN

INCREASE TO BAY FILL DURATION OF

TEMPORARY FILL LESS THAN 180

DAYS PER PROJECT LIMIT

RELOCATION AND REDECISION OF

STRUCTURES AND DISALLOW

PERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO

PUBLIC ACCESS. PROPOSAL REVIEW

PROCESS ALL ACTIVITIES REQUIRE

BCDC STAFF APPROVAL BEFORE THEY

CAN BE CONDUCTED EXCEPT FOR

LIMITED CATEGORY ACTIVITIES THAT

WOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RESULT

IN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE

ENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS AND

DO NOT INVOLVE ANY WATERWORKS.

SOME EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES

INCLUDE REPLACING MINOR

STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND

EQUIPMENT, PAINTING AND

VEGETATION TRIMMING. FOR ALL

ACTIVITY WHICH IS COULD RESULT

IN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE BAY OR

ENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS OR

WOULD INVOLVE WATERWORKS THE

PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO

SUBMIT ACTIVITY PROPOSAL BASED

ON FORM INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT TO

THE PERMIT BCDC STAFF WOULD THEN

REVIEW ACTIVITY FOR CONSISTENCY

WITH THE PERMIT YOU

AUTHORIZATION AND CONDITIONS IF

STAFF FIND THE PROJECT IS NOT

CONSISTENT WITH PERMITS AND PG&E

WILL HAVE TO SUBMIT AN

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION

SPECIAL CONDITIONS ALSO INCLUDED

TO REQUIRE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT

ANNUAL REPORTS ON THE ACTIVITIES

CONDUCTED OVER THE PAST YEAR

CUMULATIVELY SINCE PERMIT WAS

ISSUED AND IF THE ACTIVITY IS

PROJECTED FOR UPCOMING YEAR

FIVE-YEAR PROJECTED WORKPLAN FOR

REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF

ELECTRICAL TOWERS IN BCDC

JURISDICTION. AS YOU LEARN MORE

ABOUT THIS PROGRAM FROM THE PG&E

STAFF PRESENTATION,

TO KEEP IN MIND TIDAL

FLATS, FISH, AQUATIC ORGANISMS,

WILDLIFE MITIGATION PUBLIC

ACCESS AND SHORELINE BAND

AND MARSH PLANS LAND USE AND

MARSH MANAGEMENT POLICY THE

COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER

WHETHER THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT APPLICABLE TO

SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN POLICIES

SPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE FILL

RESULTS IN RESULTING PROJECTS

UPON CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS

SECTION 66605 AND THAT FILL IS

MINIMUM NECESSARY AND DESIGNED

TO MINIMIZE HARM RECALL EFFECTS

OF THE FILL. AND WHETHER

SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PERMIT ARE

APPROPRIATE TO AVOID MINIMIZE

ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC

ACCESS AND BAY ENVIRONMENT.

THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF

PRESENTATION AND I’LL NOW

INTRODUCE KYLE STAPLE MAN, TIM

ANDREWS, JOHN WILCOX FROM PG&E F

THEIR PRESENTATION OF THE

PROGRAM.

>>SPEAKER: THANKS ROWAN.

>>SPEAKER: GO AHEAD JOHN.

>>JON WILCOX: ARE YOU ABLE TO

RUN THE PRESENTATION? WE DIDN’T

WORK OUT THE LOGISTICS WITH

BCDC.

>>SPEAKER: I’M PULLING UP THE

PRESENTATION NOW, IF YOU CAN

CONFIRM YOU SEE IT?

>>JOHN WILCOX: I SEE T I’LL

KICK US OFF. THANK YOU, FIRST

OF ALL, CHAIR WASSERMAN AND THE

COMMISSIONERS, TO LOOK AT OUR

PERMIT APPLICATION. AS ROWAN

SAID, AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE

HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FROM THE

’80s OFF A PREVIOUS PERMIT THIS,

IS SOLELY FOR OUR OWN ACTIVITIES

IN AND AROUND THE BAY SO WE LOOK

FORWARD TO GETTING THIS NEW

PERMIT PUT IN PLACE, GETTING

PROCESSES IN PLACE AND WORKING

TO, YOU KNOW, A GOOD FUTURE WITH

US, WITH BCDC AS WE HAVE THIS

PERMIT ACTIVE IN THE FUTURE.

WITH THAT, I’LL INTRODUCE TIM

ANDREWS WHO IS THE MANAGER OF

OUR WATER PROGRAM. TIM, ARE YOU

ABLE TO PRESENT? SORRY. WE

HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE ON

OUR SIDE. PG&E DOESN’T

NECESSARY HE ALLOW US TO USE

ZOOM SO WE’RE TRYING TO DO IT

VIA PHONES FOR SOME FOLKS.

>>SPEAKER: TIM SAID SAID HE MAY

NOT — HE’S RUNNING INTO

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. I CAN

TAKE IT OVER FOR HIM. GOOD

AFTERNOON COMMISSION STAFF AND

COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TYLER

STAPLE MAN.

>>JON WILCOX: TYLER YOU’RE A

LITTLE QUIET. CUYLER YOU’RE A

LITTLE QUIET. CUYLER

.

>> CUYLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? MY

NAME IS CUYLER STAPLE MAN,

PLANNER AT PG&E I HAVE BEEN

WORKING WITH BCDC STAFF AND PG&E

STAKE R STAKEHOLDERS ON THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PERMIT FOR

THE PAST COUPLE OF YEAR OR SO

TODAY IS THE BIDAY AND LOOKING

FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION AFTER

THE PRESENTATION. I WANT TO DO

A QUICK OVERVIEW OF OUR AGENDA

TOPICS HERE IN THIS

PRESENTATION. I’M GOING TO GO

OVER PROGRAM NEED AND PURPOSE

BACKGROUND OF OUR WORK,

ACTIVITIES WE’RE SEEKING TO GET

AUTHORIZED BY THESE PERMITS,

EXAMPLES OF WHAT THOSE

ACTIVITIES ARE, AND THE ACTIVITY

CLASSES THAT HAVE BEEN

INCORPORATED INTO THIS PERMIT,

AND OVERVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL

IMPACTS AND THE SPECIAL

CONDITIONS THAT WE WILL BE

IMPLEMENTING DURING OUR

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

PROGRAM. I REALIZE SOME OF THIS

IS — MAY BE REPETITIVE FROM THE

INFORMATION THAT WAS JUST

PRESENTED, SO, I’LL TRY TO

STREAMLINE WHERE POSSIBLE.

PG&E’S MISSION IS TO DELIVER

CLEAN SAFE RELIABLE AFFORDABLE

ENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS, THIS

MEANS WE MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT

MAINTAIN AND OPERATE OUR

FACILITIES TO ACHIEVE THAT

GOAL.

WE FEEL THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS

O&M PLAN IS TO MAINTAIN THE

ENERGY TRANSMISSION AND

DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES TO

DELIVER THAT ENERGY TO OUR

CUSTOMERS. AND IN DOING SO, AND

MAINTAINING SAFE AND RELIABLE

FACILITIES, WE’LL BE DOING OUR

PART IN BEING GOOD STEWARDS TO

THE BAY ENVIRONMENT AND THE

RESOURCES UNDER BCDC’S

JURISDICTION.

PG&E HAS BEEN CONDUCTING ROUTINE

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WORK

WITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION UNDER

PERMITS THAT WERE INITIALLY

EFFECTIVE IN 1987. THEY HAVE

BEEN EXTENDED NUMEROUS TIMES IN

THE CURRENT EXTENSIONS EXPIRE

MAY 31ST OF THIS YEAR. UNDER

THESE NEW PERMITS WE PROPOSE TO

CONTINUE THAT OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE PLAN WITH NEW

SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND

NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING

PROCEDURES WITH BCDC.

SO, AGAIN THIS, PERMIT WOULD

AUTHORIZE PG&E TO PERFORM THIS

ROUTINE WORK FOR A PERIOD OF

FIVE YEARS WITH AN OPTION TO

RENEW AT THE END OF THE TERM.

AND THIS O&M WORK WILL BE

CONDUCT THE UNDER TWO SEPARATE

PERMITS, ONE FOR SUISUN MARSH

PRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA, AND THE

OTHER PERMIT FOR ALL OTHER

PORTIONS OF BCDC’S JURISDICTION,

ALONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY.

AGAIN, THE ACTIVITIES WE’LL BE

PERFORMING WILL BE SIMILAR TO

ACTIVITIES WE HAVE BEEN

PERFORMING UNDER EXISTING

PERMITS WITH NEW SPECIAL

CONDITIONS.

SO, THE FOLLOWING MAPS SHOW THE

LOCATIONS OF PG&E WORK THAT WE

CONDUCTED UNDER THE EXISTING

PERMITS IN 2022 AND 2023, AS

WELL AS WORK WE’RE PLANNING FOR

2024 AND 2025. I WANT TO

BRIEFLY POINT OUT SOME ITEMS ON

THIS LEGEND IN THE FOLLOWING

MAPS BCDC’S JURISDICTION IS

SHADED IN A PURPLE COLOR, AND

THE PROJECTS FROM 2022 TO 2025

ARE SHOWN AS POINTS. ONE THING

TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE

DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRANSMISSION

AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.

SO, WHEN PG&E TALKS ABOUT OUR

FACILITIES THERE, IS TWO MAJOR

CATEGORIES THAT THINK WE OF,

TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION.

AND TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE

IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN

MIND THAT ENERGY ISN’T ALWAYS

CONSUMED WHERE IT’S PRODUCED.

SO, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT

TRANSMISSION FACILITIES, THESE

FACILITIES TRANSMIT ENERGY

RESOURCES OVER LONG DISTANCES,

BETWEEN THE LOCATIONS ITS

PRODUCED AND WHERE IT’S

CONSUMED. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION

SYSTEM MAY BE HIGHER VOLTAGE

WITH LARGER POLES, AND A GAS

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM HAS A LARGER

DIAMETER PIPELINE. FOR

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, THESE

SYSTEMS DELIVER ENERGY DIRECTLY

TO THE END USER, OUR

CUSTOMERS.

DISTRIBUTION POLE, ELECTRIC

DISTRIBUTION POLE ARE THOSE

YOU’RE LIKELY TO SEE IN YOUR

COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND A

GAS DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE IS

GENERALLY SMALLER.

TO GIVE PG&E STAFF AND

COMMISSIONERS A SENSE OF THE

AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE HAVE

IN THE JURISDICTION, I

RAN SOME NUMBERS WITH OUR GIS

DEPARTMENT AND WANT TO SHARE

THOSE WITH YOU TODAY. WE HAVE

OVER 520 MILES OF ENERGIZED

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR WITHIN YOUR

JURISDICTION AND THOSE

CONDUCTORS ARE SUPPORTED BY 829

TOWERS, AND OVER 4,900 POLES AND

SIMILAR SUPPORT STRUCTURES.

THOSE 829 TOWERS MAY BE ACCESSED

BY OVER 180 MILES OF BOARDWALK

IN THE BAY AND WE ALSO HAVE OVER

65 MILES OF NATURAL BAS

PIPELINE. ALL OF THESE ASSETS

MUST BE INSPECTED, MAINTAINS AND

OPERATED TO ENSURE FAY OUR

FACILITIES PROVIDE SAFE RELIABLE

ENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS.

THE ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY

THESE PERMITS ARE THOSE THAT WE

ROUTINELY PERFORM TO MEET OUR

GOALS. UNDER THIS PERMIT, THESE

ACTIVITIES WILL BE LIMITED TO

THE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING

FACILITIES RATHER THAN THE

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES.

THE PERMIT WILL CATEGORIZE OUR

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

ACTIVITIES INTO FOUR CLASSES,

WHICH WE’LL DISCUSS IN A FEW

MORE SLIDES. BUT I WANTED TO

NOTE THAT THE PERMIT WAS WRITTEN

WITH BROAD LANGUAGE INTENDED TO

COVER MOST OF OUR ROUTINE

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

WORK.

HOWEVER ANY ACTIVITY THAT

DOESN’T FALL WITHIN THESE

ACTIVITY CLASSES OR WITHIN THE

AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS,

PG&E WILL SEEK SEPARATE

AUTHORIZATION FROM BCDC. EXCUSE

ME, SO, THE MAJORITY OF

ACTIVITIES WE EXPECT TO PERFORM

UNDER THIS PERMIT ARE WHAT WE

REFER TO AS OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES

WHICH CONSIST OF REPLACING

OR REPAIRING OR REPLACING OF

EQUIPMENT AT TOP OF UTILITY

POLES AND TOWERS ACTIVITIES

DON’T REQUIRE ANY GROUND

DISTURBANCE OR EXCAVATION ON THE

GROUND, ACTIVITIES OVERHEAD MAY

INCLUDE REPLACING

INSTIGATEULARITIES AND HANGING

PLATES THAT SUSPEND ELECTRIFIED

CONDUCTORS FROM TOWERS AND POLES

AS WELL AS REPAIRING HIGH WIRES,

VOLTAGE SIGNS AND REPLACING

BOLTS THESE ARE DEMON MOUSE

CLASS ACTIVITIES MENTIONED ON

THE SLIDE EXPECTING TO PERFORM

500 OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES DURING

THE FIVE-YEAR PERMIT TERM. IN

ADDITION TO OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES

WE’RE EXPECTING TO REPLACE 25

MILES OF BOARDWALK REPLACE 50

POLES, TOWERS, AND TOWER

FOUNDATIONS AND REPLACE SECTIONS

OF FIVE GAS PIPELINES OVER THE

NEXT FIVE YEARS.

SO PERMITS INCLUDE FOUR ACTIVITY

CLASSES WITHIN WHICH PG&E WILL

HAVE SPECIFIC REVIEW,

NOTIFICATION, AND REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS TO FOLLOW. IN

GENERAL, ACTIVITIES WITH LESS

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK WILL BE

REVIEWED AND AUTHORIZED MORE

QUICKLY THAN ACTIVITIES THAT

HAVE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PUBLIC

ACCESS OF BAY RESOURCES. CLASS

ONE ACTIVITIES DO NOT INVOLVE

ANY IMPACTS TO PUBLIC ACCESS OR

THE BAY, AND DO NOT INVOLVE ANY

IN WATERWORKS. THESE ARE THOSE

OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES I PREVIOUSLY

REFERRED TO.

PG&E WILL BE PROCEEDING WITH

THIS WORK AT OUR DISCRETIONARY

DURING — UNDER — DURING THIS

PERMIT, HOWEVER WE’LL BE

REPORTING TO BCDC ANNUALLY, A

SUMMARY OF CLASS ONE ACTIVITIES

PERFORMED.

THE SECOND ACTIVITY CLASS IS

CLASS TWO AND WITHIN CLASS TWO,

THERE ARE TWO SUBTYPES. CLASS

TWO. A AND 2B. CLASS TWO

ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR IN THE

SHORELINE BAND, THEY MAY INVOLVE

SMALL AMOUNTS OF FILL AND

EXTRACTION. THEY DO NOT INVOLVE

ANY WATERWORKS. NOW, THE

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2A AND 2B IS

CLASS 2A IS LIMITED TO WORK THAT

DOES NOT IMPACT PUBLIC ACCESS,

WHEREAS CLASS 2B MAY INCLUDE

TEMPORARY PUBLIC ACCESS

IMPACTS.

CLASS THREE ACTIVITIES ARE THE

ROUTINE OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE ACTIONS THAT HAVE

POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN IMPACTS

TO BAY RESOURCES INCLUDING FISH

AND WILDLIFE AND TIDAL MARSHES

HOWEVER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS

REQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT AND PG&E

PROGRAMMATIC MAINTENANCE PERMITS

WITH RESOURCES AGENCIES

SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO

RESOURCES WILL NOT OCCUR FROM

IMPLEMENTATION OF CLASS THREE

ACTIVITIES. CLASS THREE

ACTIVITY MAY INCLUDE REPLACING

OF CONCRETE FOOTING OF AN

EXISTING STEEL TRANSMISSION

TOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH THAT

MAY INVOLVE EXCAVATION OR GROUND

DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE TIDAL

MARSH.

THIS SLIDE IS BRIEFLY

SUMMARIZING THE IMPACTS THAT MAY

RESULT FROM PG&E’S OPERATIONS

AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES UNDER

THIS PERMIT. AS ROWAN

PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, WE DO NOT

EXPECT ANY SIGNIFICANT NET

INCREASE IN BAY FILL. WHILE

PG&E EXPECTS TO REPLACE OVER 100

CUBIC YARDS PLACE OVER

140 CUBIC QUARTERS OF FILL

WITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION THIS

FILL WILL BE OFFSET BY REMOVAL

OF EXISTING FILL OF ROUGHLY

EQUAL AMOUNTS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF

WE REPLACE A POLE WE’LL INSTALL

AND REPLACE POLE NEW POLE AND

BASE STAYS AT ROUGHLY ZERO.

PERMIT ALSO LIMITS PUBLIC ACCESS

SCENIC VIEW IMPACTS FROM PG&E

FACILITIES PROJECTS WITH

PERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO BAY

RESOURCES PUBLIC ACCESS WILL

NOT BE AUTHORIZED BY THIS

PERMIT.

TO BRIEFLY MENTION PREVIOUSLY,

THESE PERMITS WILL REQUIRE PG&E

TO EMPLOY A STANDARD OF BEST

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHILE

PERFORMING ALL AUTHORIZED

ACTIVITIES. ADDITIONALLY THE

PERMIT HAS A NUMBER OF

CONDITIONS THAT PG&E MUST FOLLOW

TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO

RESOURCES REGULATED BY BCDC.

SUCH AS FISH, WILDLIFE, AND

TIDAL MARSH.

FURTHERMORE, PG&E’S BIOLOGISTS

WILL BE REVIEWING MAINTENANCE

WORK WITH POTENTIAL TO IMPACT

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TO IDENTIFY

SPECIFIC RESOURCES PROTECTION

MEASURES NEEDED TO AVOID IMPACTS

TO RESOURCES DURING WORK

EXECUTION THESE PROJECTS

SPECIFIC MEASURES WILL BE

DOCUMENTED IN A BIOLOGICAL

REPORT SENT TO BCDC’S WITH THE

WORK NOTIFICATION PACKAGE.

THE LAST ITEM I WANTED TO POINT

OUT IS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS

REQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT ARE

CONSISTENT WITH THE RESOURCE

AGENCY PERMITS PG&E HAS FOR

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

PLANNING INCLUDING THE BAY AREA

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

AUTHORIZED BY THE OFFICIAL

WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE BAY AREA

INCIDENTAL PERMIT BY DEPARTMENT

OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AS WELL AS

OUR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

PERMIT PERFORM FROM REGIONAL

WATER QUALITY BOARD AND U.S.

ARMY CORP. WITH THAT SAID

THAT’S THE END OF THE

PRESENTATION. I’LL TURN IT BACK

TO BCDC F QUESTIONS AND

DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO

WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE

PUBLIC OR COMMENTS FROM THE

PUBLIC.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS

RAISED IN-PERSON OR ON ZOOM.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I

WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND

JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, BECAUSE I

SHOULD HAVE DONE IS THAT BEFORE,

WHAT I JUST DID, WE STILL HAVE

NOBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING

TO COMMENT, IS THAT CORRECT

SIERRA?

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THAT’S

CORRECT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE

DO HAVE TWO COMMISSIONER HANDS

RAISED, COMMISSIONER ECKLUND.

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU

VERY MUCH, CHAIR.

MY QUESTION IS THAT YOU

INDICATED THAT THERE WOULDN’T BE

ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC

VIEWS OR WHATEVER. BUT IS THERE

ANY OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE CAN

IMPROVE THE PUBLIC ACCESS AND

VIEWS BY MAKING SOME CHANGES?

THAT’S MY FIRST QUESTION. MY

SECOND QUESTION IS —

>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]

THAT’S WHY I GOT FEEDBACK.

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: PARDON

ME? OVERDOES AND THE

— THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE

IS YOU SHOWED THE BIG TOWERS ARE

THERE ANY TOWERS THAT ARE GOING

TO BE REPLACED? IF YOU COULD

CLARIFY THAT?

>>JON WILCOX: YES WE ARE GOING

TO REPLACE TOWERS AND WILL

PROVIDE A PLAN OVER THE NEXT

FIVE YEARS TO BCDC OF THOSE

TOWERS THAT WILL BE REPLACED

WE’RE GOING THROUGH THAT, THAT’S

THE BIG DRIVER FOR RENEWING THIS

PERMIT. BECAUSE THOSE TOWERS

ARE SITTING IN SALT WATER, THEY

GET BEAT UP PRETTY BAD, AND THEY

NEED TO BE REPLACED EVERY NOW

AND THEN. WITH REGARDS TO THE

OTHER ONE ABOUT IMPROVEMENT, SO,

WE ARE DOING THINGS OF APPROVING

OR LINING SOME BOARDWALKS TO

BETTER LOCATIONS THAT MAKE LESS

IMPACTS THAT’S OUT THERE, THIS

IS REALLY AT THE HEART OF

O&M TO HANDLE THE EQUIPMENT AND

FACILITIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN

PLACE THAT WOULD TRIGGER OTHER

THINGS LIKE RIGHT OF WAY,

ACCESS, AND OTHER PERMITS THAT

WOULD BE NEEDED ABOVE AND BEYOND

OF JUST FIXING THE ASSETS THAT

ARE CURRENTLY IN THAT LOCATION.

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY.

AND THEN, I GUESS THAT

CLARIFICATION ON THOSE METAL

TOWERS, YOU SAID THAT THEY WOULD

BE REPLACED, BUT ARE — YOU SAID

THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE A

SEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATION TO

BCDC? WAS THAT CORRECT?

>>JON WILCOX: NOT A SEPARATE

PERMIT IT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN

THE REPORT WE’RE PROVIDING TO

BCDC THAT’S WHAT’S CREATED UNDER

THIS NEW PERMIT.

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: SO ARE

YOU GOING TO BE COORDINATING

WITH CITIES AND COUNTIES ON

GETTING A PERMIT? BECAUSE I

JUST HAD AN SPECIALTY RECENTLY

THAT PG&E WAS GOING TO BE

WORKING ON A PARTICULAR

TELECONFERENCE POLE.

>>PAT ECKLUND: APPARENTLY THEY

FORGOT TO GET A PERMIT. DO YOU

HAVE A DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE

THAT PERMITS ARE APPLIED FOR AND

RECEIVED BEFORE WORK IS ACTUALLY

IN THE SHADED, OR LETTERS GO OUT

TO FOLKS?

>>JON WILCOX: YES THAT’S ALL OF

OUR PERMIT PLANNING PROCESS IT’S

NOT JUST CITIES AND COUNTIES WE

HAVE STATE AGENCIES AND THERE IS

OVERLAY. WE HAVE A PROCESS,

PRESIDENT MATTICS, WITH THE FEDS

AND STATE THAT REQUIRE

REPORTING, BEST MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES, OR AVOIDANCE MEASURES

THAT WE PUT IN PLACE, AS WELL.

SO, THAT’S IN THERE AND THERE IS

A CHECK PROCESS THAT GOES

THROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL

PLANNING GROUP TO TAKE CARE OF

THINGS AS FAR AS CITIES AND

COUNTIES THAT’S A DIFFERENT

GROUP CALLED EPWC BUT THEY

HANDLE THE — IN THIS CASE, IF

YOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO SHUT

DOWN A ROADWAY FROM THE CITY AND

COUNTY ENCROACHMENT TYPE PERMITS

THEY WORK ON THAT AS WELL.

>>PAT ECKLUND: I UNDERSTAND I

WORKED FOR THE ARM I CORP OF

ENGINEERS AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY FOR 43 YEARS

SO I UNDERSTANDS ALL OF THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

>>SPEAKER: TO ANSWER THE

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELECTRICAL

TOWERS, THE PERMIT IS —

RESTRICTS THE ACTIVITIES TO

PROJECTS THAT WOULDN’T REQUIRE

ANY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATORY

MITIGATION. SO, WHEN PG&E WOULD

PROPOSE SOMETHING LARGE AND

IMPACTFUL LIKE A TOWER

REPLACEMENT, OUR STAFF WOULD USE

THE ACTIVITY REVIEW PROCESS,

WHICH IS SPECIAL CONDITION OF

THE PERMIT TO ASSESS WHETHER

THAT ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH

THE PERMIT AUTHORIZATION

AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND

WHETHER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS

ARE SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT

PERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT

WOULD REQUIRE COMP PENS TORE

MITIGATION. SO THERE MIGHT BE

SOME CASE WHERE IS A SPECIFIC

TOWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT WOULD

REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME CASES

WHERE PG&E, I BELIEVE, IS

PLANNING ON REPLACING TOWERS IN

DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, AND THIS

WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS

PERMIT WHEN THE RELOCATION OF

THE TOWER WOULD MOVE THE TOWER

OUT OF BCDC JURISDICTION,

ENTIRELY, WILL MOVE THE TOWER

FROM THE BAY JURISDICTION INTO

THE SHORELINE BAND, OR THE

MOVEMENT WOULD RESULT IN

SIGNIFICANTLY LESS BAY FILL OR

SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED PUBLIC

ACCESS OR VIEWS. AND THE

RELOCATION WOULD NOT HAVE

SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER ADVERSE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARED

TO REPLACING THE TOWER IN THE

SAME PLACE.

>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY

MUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT. THAT

WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT I

HAD. SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER NELSON? YOU’RE

MUTED, BARRY.

>>BARRY NELSON: I’M GETTING AN

ECHO, I’M NOT SURE WHY.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: TWO

QUESTIONS. THE FIRST IS, IT

SOUNDS AS THOUGH THERE ARE A

COUPLE OF WAYS IN WHICH THIS

PERMIT COULD PRODUCE PUBLIC OR

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

RELOCATING THE TOWERS AS ROWAN

JUST MENTIONED, POTENTIALLY,

OUTSIDE OF OUR BAY JURISDICTION,

AND EVEN TO OUR SHORELINE BANNER

UPLAND JURISDICTIONS, AND

REDUCTION IN BAY FILL FROM

CONSOLIDATED OR REMOVING BOARD

WALKS, GIVEN THERE ARE 25 MILES

OF BOARD WALKS TO REPLACE,

THAT’S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT

NUMBER. SO I’M ASKING IF THE

REPORTING PROCESS IN THIS PERMIT

WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THOSE

BENEFITS OVER TIME, IF THERE ARE

INDEED THOSE KINDS OF

SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS GIVEN THE

SCALE OF OPERATIONS OVER THE

LENGTH OF THIS PERMIT, IS THE

REPORTING GOING TO ALLOW US TO

DETECT THOSE BENEFITS?

>>SPEAKER: YEAH. FOR ALL OF

THE LARGER PROJECTS THAT ARE

REQUIRED, THE REVIEWS IN THE

CLASS TWO OR CLASS THREE, SUCH

AS THE REPLACEMENT OF

STRUCTURES, REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT

OF BOARD WALKS, THAT KIND OF

THING, THE ANNUAL REPORTS WOULD

BE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THOSE

PROJECTS BOTH THAT ARETIVELY,

AND WITH THE RAW DATA OF THINGS

LIKE, HOW — WHAT THE NET FILL

DIFFERENCE WAS. SO THAT OUR

STAFF CAN REVIEW HOW THIS

PROGRAM IS GOING AND SEE IF

THERE ARE UNEXPECTED BENEFITS OR

THINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO

CHANGE THE NEXT TIME THE PERMIT

COMES UP FOR RENEWAL.

>>BARRY NELSON: SECOND

QUESTION. GIVEN — IF THIS WAS

A LAND PERMIT F THIS WERE A

CAPITAL PERMIT OF THIS SIZE AND

SCALE AND SCOPE, I AM CERTAIN

THAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRING

SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN

OUR REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE

MAXIMUM PUBLIC ACCESS CONSISTENT

WITH A PROJECT. BUT THIS IS AN

O&M PERMIT, NOT A CAPITAL

PERMIT. SO, CAN YOU HELP US

UNDERSTAND, GIVEN THE SIZE OF

THIS PERMIT, HOW STAFF HAS

THOUGHT ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS,

JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE’RE —

WE DON’T WANT TO DOUBLE DIP, IF

THERE WERE CAPITAL — IF THERE

WERE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC

ACCESS REGARDING FOR SOME OF

THESE PROJECTS WHEN THEY WERE

ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED WE DON’T

WANT TO DOUBLE DIP BUT AT THE

SAME TIME WE WANT TO MAKE SURE

WE’RE APPROPRIATELY THINKING

ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

FOR BIG LONG-TERM O&M PROJECTS.

>>SPEAKER: YEAH. SO, AS WE

WERE GOING THROUGH THE

APPLICATION PROCESS, WE

SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHETHER WE

WOULD BE — WHATEVER THIS

PROGRAM WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC

ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. AND THE

FACT IS THAT THE PROGRAM WOULD

ONLY INVOLVE ACTIVITIES ON

EXISTING STRUCTURES. IT

WOULDN’T INVOLVE ANY INCREASES

IN USE OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN

USES. AND THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY

PERMIT PUBLIC ACCESS IMPACTS.

SO STAFF DETERMINED THAT THERE

WASN’T AN APPROPRIATE NEXUS TO

REQUIRE PUBLIC ACCESS

IMPROVEMENTS.

>>BARRY NELSON: ARE THERE OTHER

EXAMPLES OF LONG-TERM

PERMITS LIKE THIS THAT DON’T

HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS?

>>SPEAKER: YEAH. WE HAVE

SEVERAL LONG-TERM O&M PERMITS

WITH DIFFERENT PUBLIC

AGENCIES, CALTRANS, SANTA CLARA

VALLEY WATER, EAST BAY

PARK DISTRICT, CARGILL. THERE

ARE A LOT OF THEM. AND I DON’T

BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THEM HAVE

PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS

REQUIRED.

>>BARRY NELSON: THAT’S ALL. IF

I COULD —

>>SPEAKER: — [INDISCERNIBLE]

>>SPEAKER: APP UP AGAIN.

>>BARRY NELSON: CAN YOU HEAR

ME?

>>SPEAKER: YES.

>>SPEAKER: THE PERM FOCUS IN

PUBLIC ACCESS A LOT OF FOCUS IS

ACTUALLY AVOIDING IMPACTS TO

PUBLIC ACCESS DURING THESE KINDS

OF WORK THAT PG&E NEEDS TO KEEP

ELECTRICITY AND THE GAS

FLOWING.

THAT’S REALLY WHAT THE PERMIT

PROVIDES FOR IS MAKING SURE

THERE AREN’T SIGNIFICANT

LONG-TERM IMPACTS TO THE

EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS WITH THE

PROJECT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT

PUBLIC ACCESS BUT IT WAS MORE IN

THAT LIGHT, WE REALIZE THE

99, I DON’T KNOW THE NUMBER BUT

MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE VERY

SMALL LIKE REPLACING RESISTORS

OR THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT AREN’T

PHENOMENAL.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: MY QUESTION

IS ABOUT MAYBE THE LARGER

PROBLEMS. YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE

BIT ABOUT THE STAGING AREAS THAT

MIGHT BE REQUIRED? I GUESS

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT

THAT THERE. BUT YOU TALK ABOUT

BOARDWALKS, BUT — WHAT KIND OF

HEAVY EQUIPMENT DO YOU

POTENTIALLY NEED FOR, LIKE, THE

WORK ON THE LARGER TOWERS? AND

HOW MANY LARGE STAGING AREAS DO

YOU ANTICIPATE HAVING TO BUILD

AND POTENTIALLY MITIGATE FOR?

>>CUYLER STAPLEMANN: THANK YOU

FOR YOUR QUESTION. I CAN JUMP IN

HERE. A LOT OF OUR ELECTRIC

TRANSMISSION TOWERS ARE IN THE

BAY. THEY DO HAVE BOARDWALK

ACCESS. BUT WE PERFORM A LOT OF

WORK ON THOSE TOWERS, ESPECIALLY

AT THE TOPS OF THOSE TOWERS, BY

HELICOPTER. SO IMPORTANT —

THERE IS LOTS OF RESTRICTION

WHERE IS WE CAN SAFELY FLY

SPECIFIC DISTANCES WE CAN’T

CROSS PUBLIC ROADS WITHOUT

TRAFFIC CONTROL WE TRY TO

LOCATION THOSE HELICOPTER

LANDING ZONES AS CLOSE TO THE

WORK LOCATIONS AS POSSIBLE IT’S

A SAFETY ISSUE FOR OUR WORKERS

AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC I CAN’T

REALLY SPEAK TO THE VOLUME OF

LANDING ZONES, ZONES MAY BE

REQUIRED PER YEAR BUT GENERALLY

THEY ARE LOCATED ON EXISTING

PAVED SURFACES

LOTS, DISTURBED AREAS THEY’RE

STAGE A COUPLE OF POLES AND

INSTIGATEULARITIES AND SLIDE

THEM OUT TO THE WORK LOCATIONS,

IN THE CASE OF LARGER TOWER

PROJECT THERE WOULD BE

ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY

CONSTRUCTION EASTMENT OR WORK

AREAS OUTSIDE OF OUR RIGHT OF

WAY THAT WOULD NEED, SORT OF, A

TEMPORARY RIGHT FROM THE

PROPERTY OWNER, AND THOSE WOULD

GENERALLY BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY

IN THE VICINITY OF THE TOWER DUE

TO A TOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH,

THOSE WORK AREAS YOU WOULD,

AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE TO REDUCE

IMPACTS AND WE CAN’T ACCESS BY

BARGE OFTENTIMES WE’LL HAVE

EQUIPMENT ON BARGES AND THROW

THEM RIGHT UP TO THE TOWERS.

BUT IN RARE OCCASIONS WE WILL

NEED TO PLACE MATTING SOME REVE

EQUIPMENT.

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH THAT

HELPS EITHER HELICOPTER OR BARGE

BECAUSE YOU COULDN’T BRING HEAVY

EQUIPMENT ALONG THE BOARDWALK.

THAT’S IT.

>>SPEAKER: THE PERMITS WOULD

ALSO INCLUDE SPECIAL CONDITION

REQUIRING RESTORATION OF

TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO TIDAL MARSH

IF THEY’RE EXPECTED IN A

PROJECT. AND THESE ACTIVITIES

THAT ARE AUTHORIZED BY THIS

PERMIT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE

THAT PG&E EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO

BE PASSIVELY RESTORED WITHIN TWO

YEARS. SO, SOME OF THE LARGER

TOWER REPLACEMENTS THAT WOULD

REQUIRE MORE VEGETATION

CLEARING, MORE MATTING, THOSE

MIGHT BE KICKED OUT OF THIS

PERMIT AND REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL

PERMIT IF THE RESTORATION WOULD

BE EXPECTED TO TAKE LONGER, OR

THERE WOULD BE PERMIT IMPACTS.

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN GUYS

HEAR ME?

>>SPEAKER: YEAH.

>>SPEAKER: SPEAK UP A LITTLE

BIT.

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: CAN YOU HEAR

ME NOW?

>>SPEAKER: YEAH.

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: IT’S THE

SETTINGS. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: WE’RE GETTING

SOME FEEDBACK HERE. QUICK

QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF

THE DETAIL IN YOUR

PRESENTATION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE

CAN BARELY HEAR YOU ANDY.

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN

DESCRIBE HOW YOU ARE

CONSIDERING, AS YOU PREPARE AND

UPGRADE FACILITIES, I ASSUME YOU

ARE THINKING ALSO ABOUT THE

FUTURE CLIMATE IN WHICH THESE

FACILITIES WILL NEED TO BE

OPERATED. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE

BIT ABOUT THAT? AND WHETHER AS

WE’RE WORKING TO IN THE AREA

AROUND THE BAY WHETHER THERE ARE

POSSIBILITIES OF, SORT OF,

MULTI-BENEFIT KIND OF WORK THAT

YOU CAN DO — BECAUSE I KNOW YOU

DON’T GO OUT TO THESE SITES

REALLY THAT OFTEN.

>>JON WILCOX: WE HAVE TEAMS

LOOKING AT SEA LEVEL RISE AND

IMPACT. WE HAVE SUBSTATIONS

THAT ARE CLOSE, RAVENSWOOD IN

PARTICULAR, THINGS THAT ARE

TRIGGERED FOR SEA LEVEL RISE WE

SPEND A LOT OF TIME IF TOWERS

NEED TO BE RAISED, TO ADDRESS

THAT, AND THOSE ISSUES OCCUR.

WE HAVE A BIG TEAM AND THEY’RE

DEFINITELY SPENDING TIME

REVIEWING THAT. AND SOME OF THE

PROJECT WORK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE

IS PROTECTING SEA LEVEL RISE

THOSE ARE PROJECTS COMING

THROUGH RIGHT NOW, TO YOUR

QUESTION ABOUT MULTI-BENEFIT, I

THINK THAT’S GOING TO GO TO EACH

PROJECT WHAT WE CAN DO. WE WORK

CLOSELY WITH THE JOINT VENTURE

AND A LOT OF GROUPS SEEING WHAT

WE CAN DO TO WORK TOGETHER. WE

DIDN’T — WE HAVE THESE OTHER

PROGRAMMATICS AS I MENTIONED

BEFORE AND THOSE TRIGGER A LOT

OF MITIGATION OUT THERE, LIKE

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND

CFW AND WE’RE WORKING WITH THEM

TO CREATE LARGE-SCALE MITIGATION

PROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO POSTAGE

STAMP STUFF DONE BEFORE

HISTORICALLY THOSE ARE THINGS WE

CAN DO TO WORK WITH JOINT

VENTURE AND BOTH FEDS AND STATE

AGENCIES AND LAND AGENCIESES TO

CREATE BENEFITS RESTORATION

OPPORTUNITIES. THERE ARE AREAS,

WE’RE WORKING WITH A MITIGATION

BANK DEVELOPER WHERE WE’RE

SWITCHING AN EASEMENT TO AN

ARIEL EASEMENT THAT WOULD NEVER

PUT ANYTHING DOWN, DON EDWARDS

REFUGE RIGHT NOW THOSE ARE THE

THINGS COMING UP, BUT BENEFICIAL

ASPECTS SEA LEVEL RISE ARE HIGH

IN OUR MIND WE HAVE ASSETS THAT

ARE IN THE MIDST OF BEING

IMPACTED.

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THAT’S KIND

OF WHAT I FIGURED AND I WANT TO

MAKE SURE ONCE YOU’RE OUT THERE

TOUCHING THESE FACILITIES THAT

EVERYTHING — ALL THE CAPITAL WE

INVEST IN THIS COMMUNITY NOW

NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THAT

MANNER.

THAT’S GREAT. THANK YOU VERY

MUCH.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS?

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

THANK YOU. I HAD A QUICK

FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR JON, YOU

REFERRED TO SOMETHING CALLED A

JOINT VENTURE, JON, AND I WAS

CURIOUS WHAT THAT WAS WITH

REGARD TO THE MITIGATION

PROJECTS THAT YOU DO.

>>JON WILCOX: IT’S THE SAN

FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE, WE

SIT ON THAT BOARD AS WELL — I’M

SORRY, THE BAY AREA JOINT

VENTURE PROGRAM, THAT WE SIT ON,

WE’RE EXPLORING WITH THEM

OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESTORATION

THAT EXIST OUT THERE CURRENTLY

RIGHT. WE CAN LEVERAGE, FOR

EXAMPLE, WE HAVE PROPERTY CALLED

ANTIOCH DUNES THAT WAS PART OF

THE REFUGE, WE DONATED THAT BACK

TO THE REFUGE TWO YEARS AGO IT’S

A BIG EXPANSION. WEIGH DO WHAT

WE CAN AS FAR AS WORKING

TOGETHER, THE BENEFITS ON

MITIGATION SIDE, BUT ALSO

BENEFITS WHAT WE’RE CAN DO AND

PUT INTO A REFUGE TYPE SITUATION

OR RESTORATION, RIGHT THOSE ARE

THE THINGS WE’RE LOOKING AT.

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

GREAT. THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I

DON’T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS

RAISED. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A

MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING.

>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO

APPROVE TO CLOSE —

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

CLOSE THE HEARING.

>>PAT ECKLUND: PARDON ME.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I MOVE

TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. AND I HAVE A SECOND

FROM COMMISSIONER

MOULTON-PETERS. THANK YOU. IS

THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO CLOSING

THE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING

NONE. IT IS CLOSED.

>>PAT ECKLUND: SO TO BEGIN THE

DISCUSSION, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THAT’S WHAT’S COMING UP

NEXT.

GO AHEAD, RON.

>>PAT ECKLUND: SO, I MOVED IT.

IS THERE A SECOND?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

NO.

WE NEED TO HAVE IT BEFORE

YOU GO AHEAD

ROWAN.

>>ROWAN YELTON: STAFF

RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF

CONDITIONS OF PROPOSED PERMANENT

APPLICATION NUMBER 202300200 FOR

FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR OPERATIONS

AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL

GAS TRANSMISSION AND

DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

THROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA

INCLUDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS

REQUIRING ACTIVITY PROPOSAL FOR

STAFF REVIEW INCLUDING ANNUAL

REPORTING SPECIES PROTECTION

INCLUDING RESTORATION TEMPORARY

DISTURBANCES COMPLIANCE WITH

APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK

WINDOWS AND COMPLIANCE WITH

AGENCY PROGRAMMATIC PERMITS AND

INDIVIDUAL PERMITS CONDITIONS

REGARDING AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION

MITIGATION TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO

PUBLIC ACCESS. THE STAFF

BELIEVE THAT THE PROJECT IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE MCATEER-PETRIS AND THE

SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN.

>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MAY I ADD

SOMETHING ROWAN, WHICH IS THIS

RECOMMENDATION IS FOR ITEM

EIGHT, NOT ITEM NINE. SIMPLY

FOR ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS — IS

THAT CORRECT?

>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. NUMBER

NINE IS DIFFERENT. I WOULD LIKE

TO MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

FOR THIS PERMIT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IS

THERE A SECOND?

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS.

AND I ASSUME THE APPLICANT

ACCEPTS THE CONDITIONS. BUT I

WOULD LIKE TO HEAR AFFIRMATION.

>>ION WILCOX: WE DO. THANK

YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>PAT ECKLUND: AND, ZACK, I

WOULD LIKE TO THANK FOR THEIR

THOROUGHNESS, IN DEVELOPING

THOSE CONDITIONS, AS SOMEONE WHO

WAS IN CHARGE OF THE NPDS

PERMITTING PROGRAM FOR EPA MANY

YEARS AGO, I KNOW WRITING THESE

PERMITS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT’S

EASY, AND I ALSO WANTED TO THANK

PG&E FOR AGREEING TO NOT ONLY

MAINTAIN WHAT YOU HAVE GOT BUT

TRY TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT

PUBLIC ACCESS AND VISUAL ASPECT

OF IT, AS WELL. THIS IS THE

TIME WHEN WE SHOULD BE DOING

THAT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE

TWO COMMENTS VERY MUCH.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU

CAN TAKE THE SLIDE DOWN SO THAT

I CAN SEE THE

PLEASE? THANK YOU. I WOULD

ASK FOR A MOTION ON THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION.

>>PAT ECKLUND: I MOVED IT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. TECHNICALLY WE NEED

TO MAKE THE MOTION AFTER IT

COMES IN. IS THERE A SECOND FOR

THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER GORIN

SECONDS. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE

IS NO FURTHER COMMENTS, SIERRA,

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THIS

QUESTION ON ITEM EIGHT.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?

>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER AHN?

>>EDDIE AHN: AYE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER ECKLUND?

>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER GILMORE?

>>MARIE GILMORE: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER GORIN?

>>SUSAN GORIN: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSION PER HASZ?

COMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ?

>>SPEAKER: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

MOULTON-PETERS?

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER NELSON?

>>BARRY NELSON: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON?

>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER PINE?

>>DAVE PINE: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH?

>>SPEAKER: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER ZAPATA? CHAIR

WASSERMAN?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF

14 YESES.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE

MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. I

WOULD NOW ASK

FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON

ITEM NINE.

>>SPEAKER: THE STAFF RECOMMENDS

APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OF THE

PROPOSED PERMIT APPLICATION

NUMBER 202300300MD FOR THE

FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM OF OPERATION

AND MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL AND

GAS TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION

FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE

PRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF

SUISUN MARSH THE PERMIT WOULD

INCLUDE THE SAME SPECIAL

CONDITIONS AS 2023002. THE

STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROJECT

IS CONSISTENT WITH THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT. SAN

FRANCISCO BAY PLAN, SUISUN MARSH

PROTECTION ACT, AND SUISUN MARSH

PRESERVATION ACT, AND THE SUISUN

MARSH PROTECTION PLAN.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU.

THEN WILL YOU TAKE DOWN THE

SLIDE, PLEASE? IS THERE A

MOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NINE?

COMMISSIONER PINE, I BELIEVE

YOUR HAND IS US.

>>PAT ECKLUND: AND I’LL SECOND

THE MOTION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND

COMMISSIONER ECKLUND SECONDS.

IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER

COMMENTS, SIERRA, PLEASE CALL

THE ROLL.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSION ADDIEGO?

>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER AHN?

>>EDDIE AHN: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND?

>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GILMORE?

>>MARIE GILMORE: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER?

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: HASZ?

COMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ?

>>SPEAKER: AYE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER KIMBALL?

>>SPEAKER: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON

PETERS?

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON?

>>BARRY NELSON: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

PEMBERTON?

>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER.

>>DAVE PINE: PINE YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH?

>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZAPATA?

WASSERMAN.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF

15 YESES ZERO NOS AND ONE

ABSTENTION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU ALL AS FOR ALL YOUR

WORK. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS

GOING FORWARD. ITEM TEN PUBLIC

HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON

APPLICATION FROM REGIS HOMES

BAY AREA LLC TO REDEVELOP

APPROXIMATELY 2.54 ACRE NEW

RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING

OF 56 FOR SALE TOWNHOUSES AS

WELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS

OPEN SPACE AREAS WITHIN THE BAY

AND 100 FEET OF SHORELINE BAND

AT 505 EAST BAY SHORELINE ROAD

REDWOOD CITY, BCDC SHORELINE

DEVELOPMENT PERMITS MANAGER WILL

MAKE THE PRESENTATION AND

INTRODUCE THE APPLICANT

SPEAKERS.

>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: BE RIGHT

THERE WE’RE DOING A

TECHNOLOGICAL FIX.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: WE’RE

WORKING ON SOME SOUND IN THE

ROOM. GIVE US ONE MINUTE.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR

WASSERMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON

COMMISSIONERS I’M KATHARINE PAN

SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

MANAGER AT BEA R BCDC I’LL BE

PROVIDING A BRIEF SUMMARY OF

THIS NEXT APPLICATION NUMBER

2023005 FOR RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT AT 505 EAST BAY

SHORE ROAD IN REDWOOD CITY SAN

MATEO COUNTY I’LL INTRODUCE

REGIS HOMES WHO WILL SHARE THE

DETAILS.

>>SPEAKER: THEIR PROJECT WITH

YOU. SUMMARY FOR THIS PROJECT

WAS MAILED ON APRIL 5TH, 2024

AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION

FOLLOWED ON MAY 10TH, 2024.

ALL RIGHT. TO ORIENT YOU,

THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN

REDWOOD CITY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY

NEARBY LANDMARKS INCLUDE BEAR

ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE AND

SMITH SLEW TO THE NORTH AND PORT

OF REDWOOD CITY CARGILLS REDWOOD

CITY SALT PLANT NEAR THE EAST

BEAR ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE

PART OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN

DESIGNATED WILDLIFE PRIORITY

USED R USE AREA BUT ITSELF IS

NOT PART OF PRIORITY AREAS. THE

HALF ACRE SITUATED JUST OFF

WHIPPLE AVENUE OVERPASS

OFF-HIGHWAY 101 PREVIOUS USE OF

THE SITE WAS FOR METAL RECYCLING

SUPPLY OPERATION DATING BACK TO

1963 THERE ARE NO EXISTING BCDC

PERMITS ON THE SITE. TO THE

SOUTH IS FORMER TOYOTA 101

DEARLISHIP AND EAST 557 EAST

BAY SHORE ROAD CURRENTLY VACANT

MOVIE THEATRE COMPLEX IN THE

PROCESS OF REDEVELOPMENT. THE

PROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORING

DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE

COMMISSION IN JUNE OF LAST

YEAR.

NOTABLE FEATURES TO THE NORTH OF

THE SITE WE FREQUENTLY REFERENCE

IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IS A

TIDALING INFLUENCE DITCH WITH

MUTED TIDAL MARSH HABITAT PART

OF THE JURISDICTION’S NORTHED

OF THAT IS PAVED TRAIL THE LEVY

TRAIL RECOMMENDATION AND NORTHS

OF THAT IS WHAT WE REFER TO AS

THE UNNAMED SLEW WHICH IS A

TRANSCRIBETARY OF SMITH SLEW AND

NORTH OF THAT IS THE BAY AREA

ISLANDS TRAIL SEGMENT THE TIDAL

DITCH IS CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING

MUTED TIDESAL MARSH HABITAT

LIMITED DUE TO SIZE AND

ISOLATION PROVIDING SUITABLE

HABITAT FOR MARSH HARVEST MOUSE

AND SHOE, BEAR

ISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE

NORTH ARE BOTH BIOLOGICAL

HABITAT FOR A VARIETY OF SPECIAL

STATUS SPECIES, IMAGINES OF THE

SITE TAKEN AT HIGH AND LOW TIDE.

REGIS HOMES BAY AREA LLC IS

PROPOSING TO REMEDIATE AND

REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT 505

EAST BAY SHORE ROAD WITH

RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME PROJECT

CONSISTING OF 56 TOTAL UNITS

INCLUDING EIGHT AFFORDABLE UNITS

AS WELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC

ACCESS OPEN SPACE AREAS 1.39

ACRES OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE

WITHIN THE COMMISSION’S BAY

SHORELINE BAN JURISDICTION

INCLUDING THREE TOWNHOME

BUILDINGS IN A PUBLIC ACCESS

AREA IN SHORELINE TRAIL. DUE TO

THE PRESENCE OF TIDAL MARSH IN A

DITCH THE BAY SHORELINE IN THIS

AREA IS CONSIDERED THE UPLAND

EDGE OF MARSH VEGETATION UP TO

FIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA LEVEL

THE DIAGRAM YOU CAN SEE IT IN

RED. THE PROJECT WILL INVOLVE

600 FRIEFR FEET OF NEW BAY FILL

CAN I HAVING OF SMALL PORTIONS

OF NEW SHORELINE TRAIL OVERLOOKS

CAN’T LEVERED OVER THE DITCH

FROM A RETAINING WALL SITUATED

IN THE SHORELINE BAND MAYBE HARD

TO SEE HERE THE PARTS CAN’T

LEVERING CROSS OVER THE BAY

JURISDICTION. DEDICATED OPEN

SPACE TO MAINTAIN A VISUAL

CONNECTION TO BEAR ISLANDS

WITHIN THE SHORELINE BAND THE

SITE WILL INCLUDE SITE

PREPARATION REMOVING ALL

EXISTING SITE FEATURES

REMEDIATING PCB CONTAMINATED

SOILS RAISING ELEVATIONS

APPROXIMATELY 5 TO 7 FEET THE

PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FEW 550

FOOT RETAINING WALL ALONG THE

DITCH 3, 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL

BUILDINGS WITH 20 TOWNHOME UNITS

ASSOCIATED CIRCULATION AREAS AND

APPROXIMATELY 16,560 FEET OF

PROJECT PUBLIC ACCESS

IMPROVEMENTS TAKING PLACE

OFF-SITE ON PUBLICLY OWNED

PROPERTY. THE PROJECT WILL

PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 18,800

SQUARE FEET OF DEDICATED

PUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC ACCESS IN

AN AREA WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS

DOESN’T CURRENTLY EXIST THIS

INCLUDES 14,250 SQUARE FEET OF

DEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE

BAY AND SHORELINE BAND AND 180

FOOT OF DEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS

OUTSIDE OF COMMISSION’S

JURISDICTION. IMPROVEMENTS IN

THE PUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL

INCLUDE A TEN FOOT WIDE CONCRETE

PATH WITH 210 FOOT SHOULDERS ON

EACH SIDE THAT WILL CONNECT

ROADWAY TO PLAN IMPROVEMENTS AT

557 EAST BAY SHORE OVERLOOKS

OBSERVATION DECK DELIVERED OVER

THE TIDAL DITCH WITH VIEWS

TOWARD THE BEAR ISLANDS AND

PLAZA AT THE TRAIL ENTRANCE,

PERMIT IS FIVE FEVEN EAST BAY

SHORE SITES TIDESAL TO

FACILITIES ON THE SIDE. IN

ADDITION PROJECT WILL PROVIDE

4,550 TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF

PUBLIC ACCESS, INCLUDING NEW

TRAIL PLAZA SIDEWALK CONNECTION

TO THE BEAR ISLAND TRAIL HEAD

AND SIDEWALK ALONG THE EAST BAY

SHORE ROAD LEADING TO FIVE NEW

PUBLIC SHORE PARKING SPACES IN

THE RIGHT OF WAY S CONTAMINATION

IN THE SOIL AND SEDIMENT ON THE

SITE IN THE TIDAL DITCH THE

WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IS

CONDUCTED THROUGH SEPARATE

RELATED REMEDIATION PROJECTS

INCLUDING RENEEDIATION OF THE

ON-SITE AREA SHOWN HERE IN

PURPLE OR BLUE THIS WORK BASED

ON-SITE CLEAN UP PLAN DEVELOPED

UNDER OVERSIGHT ASSIST WATER

BOARD INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION OF

THE RETAINING WALL EXCAVATING

CONTAMINATED SOIL AROUND THE

PLAN UTILITY LINES AND GRADING

AND CAPPING CONTAMINATED SOIL

UNDER GEO TEXTILE AND IMPORTING

CLEAN SOIL. IN ADDITION ANOTHER

PROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED BY A

DIFFERENCE APPLICANT TO

REMEDIATE THE SITE BANK IN

YELLOW AND ORANGE SITES IN AREAS

BELOW THE RETAINING WALL AND

DITCH MEETING REMEDIATION

PROJECTS COMPLETED TO THE

CONSTRUCTION OF ANY HOUSING OR

PUBLIC ACCESS COMPONENTS THE

PROJECT SITE BANK AREA WILL

BECOME DEDICATED OPEN SPACE.

THE PROJECT WILL ELEVATE THE

ENTIRE SITE TO 5 TO 7 FEET ABOVE

EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE OF

13 FEET AND VD88 EXCEPT FOR THE

NORTHWEST CORNER PORTION OF THE

PUBLIC ACCESS ELEVATIONS

DECREASE TO AROUND 11 FEET TO

CONFORM WITH EXISTING GRADES IN

THE CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY.

STORM TIDAL LEVEL PROJECTS AND

CONTRACTS WITH PROPOSED GRANT

AWARDS OVERED TO RISE 12.SKWIEN

FEET 88 FROM CURRENT LEVELS OF

10.69 FEET ON HIGH EMISSIONS

SCENARIO PROVIDED BY THE

OCEANARY PROTECTION COUNCIL

UNDER 2018 SEA LEVEL RISE

GUIDANCE. AT THE PROPOSED

ELEVATIONS MOST PROJECT AND

PUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL BE

RESILIENT TO FLOODING FROM THE

100 YEAR STORM TIED IN 2050

UNDER MEDIUM HIGH RISK HIGH

EMISSION SCENARIO WITH EXCEPTION

OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTHWEST

PART OF THE SITE.

HOWEVER THE 100 YEAR STORM TIME

IS PROJECTED TO REACH 13.6 FEET

BY 2060 AND 14.5 FEET BY 2070

MEANING PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS

WOULD BE AT RISK OF FLOODING

BEFORE THE END OF THE CENTURY.

GROUNDS WATER LEVELS POTENTIAL

TO COMPROMISE PROJECT STORM

DRAINS BY 2050 AND PROJECTED TO

BE AT OUR ABOVE GROUNDS LEVEL BY

2100. THIS SLIDE SHOWS WHAT

THAT WILL LOOK LIKE BASED ON

CURRENT CONDITIONS NEARLY ALL OF

THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD BE

FACING IMPACTS BY THIS TIME.

THE APPLICANTS CONTEMPLATED

ADAPTATION STRATEGIES DURING THE

DESIGN PHASE INCLUDING RAISING

THE EDGE CHATTY RETAINING WALL

AND ELEVATES THE MULTI-USE TRAIL

BUT HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO A

SINGLE ADAPTATION STRATEGY AT

THIS TIME STAFF HAS AGREED TO

MONITOR THE SITE AND ENGAGE IN

AN ADAPTATION PLANNING PROCESS

THAT WILL BEGIN BY 2050 OR AT

ANY EARLY STAGES OR ANY SIGNS

MUCH FLOODING TO REASSESS SITE

CONDITIONS USING BEST AVAILABLE

SCIENCE AT THE AND DEVELOP AND

IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE ADAPTATION

MEASURES TO AVOID IMPACT ON THE

PUBLIC ACCESS AREA BECAUSE THE

PROJECT INVOLVES SALE OF TOWN

HOMES AND EXPECT PERMIT TO BE

TAKEN OVER BY HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION REQUIRES NOTICE TO

BUYERS THAT CLEARLY INDICATES

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE

PERMITTEE TO MAINTAIN AND ADAPT

PUBLIC ACCESS AREA FOR THE LIFE

OF THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION

FOR CONTENTS OF THAT NOTICE IS

INCLUDED IN APPENDIX C OF THE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ACCORDING

TO THE COMMISSION’S VULNERABLE

MAPPING TOOL THE PROJECT SITE IS

LOCATED WITHIN A BLOCK

IDENTIFIED AS HAVING LOW SOCIAL

VULNERABILITY GIVEN INDUSTRIAL

COMMERCIAL NATURE OF SURROUNDING

DEVELOPMENT MUCH OF THE AREA

SHOWS HAVING LOW SOCIAL

VULNERABILITY ALSO IDENTIFIED IS

HIGHEST CONTAMINATION VULNERABLE

WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH NEARBY

HAZARDOUS CLEAN UP ACTIVITIES

GROUNDS WATER THREATS HAZARDOUS

WASTE FACILITIES AND SOLID WASTE

FACILITIES. PROJECT DESIGN

APPLICANT CONDUCTED OUTREACH TO

COMMUNITY GROUPS TO IDENTIFY

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL EQUITY

CONCERNS, DESIRES FOR AFFORDABLE

HOUSING AND COMMUNITIES IMPROVED

SHORELINE ACCESS TO TRAIL

CONNECTIONS AND PARKING ISSUES

APPLICANTS PROPOSING TO MAKE

OFFSITE PUBLIC ACCESS

IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SEGMENTS

ALONG EAST BAY SHORE ROAD AND

FIVE DESIGNATED PUBLIC SHORE

PARKING SPACES. THE PROJECT HAS

BEEN DESIGNED TO INCLUDE EIGHT

BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS THAT

WILL BE AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS

MAKING UP TO ONE HUNDREDS 20% OF

THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME WHICH IS

APPROXIMATELY 21,000 FOR A

FAMILY OF FOUR. RELEVANT POLICY

ISSUES RAISED BY PROJECT INCLUDE

WEATHER PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS

IS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE CONSISTENT

WITH THE PROJECT OTHERWISE

CANNOT WITH MCATEER-PETRIS, BAY

PLAN IN TERMS OF BAY FILL

APPEARANCE AND DESIGN SCENIC

VIEWS WATER QUALITY MITIGATION

FISH AND WILDLIFE AND CLIMATE

CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

AND SOCIAL EQUITY. WITH THAT I

WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE KRYSTA

HEINS VICE PRESIDENT FOR

DEVELOPMENT AT SEARS REGIS HOMES

BAY AREA TO PRESENT THE

PROPOSAL IN GREATER DETAIL

>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I WANT TO

REMIND FOLKS THAT WE ARE CLOSE

TO A QUORUM. SO, PLEASE WE NEED

YOU TO STAY. THANK YOU VERY

MUCH.

>>SPEAKER: THANKS

KATHARINE.

APPRECIATE THAT. I’M CHRIS

DEHAN WITH REGIS HOMES JOINED BY

JEFF SMITH ALSO WITH REGIS HOMES

AND OUR DESIGN TEAM. REGIS

HOMES IS A LOCAL HOME BUILDER

AND DEVELOPER BASED IN SAN

MATEO. GREAT. THANK YOU.

REGIS HOME BUILDER BASED IN SAN

MATEO WE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS

FOR 30 YEARS WE HAVE A LONG

TRACK RECORD DELIVERING HOUSING

THROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AND HERE

IN REDWOOD CITY INCLUDING THE

THREE PROJECTS YOU SEE ON THE

SCREEN BEFORE YOU. WE’RE REALLY

EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

HERE TO TELL YOU MORE ABOUT OUR

HOUSING PROPOSAL AT 505 EAST BAY

SHORE ROAD. I WOULD LIKE TO

START BY THANKING BCDC STAFF WHO

HELPED US GET HERE TODAY,

INCLUDING KATHARINE, YURIE,

JESSICA, TONY, ANDREA, ETHAN,

AND SO MANY MORE. IT’S BEEN A

HUGE TEAM. THANK YOU, ALL. 505

EAST BAY SHORE IS A SMALL BUT

IMPORTANT HOUSING PROPOSAL

THAT’S A BROADER TRANSFORMATION

OF THE BEAR ISLAND NEIGHBORHOOD

THAT STARTED WITH CITIES GENERAL

PLAN UPDATE BACK IN 2010 THE

VISION IS MIXED USE WATERFRONT

NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTING OF

HOUSING OF MIXED USES,

DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES LIKE

BLUE HARBOR VILLE AS MARINA AND

OF COURSE THE APPROVAL OF 480

UNIT PROJECT NEXT DOOR AT 557

EAST BAY SHORE WE’RE PART OF

THAT TRANSFORMATION. OUR

PROJECT SITE IS THE GATEWAY TO

THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU GET OFF

AT WHIPPLE AND COME ON TO

BAYSHORE ROAD THE SITE IS

WALKABLE TO DOWNTOWN, AND

INCLUDES RESOURCES TO BEAR

ISLANDS AND WILDLIFE REFUGE.

THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY

THERE ARE NO TREES NO

APPEAL, THE BUILDINGS ARE AGING.

IT’S LACKING BASIC PUBLIC

ACCESS AND SAFETY MEASURES LIKE

A SIDEWALK STREET TREES,

PARKING, NOTHING CHATTY KIND.

SO TODAY WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO

TRANSFORM THIS SITE. NOT ONLY

CAN WE BUILD NEW HOUSING, WE CAN

ALSO BEAUTIFY THE ENTRANCE TO

THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE CAN CREATE

NEW PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BAY

FRONT, AND ADD MUCH NEEDED

SAFETY FEATURES TO THE GATEWAY

SITE. I WANT TO FILL IN A FEW

GAPS HERE.

JUST OVER TWO AND A HALF ACRES

THIS, IS A SMALL SITE IN THE

GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS WE’RE

EXCITED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO

TURN IT INTO 56 NEW HOMES

INCLUDING THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE

HOMES THAT KATHARINE MENTIONED.

LET’S SEE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE

DITCH AND LEVY TRAILS. SO, I

WON’T GO THROUGH THAT. I WANT

TO MENTION FEATURES OF THE SITE

DESIGN. WE HAVE BROKEN UP THE

HOMES INTO NINE BUILDINGS ACROSS

THE STATE TO AVOID CREATING TOO

MUCH MASS. WE HAVE PASEOS

RUNNING THROUGH THE SITE TO

ENHANCE VIEWS TO CREATE VIEW

CORRIDORS AND ENHANCE CONNECTION

THROUGH TO THE BAY. WE MAXIMIZE

LANDSCAPING ACROSS THE SITE YOU

CAN SEE THAT HERE AND INCLUDED A

MODEST PRIVATE OUTDOOR AMENITY

SPACE FOR RESIDENTS IN THE LOWER

RIGHT HAND CORNER BUT TRIED TO

MAKE MOST OF THIS AS PUBLIC AS

POSSIBLE. I’LL SHARE

ARCHITECTURE NEXT. HOMES ARE

THREE STORY TALL, ARCHITECTURE

IS CONTEMPORARY WITH MIX OF

MATERIALS PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE,

THREE LEVELS, ABOVE GRADE THAT

WAS EXCEPTIONAL BECAUSE WE

WANTED THE PUBLIC SPACE ALONG

THE TRAIL TO FEEL PUBLIC SO WE

ELEVATED THE PRIVATE OUTDOOR

SPACES. HERE IS A VIEW OF THE

TRAIL WITH THE DITCH IN THE

FOREGROUND AND THE BAY AND

WILDLIFE REFUGE IN THE

BACKGROUND WE’RE PROUD TO OFFER

A FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH BAY TRAIL

SECTION HERE THAT CONSISTS OF

TEN FOOT CENTER WALKWAY WITH TWO

FOOT SHOULDERS ON EITHER SIDE

FOR MULTI-MODAL USE, WE HAVE

CAN’T LEVERED OVERLOOKS WE CALL

NODES WITH INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE

AND PERFORMINGS TO ENHANCE THE

PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND USE OF THE

TRAIL. WE HAVE PASEOS RUNNING

THROUGH AND EMPHASIS AND

CONNECTION THROUGH THE BAY,

PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES

DELINEATED WITH LANDSCAPING AND

NOT FENCES TRYING TO CREATE AN

OPEN EXPERIENCE. SO IN ADDITION

TO HELPING ADDRESS THE HOUSING

SHORTAGE THIS PROJECT OFFERS A

NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITY

BENEFITS INCLUDING THE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE

TALKED BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT

THAT’S 15% OF THE OVERALL HOMES

AT THE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL

THAT WAS AN INCREASE FROM OUR

RIM REQUIREMENT OF 10%. THE NEW

PUBLIC ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE

EASEMENTS TOGETHER ARE OVER

20,000 SQUARE FEET MORE THAN 18%

OF OUR SITE AREA NOT INCLUDING

OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS I’LL TALK

ABOUT NEXT. WE’RE EXCITED TO

OFFER SIGNIFICANT BIKE

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS

ADAPTATION FOR SEA LEVEL RISE

AND MORE THAT I’LL OUTLINE IN

ACKNOWLEDGE SLIDES AND NEW

DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING

SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND

INFRASTRUCTURE FEES AND OF

COURSE ENHANCED PROPERTY TAX

REVENUE TO THE CITY TO FURTHER

SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE

AREA.

I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THESE ARE

FOR SALE HOMES WHICH IS GOING TO

HELP THE CITY MEET ITS GOAL OF

INCREASING OWNERSHIP HOUSE STOCK

AS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THERE

HAS BEEN DEVELOPMENT IN REDWOOD

CITY LION SHARE OF WHICH IS

APARTMENT HOMES THIS IS A BADLY

NEEDED UNDERSERVED SEGMENT OF

THE MARKET THOSE AFFORDABLE

UNITS WILL ALSO BE OFFERED FOR

SALE WHICH IS FAIRLY RARE. AT

THE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL

PERFECT FOR FIRST SPONSORED AND

ESSENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE

COMMUNITY AT MARKET RATE HOMES

SIZE AT THIS PRICE POINT TOWN

HOMES ARE PERFECT FOR FIRST TIME

HOME BUYERS WHICH ARE, SORT OF,

MOST UNDER SERVED SEGMENT OF THE

MARKET. I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE

TRAIL AND HOW WE DESIGNED IT.

WITH THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING

PUBLIC ACCESS WHILE MINIMIZING

ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE BAY

OLDER IN OUR DESIGN PROCESS WE

ENGAGED BROADLY TO COMPLETE A

BIOLOGICAL STUDY TO LOOK AT THE

DITCH AND TIDAL VEGETATION IN IT

AND COMPLETED A JURISDICTIONAL

DETERMINATION WITH THE ARMY CORP

BASED ON THAT JURISDICTIONAL

DETERMINATION WE RECONFIGURED

OUR SITE PLAN, UNDERSTANDING

WHERE THE DITCH AND BAY IS AND

DESIGN EVERYTHING AROUND THAT

RATHER THAN PUSHING INTO IT.

WORKING WITH BCDC STAFF WE ADDED

A CAN’T LEVER ALONG THE TRAIL TO

ACHIEVE THE FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH

BAY TRAIL SECTION WHILE AVOIDING

PHYSICAL IMPACTS INTO THE

DITCH.

WE’RE AWARE OF THE RISK SEA

LEVEL RISE POSES TO THE

COMMUNITY AND WE’RE COMMITTED TO

DOING OUR PART TO PREPARE THE

COMMUNITY FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS

OUR PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SEA

WALL ALONG THE DITCH TO HELP US

BUILD UP THE SITE ENABLING US TO

ADD NEW PUBLIC ACCESS WHILE

MAINTAINING FEASIBLE UNIT COUNT

THE SEA WALL WAS PIVOT ALL TO

OUR SITE PLAN AND ENABLING US TO

RAISE THE SITE UP BETWEEN 5 AND

7 FEET ACROSS THE SITE PROVIDING

PROTECTION OF 2100 MEDIAN HIGH

WATER ALIGN AND ADAPTABLE TO 100

YEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONS IF NEEDED

IN THE FUTURE. I WANT TO

CLARIFY CONTEXT, BEYOND THE

DRAINAGE DITCH WE TALKED ABOUT,

THE LEVEE AND SLEW AT BUYER BARE

ISLANDS REFUGE THERE IS AN

EXISTING BAY TRAIL SEGMENT IN

GREEN HERE IN BLUE I WANT TO

POINT OUT THE OTHER PUBLIC

ACCESS WALK WAYS LIKE THE PG

LEVEE TRAIL AND WALKWAYS FROM

OTHER NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE

AREA AND THEN IN YELLOW YOU CAN

SEE THE NEW TRAIL SEGMENTS FROM

OUR PROJECT SITE AND 557 EAST

BAY SHORE ROAD COMBINED HERE.

SO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT

THEY’RE ADDITIVE TO AN EXISTING

NETWORK OF PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE

AREA. SPEAKING OF CONTEXT, I

WANTED TO ZOOM IN ON AN EXISTING

FLAW AND A PRETTY SERIOUS ONE

ABOUT THIS NETWORK OF PUBLIC

ACCESS. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE

INTERSECTION AT WHIPPLE ROAD AND

BAYSHORE AT THE FRONT OF OUR

SITE WHERE THE EXISTING BAY

TRAIL HEAD IS LOCATED. AS

THINGS STAND TODAY YOU CAN SEE

THE INTERSECTION IS INCOMPLETE

AND UNSAFE THERE IS NO SIDEWALK,

NO PARKING, NO SAVE PEDESTRIAN

ACCESS AT ALL TO THE BAY TRAIL,

TRAIL HEAD THEN THE CROSSWALK TO

NOWHERE WHICH DEAD ENDS INTO A

CHAIN LINK FENCE TODAY IN

ADDITION TO BUILDING MUCH NEEDED

NEW HOUSING WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY

TO FIX THIS PROBLEM. OUR

PROPOSAL INCLUDES ING WHY BEYOND

OUR PROPERTY LINE WITH

SIGNIFICANT OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS

TO CREATE A SAFER CONNECTION TO

THE TRAIL SYSTEM INCLUDING A NEW

SIDEWALK WITH RAISED LANDSCAPE

PLANTERS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED

PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION. THIS

JURISDICTION CREATES OPPORTUNITY

FOR A NEW TRAIL HEAD WE’RE

CALLING IT A PLAZA WITH SEATING

ELEMENTS, A DRINKING FOUNTAIN,

SIGNAGE, AND A MICRO-MOBILITY

STATION OR THE CITY’S BIKESHARE

AND/OR SCOOTER SHARE PROGRAM AND

OF COURSE WE GET TO COMPLETE THE

CROSSWALK TO NOWHERE.

ALL RIGHT. AS MANY OF THE

COMMISSIONERS MAY RECALL THE 557

EAST BAY SHORE ROAD SITE WAS

APPROVED WITH PACKAGE OF PUBLIC

ACCESS AMENITIES HOWEVER THEY’RE

COMPLETELY ORPHANED AND

INACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC

WITHOUT TRAVERSING THROUGH THE

SITE FROM BAYSHORE ROAD WE

PROVIDE A DIRECT CONNECTION FROM

THE SITE THROUGH OURS TO THE

TRAIL HEAD CREATING A CONTINUOUS

PATHWAY. WE’RE PROUD OF HOW

SUSTAINABLE THIS PROJECT WILL BE

THESE HOMES WILL BE ALL ELECTRIC

NO NATURAL GAS PLUMBED TO THE

PROPERTY NO TAIL PIPES TO THESE

HOMES THEY WILL HAVE SOLAR PV

PANELS INSTALLED AS WELL AS EV

CHARGING OUTLET’S PART OF ALL

ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES

HEAT PUMP WATER HEATING WHICH

INCLUDES TECHNOLOGY YOU’RE GOING

TO HEAR A LOT ABOUT IN THE FIGHT

AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE PURPLE

PLUMBING FOR IRRIGATED RECYCLED

WATER AND SO MUCH MORE. AS ALL

OF US IN THIS INDUSTRY KNOW IT

CAN BE QUITE A JOURNEY TO GET

NEW HOUSING APPROVED I WON’T GO

THROUGH IN DETAIL BUT WANT TO

MENTION WE’RE REALLY EXCITED TO

BE HERE TODAY. WE WERE APPROVED

BY THE CITY ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND

PRIOR TO THAT WE WENT THROUGH

FOUR ROUNDS OF DESIGN REVIEW TWO

WITH THE CITY AND TWO WITH BCDC

WE COMPLETED A FULL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

CONDUCTED EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY

OUTREACH. AND WE ARE ASKING FOR

YOUR APPROVAL THIS AFTERNOON.

SPEAKING OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH,

PART OF OUR PROCESS OF REGIS

HOMES IS TO MEET WITH AS MANY

STAKEHOLDERS AS POSSIBLE

INCLUDING STAKEHOLDERS BUT FOLKS

IN THE CITY MORE BROADLY AND IN

THE BAY AREA. NOT ONLY DO WE

MEET WITH GROUPS THAT SUPPORT

HOUSING WE TRY TO MEET WITH AS

MANY GROUPS AS WE CAN THAT MAY

SEE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY THAN

WE DO THIS IS A LIST OF GROUPS

WE HAVE MET WITH THROUGH THE

YEARS IMPORTANTLY MENTION

SUPPORT OF THE BEAR ISLAND

NEIGHBORHOOD, BOOSTER, AND WE

SAT DOWN WITH CITIZENS COMMITTEE

TO COMPLETE THE REFUGE AND

SIERRA CLUB TO HEAR ABOUT THEIR

CONCERNS WE MADE A FEW CHANGES

IN

RESPONSE. AND WITH THAT WE’RE

PROUD TO HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF

THESE FINE GROUPS HERE AND THANK

YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON

I’LL

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

I’LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS?

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES,

CHAIR WASSERMAN.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HOW

MANY?

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CURRENTLY

THREE HANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY,

AND NONE IN-PERSON.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

LET’S CALL THEM.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: LUIS —

PARDON ME FOR YOUR LAST NAME,

MIRANTE, YOU’RE UP FIRST,

FOLLOWED BY GITA

D. LUIS?

>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>SPEAKER: HELLO MR. CHAIR,

MEMBERS, MY NAME IS

LUISMIRANTE YOU NAILED MY LAST

NAME LIKE AN OLYMPIC GYM

AND-A-HALF CONGRATULATIONS THANK

YOU I’M HERE TODAY PROUD TO

SUPPORT THIS PROJECT

ON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA

COUNCIL ALL WITH THE GOAL OF

MAKING THE BAY AREA THE BEST

PLACE IN THE COUNTRY TO LIVE AND

WORK. THE HOUSING CRISIS THE

BAY AREA FACES IS AS YOU KNOW

OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE MOST

IMMENSE CHALLENGES THAT OUR

EMPLOYERS AND OUR RESIDENTS IN

THIS REGION FACE TODAY SO WE’RE

PROUD TODAY TO BE A PART OF

HELPING SUPPORT THIS PROJECT

WHICH IS A SMALL BUT MIGHT

CONTRIBUTION TO REDUCE YOU THE

INTENSITY OF THAT CRISIS. OUR

PROJECT ENDORSEMENT COMMITTEE

REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND

UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO SUPPORT IT

IN PART BECAUSE THE PROJECT

ALIGNS WITH OUR GOALS OF

EXPANDING AFFORDABLE

HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTIONS IN A JOB

MARKET THAT SO CLEARLY NEEDS

THEM AND BECAUSE THE PUBLIC

BENEFITS AND RESILIENCY EFFORTS

THAT THE PROJECT UNDERTOOK GO

ABOVE AND BEYOND IN OUR OPINION

IN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTING VALUE

TO THE PUBLIC. SO, WHEN LOOKING

AT THIS PROJECT, I HOPE THAT YOU

SEE IT’S NOT JUST A HOUSING

PROJECT BUT ALSO ONE THAT

IMPROVES THE REGION’S RESILIENCY

HOWEVER SLIGHTLY, AND IS PART OF

A BIGGER PICTURE THAT WE NEED TO

MEET TO GET TO OUR CLIMATE GOALS

AND TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR REGION

CAN ADAPT TO AND BE RESILIENT TO

CLIMATE CHANGE W THAT I’M HAPPY

TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE

ABOUT OUR SUPPORT LETTER WHICH

WAS TRANSMITTED TO YOU YESTERDAY

AND OTHERWISE URGE YOUR SUPPORT

FOR THIS STERLING PROJECT.

THANK YOU.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK

YOU. GITA

DEV. YOU ARE NEXT.

>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES WE

CAN.

>>SPEAKER: YOU CAN GO TO SLIDE

NUMBER 14 AND THEN WE COULD

START THE CLOCK?

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

KATHARINE, CAN YOU SHARE SLIDE

14? THANK YOU. WHICH

PRESENTATION WAS IT? OUR STAFF

PRESENTATION OR THE APPLICANT’S

PRESENTATION?

>>SPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT WAS THE

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION, THE

LAST ONE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ONE

MINUTE.

>>SPEAKER: 14 OR 17. EITHER

ONE WILL DO.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: IS THIS

THE CORRECT SLIDE?

>>SPEAKER: IT ACTUALLY SHOWED A

SITE PLAN. MAYBE TRY 17.

JUST THE PREVIOUS ONE. JUST GO

BACK TWO. ONE MORE.

YEAH. I THINK THIS WILL BE

FINE. THIS WILL BE FINE. THANK

YOU SO MUCH.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YOUR TIME

IS NOW RUNNING.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M GITA

DEFINITELY, I’M WITH THE SIERRA

CLUB ALIVE CAMPAIGN. I

AM APPRECIATIVE THAT REGIS

HOMES PROJECTS, HOWEVER I WANT

TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SIERRA

CLUB DID NOT MEET WITH REGIS

HOMES ON THIS PROJECT THEY DID

REACH OUT AND WE DECLINED ALSO I

WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT

CITIZEN’S COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE

THE REFUGE IS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED

TO THIS PROJECT THERE WERE ALSO

COMMUNITY BENEFITS BUT SOME OF

THOSE ARE NOT BENEFITS SOME OF

THOSE ARE REQUIRED FEES. SO,

GIVEN THAT, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO

POINT OUT IS FOR, I ASSUME THAT

ALL YOU COMMISSIONERS REALIZE

THAT THE FRONT ROW OF TOWN HOMES

THAT ARE SHOWN IN THIS SITE PLAN

ARE ALL WITHIN THE BCDC 100 FOOT

SET BACK BAND. AND WITH GIVEN

SEA LEVEL RISE, YOU CAN SEE THAT

WE REALLY NEED THAT 100 FEET.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROJECT

NEXT TO IT IS RESPECTING THAT

100 FOOT SET BACK WITH ITS

HOMES. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT

THAT THIS SEGMENT OF WHAT

THEY’RE CALLING THE BAY TRAIL IS

REALLY AN ISOLATED SEGMENT THAT

IS REALLY FOR THE ENJOYMENT

ENJOIMENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO

LIVE IN THESE HOMES BECAUSE

THERE IS NO CONNECTION BACK TO

THE BLUE LINE WHICH IS USED AS A

PUBLIC TRAIL, AND I AM VERY

FAMILIAR WITH IT. I DO ACCEPT

ALL OF THE POINTS ABOUT HOW

DIFFICULT THE CONNECTION IS TO

BEAR ISLAND, AT THE WILL LOW, AT

THE WHIPPLE ROAD. HOWEVER, I

REALLY THINK THIS WOULD BE THE

WRONG TIME TO ENCROACH TO ALLOW

ENCROACHMENTS INTO THIS 100 FOOT

SET BACK BAND. ONE SHORELINE,

AS YOU ALL KNOW, CAME BEFORE US

AND SAID THAT IT IS THEIR POLICY

TO TRY TO MAINTAIN A 100 FOOT

SET BACK IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR

THE BAY TO STAY ALIVE. TO NOT

HAVE SEA WALLS RIGHT UP AGAINST

THE BAY.

AND YOU CAN TELL IF YOU HAD

ANYTHING TO DO WITH

CONSTRUCTION, THAT DOING

CONSTRUCTION INTO THE BAY, INTO

THAT SLOUGH, INTO THAT DITCH

WHICH HAS ENDANGERED SPECIES

YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO CLOSE

OFF THAT DITCH IN ORDER TO BE

ABLE TO DRAIN IN ORDER TO BE

ABLE TO PULL THAT STUFF

UNDERGROUND. I WOULD SAY ONE

THING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THIS

IS NOT THE PLACE TO PUT

HOMEOWNER AFFORDABLE HOUSING,

THEY’RE GOING TO GET HIT UP WITH

A LOT OF COSTS WHEN THE SEA

LEVELS IN 2050. THE STORM

DRAINS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE

REDONE THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO

LOCATE HOUSING AND PARTICULARLY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK YOU

FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT YOUR

TIME HAS NOW FINISHED.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOVING ON

TO KEVIN CHAN. YOU MAY NOW

UNMUTE.

>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON

MEMBERS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY

CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMISSION MY NAME IS KEN CHAN

AND I AM THE SENIOR ORGANIZER

WITHIN THE HOUSING LEADERSHIP

COUNCIL SAN MATEO COUNTY WE WORK

WITH COMMITTEES AND THEIR

LEADERS TO PRODUCE AND RESERVE

QUALITY AFFORDABLE HOMES

APPRECIATION TO STAFF FOR THE

HARD WORK ON TODAY’S

PRESENTATION, ON BEHALF OF HCL

OUR LETTER I WOULD LIKE TO

EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR 505

BAYSHORE TOWNHOME PROJECT REGIS

HOMES BAY AREA AS YOU MAY

ALREADY KNOW CREATING OWNERSHIP

OF AFFORDABLE HOMES IN OUR STATE

IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF LACK OF

AVAILABLE FUNDING. THIS IS WHY

WE SUPPORT THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE,

TWO BEDROOM AND 4 TO 8 MARKET

RATE HOMES THAT THE CITY

DISPARATELY NEED, FAMILIES WILL

GET STABILITY THEY NEED TO

THRIVE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES

WHERE THEY WILL NO LONGER WORRY

ABOUT QUALITY OF AFFORDABLE

HOMES AND ALSO BE ABLE TO LIVE

NEAR THEIR PLACES OF WORK

REDUCES STRESS ON THE BAY AREA

INFRASTRUCTURE AND DECREASE BOTH

THEIRS AND YOUR TIME ON THE ROAD

LEAVING TIME FOR HEALTH FAMILY

AND COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR

YOUR CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AND WE

URGE YOU TO APPROVE THE 505

EAST BAY SHORE TOWNHOME

PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK

YOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN THERE IS

NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>>SPEAKER: I WOULD ENTERTAIN A

MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING.

>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES. AND

COMMISSIONER NELSON SECONDS.

THERE IS NO OBJECTION. THE

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND

COMMENTS?

>>PAT ECKLUND: — UH —

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES, THANK

YOU. LET’S SEE. I WAS GOING TO

ASK IF EITHER STAFF OR THE

APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT

ON THAT — THE COMMENT ABOUT THE

100 FOOT SET BACK AND — JUST

GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE

CONTEXT ABOUT THAT?

>>SPEAKER: HAPPY TO. I HOPE

CAN YOU HEAR ME. KATHARINE, I

ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT SLIDE 14

WAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR THIS

SUBJECT. I’M HAPPY TO COMMENT

ON THAT. THE SHORT ANSWER IS

THIS IS A SMALL SITE PUTTING A

100 FOOT SET BACK WOULD MAKE

THIS UNDEVELOPABLE THAT’S WHY

WE’RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE AMOUNT

OF PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WE CAN

OFFER TO THE SITE UNDERSTANDING

WE CAN’T GET TO THE FULL 100

FEET ALSO MENTION TO LOOK AT THE

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA

IF WE CAN GET THE SLIDE UP HERE

IF YOU LOOK AT THE VILLAS, BLUE

HARBOR, MARIN A NONE HAVE 100

FOOT SET BACK SOME HAVE A

SIMILAR SEA WALL WITH SMALLER

SIDEWALK. OUR TRAIL SECTION IS

14 FEET PLUS LANDSCAPING SETI

WENT OUT TO BLUE HARBOR VILLE AS

AND MEASURED EIGHT FOOT AND TEN

FOOT SIDEWALKS SO THIS IS A HUGE

INCREASE COMPARED TO THE LARGER

SITES. I HOPE THAT’S HELPFUL.

THE 557 EAST BAY SHORE SITE NEXT

TO US IS LARGER IT HAS 480

UNITS APARTMENT COMPLEX A

DEVELOPMENT THAT’S LARGE THEY’RE

CAN SUPPORT MORE PUBLIC BENEFITS

LIKE THIS.

GREAT. THANK YOU. IF YOU LOOK

TO THE TOP RIGHT HERE YOU CAN

SEE THE DEVELOPMENTS I’M TALKING

ABOUT AND IF YOU SQUINT, ONE

PARTICULAR MARINA VERY LIMITED

SET BACK OURS IS MUCH LARGER AND

WE’RE PROUD OF THAT.

>>SPEAKER: AND I ALSO WANT TO

JUST CLARIFY, SO, BCDC’S

JURISDICTION IS THE 100 FOOT

SHORELINE BAND THAT JUST MEANS

THAT WE HAVE PERMITTING

AUTHORITY WITHIN THAT AREA.

IT’S NOT A SET BACK. IT

DOESN’T, SORT OF, PRECLUDE THIS

TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN IT. SO,

I WANT TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN OUR PERMITTING

JURISDICTION AND THE CONCEPT OF

A SET BACK. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU

HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD.

>>SPEAKER: YES, WELL, THAT’S

HELPFUL. BUT, SO, ARE THE ONE

SHORELINE AND THE OTHER POLICIES

WE HAVE. SO THEY RECOMMEND .

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: UP TO, YOU

KNOW, THE 100 FOOT SET BACK OR

MAXIMUM SET BACK, BUT THEY LEAVE

IT UP TO BCDC DISCRETION, IS

THAT RIGHT?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I

— CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION

EITHER FROM KATHARINE OR FROM

LEGAL ON WHAT OUR JURISDICTIONAL

AUTHORITY IS WITHIN THE 100

SHORELINE BAND?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: AND POLICY

RECOMMENDATIONS, YEAH.

>>SPEAKER: SO, WE DON’T HAVE

ANY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT

NOT BUILDING WITHIN THE 100 FOOT

BAND. OUR AUTHORITY, BASICALLY,

UNDER — SORRY. IT’S HARD UNDER

— UNDER 66632.4

IS BASICALLY PUBLIC ACCESS. IT

SAYS BASICALLY THE COMMISSION

MAY DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A

PERMIT OR FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT

ONLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE

PROJECT FAILS TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM

FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS WITHIN

THAT SHORELINE BAND. IN FACT,

OUR REGULATIONS ENVISION THAT WE

WILL BUILD WITHIN THAT SHORELINE

BAND. THAT’S PRETTY CLEAR.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. GO AHEAD,

COMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO. .

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: OKAY. LET

ME THINK ABOUT THAT. AND I

GUESS THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I

HAVE IS LIGHTING, I GUESS THERE

IS NO LIGHTING, PLAN FOR THAT

WALKWAY OR ADDING LIGHTING TO

THAT AREA?

>>SPEAKER: OF COURSE, YEAH,

THERE IS LOW BALLARD LIGHTING,

ALL ALONG, WE HAVE CONDITIONS

APPROVAL FROM THE CITY RELATED

TO DARK SKY ORDINANCE BUT THE

PATHWAY WILL BE LIT. I THINK

THAT’S YOUR QUESTION.

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH.

OKAY. WELL, I’M SURPRISED, I

WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT

TO MINIMIZE LIGHTING, BECAUSE OF

WILDLIFE ISSUES. BUT THAT’S NOT

WITHIN OUR SET OF

RECOMMENDATIONS OR GUIDELINES

EITHER?

>>SPEAKER: SO WE DIDN’T INCLUDE

WITHIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

ANY CONDITIONS RELATED TO

LIGHTING. I MIGHT.

>>KATHARINE PAN: I DON’T KNOW

IF OUR BAY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST

HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS BUT

WITH LIGHTING, I KNOW ESPECIALLY

WITH PUBLIC ACCESS AS IT GETS

LATER INTO THE EVENING THAT

THERE IS ALSO A SAFETY CONCERN

RELATED TO LIGHTING, SO I DON’T

KNOW IF WITHIN THE EIR, THAT

THERE WAS ANY SPECIFICATION TO

LIKE THE INTENSITY OF THE

LIGHTING THAT WAS ALLOWED. BUT

I’LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO

THAT.

>>SPEAKER: NOT THAT I RECALL

AND I’LL ADD I THINK LIGHTING

FOR WALKWAYS MIGHT BE A BUILDING

CODE ISSUE I’M NOT SURE, SO I’M

NOT SURE YOU CAN’T LIGHT A

PATHWAY IN THIS SITUATION BUT WE

ALSO HAVE LOW LIGHTING TO TRY TO

MITIGATE T I HOPE THAT’S

HELPFUL.

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: WELL, LOW

LIGHTING IS BETTER THAN TOO MUCH

LIGHTING. BUT, YES, I — I

MEAN, I WOULDN’T — I WOULD HOPE

THAT BCDC LOOKS AT THAT LIGHTING

ISSUE. BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE

THAT IT WOULD HAVE SOME IMPACT

ON THE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE.

SO, THAT’S — I GUESS THAT’S THE

COMMENT I’LL MAKE AT THIS

POINT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I DO

APPRECIATE ALL THE OTHER

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES AND

SUCH, BUT THERE’S — BUT IT IS

AT A SENSITIVE LOCATION. SO, I

APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER ZAPEDA.

>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU

CHAIR. WOULD STAFF BE ABLE TO

PUT UP THE SLIDE AGAIN? ONE OF

THOSE INFAMOUS SLIDES THAT HAS

BEEN PRESENTED. PAGE 14 OR 12 I

DON’T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT IS

THE ONE THIS’S LOOKING AT THE

NEXT DOOR PROPERTY, THAT’S

ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. I HAVE A

QUESTION ON THIS ONE. THANK

YOU. JUST, HISTORY, AND FOR ME

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE — TO BE

CONSISTENT IN OUR RESPONSES WITH

ANY PROPERTY. SO, THE PROPERTY

RIGHT NEXT DOOR, I SEE THE 100

FOOT LINE, AND I’M IMAGINING

THE LINE THERE BASED ON ONE OF

THE OTHER SLIDES THAT DREW THE

LINE IN THERE ON THE YELLOW

SQUARE.

SO THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR THAT

WAS ALREADY APPROVED BY BCDC I’M

ASSUMING, IN PRIOR MONTHS OR

YEARS, I’M NOT SURE WHEN IT WAS

PROVED, BUT IF STAFF IS ABLE TO

TELL US — HOW THEY THE

DECISION FOR HAVING THAT GREEN

AREA BE GREATER THAN WHAT WE’RE

REQUESTING THIS PROJECT? AND IF

THERE IS A RHYME OR REASON WHY

ONE WOULD HAVE IT BUT THE OTHER

WOULD NOT OTHER THAN THE SPACE

IS SMALLER AND EVERYTHING IS

NEEDED TO BUILD MORE HOUSING?

>>SPEAKER: SO, FOR THE 557 EAST

BAY SHORE PROJECT THAT WAS

APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ABOUT

THIS TIME LAST YEAR, IT REALLY

DOES, SORT OF, COME DOWN

PROBABLY TO SIZE. YOU KNOW, THE

QUESTION FOR US — OR THE

QUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION

IS THIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC

ACCESS CONSISTENT WITH THE

PROJECT AND SO FOR THAT PROJECT

IT’S, AS YOU CAN SEE IT’S

SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER. WE PUSHED

— OR WE WORKED WITH THEM TO

ENSURE THAT AS MUCH OF THAT

SHORELINE BAND BE DEDICATED

PUBLIC ACCESS AS POSSIBLE. IT

WAS SOMETHING THEY WERE ABLE TO

ACCOMMODATE BASED ON THEIR

PROJECT. FOR THIS ONE — AND

YOU CAN SEE PRETTY MUCH, LIKE,

WHERE THAT GREEN SPACE ENDS.

PART OF THEIR APARTMENT BUILDING

DOES CROSS OVER INTO THE SHORE

LINER BAND, BUT THAT PRETTY MUCH

CORRESPONDS TO THE SHORELINE

BAND. SO IF YOU CONTINUE ACROSS

ON TO THIS SITE YOU CAN SEE THAT

PRETTY MUCH CUTS THIS SITE IN

AND A HALF. AND SO, I THINK, IN

TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, THAT’S

MORE FOR THE PROJECT PROPONENT

TO SPEAK TO THE DETAILS OF

THAT.

BUT YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS,

LIKE, FOR A PROJECT TO MOVE

FORWARD, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM

FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THAT

THEY’RE ABLE TO PROVIDE, AND IN

THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, WE DID DO A

COMPARISON WITH SOME OTHER

PROJECTS WITHIN THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION AND IT — IT’S IN

THE BALLPARK OF PERCENTAGES OF

THE SITE, BUT OF COURSE THAT IS

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE

COMMISSION.

>>CESAR ZEPEDA: DO WE HAVE A

MINIMUM AMOUNT? I KNOW WE HAVE

100 FEET BCDC JURISDICTION BUT

DO WE HAVE A MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT

HAS TO BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC

ACCESS? BECAUSE HERE, THE 100

LINE, THERE IS ANOTHER ONE, I

THINK IT WAS THE SECOND TO LAST

LINE THAT HAS THE BCDC

JURISDICTION LINE WHICH IS RIGHT

WHERE — I BELIEVE IS RIGHT

WHERE THE HOMES, I THINK THIS IS

THE PURPLE LINE IS THE BCDC

DINE? SO, IT’S PRETTY — LIKE

YOU WERE SAYING IT’S PRETTY MUCH

HALF OF THE PROPERTY. SO, FOR

CONSISTENCY PURPOSES, AND I’M

SURE THIS WON’T BE THE ONLY

PROPERTY THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE

REVIEWING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF

YEARS, BECAUSE WE NEED MORE

HOUSING, WHAT IS THE MINIMUM

REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE 100

FEET?

AND IS IT BASED ON WHAT THEY’RE

TELLING US THAT THEY CAN GIVE

US? OR BASED ON A NUMBER THAT

WE HAVE THAT SAYS, IN OUR 100

FEET, WE MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF

X?

>>SPEAKER: WE DO NOT HAVE A

MINIMUM AMOUNT, WHETHER THAT’S

IN TOTAL ACREAGE OR SQUARE

FOOTAGE OR PERCENTAGE OF A SITE

THAT’S REQUIRED BY A LAW OR

POLICY TO BE DEDICATED OR

IMPROVED AS PUBLIC ACCESS. IN

THE STAFF REPORT, YOU KNOW, THIS

IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE

TAKE SUCH GREAT PAINS WITH THAT

SECTION OF FINDINGS, TO GO

THROUGH WITH COMPARISONS WITH

PAST COMMISSION DECISIONS AND

THEN LOOKING AT OF COURSE THE

WAY THAT THAT PUBLIC ACCESS AREA

IS ACTUALLY PRESENTED AND

IMPROVED, LIKE HOW USEABLE IS T

WHAT ACTUAL BENEFITS IS IT

PROVIDING WHAT’S CONNECTSTIVITY,

HOW ACCESSIBLE IS IT, ALL OF

THOSE ASPECTS ARE, SORT OF,

DETAILED IN OUR POLICY. YOU

KNOW, WE DO WANT PUBLIC ACCESS

TO BE USABLE WE WANT IT TO BE

ACCESSIBLE, WE WANT IT TO SERVE,

LIKE, YOU KNOW, A WIDE RANGE OF

POPULATIONS, ET CETERA. SO

THOSE ARE THE SORTS OF THINGS

THAT WE LOOK AT OR THAT WE

LOOKED AT IN THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION. BUT AS FOR THE

ACTUAL AMOUNT, THAT’S ONE OF THE

THINGS THAT THE POLICIES AND

LAWS DON’T PROVIDE. THAT’S —

THAT IS, LIKE, THE DISCRETIONARY

PART OF THIS APPROVAL.

>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. AND

DO WE HAPPEN TO KNOW, OUT OF ALL

THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE

APPROVED IN THE PAST, WHICH ONE

IS THE ONE THAT HAS THE LEAST

AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ACCESS? THIS

ONE HAS A 14 FOOT TRAIL. DO WE

KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY WITH LESS?

JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT

BECAUSE WITH EVERY VOTE WE SET

NEW PRECEDENCE AND I WANT TO

KNOW HOW WE’RE SETTING IT.

>>SPEAKER: SO, WITHOUT TAKING

THE SLIDE DOWN AND, SORT OF,

OPENING UP THE STAFF RACK, I

COULDN’T TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY,

BUT I — WHAT CHRIS WAS SAYING

ABOUT THE BLUE HARBOR

DEVELOPMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU

KNOW, THAT TRAIL IS SMALLER.

INITIALLY, I THINK THIS PROJECT

CAME IN WITH A SIMILARLY, SORT

OF, NARROW TRAIL AREA THAT ENDED

UP BECOMING EXPANDED AS WE

TALKED THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH

THEM. OR AS THEY MADE THEIR WAY

THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO, THERE

ARE, CERTAINLY, PROJECTS WITHIN

THE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION

WITH LESS PUBLIC ACCESS

[LAUGHTER]

BUT I WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO

IMMEDIATELY POINT THOSE OUT TO

YOU, AND I WOULDN’T NECESSARILY

— YOU KNOW, EVERY PROJECT

SHOULD BE KIND OF CONSIDERED ON

ITS OWN MERIT, AND SO THAT’S,

SORT OF, THE OTHER REASON WHY

THE COMPARISON IS DIFFICULT.

BECAUSE YOU DO JUST — JUST

BECAUSE ANOTHER PROJECT HAS LESS

DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT

THIS IS BETTER. IT IS LIKE, A

PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS. KIND

OF ENCOURAGE TO YOU LOOK AT IT

THAT WAY.

>>JEFF SMITH: CAN I ADD ANOTHER

PIECE OF INFORMATION THIS IS

JEFF SMITH THE APPLICANT WITH

REGIS.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GO

AHEAD.

>>SPEAKER: TWO PIECES OF

INFORMATION IF YOU COULD GO BACK

TO THE SLIDE THAT KIND OF SHOWS

THE GENERAL AREA. AND I KNOW

THIS BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY

CLOSELY WITH 557 ON THEIR

DESIGN. IN FACT WE HAVE THE

SAME CIVIL ENGINEER THE SAME

LANDSCAPE ENGINEER, WE HAVE THE

SAME ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

AND WE KNOW THE ARCHITECT. THE

557 PROPERTY, IF YOU REMEMBER

BACK, IT WAS THE OLD THEATRE,

AND WHEN THEY BUILT THAT

THEATRE, THEY ACTUALLY GAVE BCDC

AN EAST EASEMENT, A 50

FOOD EASEMENT BACK IN THE DAY

IT’S OVER 50 YEARS OLD THAT WAS

THE PRIMARY REASON THEY DECIDED

TO ORIENTED SITE AS THEY DID

THAT’S WHY THIS SITE LOOKS

DIFFERENT IN ADDITION TO THE

FACT THAT IT’S SEVEN TIMES

BIGGER. I WANT TO ALSO POINT

OUT THE BLUE HARBOR PROJECT

WHICH WAS IN THE UPPER RIGHT

HAND CORNER WHICH DOES HAVE A

BCDC PERMIT WITH A SMALL WALK.

WE DID PUSH OUR BUILDINGS BACK

TO MAINTAIN THE DESIRED WALKWAY

AND SET BACK THAT BCDC STAFF

ASKED US TO THAT GIVES CONTEXT

OF THE THREE PROJECTS IN THE

AREA.

>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. MY

LAST YE IS DO WE REQUIRE SOME

KIND OF SIGNAGE THAT SAYS THIS

IS PUBLIC ACCESS?

>>SPEAKER: WE DO. SO, THAT IS

PART OF THE, YOU KNOW, MAKING IT

USEABLE, MAKING IT WELCOMING, SO

THERE IS WITHIN THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION AT LEAST SOME

REQUIREMENTS AROUND WAYFINDING

AND SIGNAGE. AND THERE IS

KIND OF A STANDARD PUBLIC SHORE

ACCESS SIGN THAT YOU SEE AROUND

THE BAY AREA. AND THAT’S, SORT

OF, LIKE I CAN’T BRANDING THAT

WE REQUIRE.

>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU SO

MUCH. NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK

YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: CAN

I HAVE THE FULL SCREEN BACK,

PLEASE? THANK YOU.

I DON’T SEE ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?

>>MARK ADDIEGO: THANK YOU CHAIR

WASSERMAN. SO, I UNDERSTAND

WHERE THE 100 FEET PUTS IT

WITHIN THE PROJECT, BUT ARE WE

STARTING AT THE SLOUGH, OR ARE

WE STARTING AT THE DITCH? WHEN

WE MEASURE OUT THE 100 FEET?

248 STARTS AT THE DITCH. SO,

THAT TIDAL DITCH, IT’S

TIDALLY INFLUENCED SO THIS IS

SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED WITH THE

557 APPLICANT BUT THE BAY TIDAL

INFLUENCED THE WATER BODY AND

ALSO BECAUSE THERE IS MARSH

VEGETATION WITHIN THE DITCH

THAT, SORT OF, CHANGES LIKE HOW

WE WOULD NORMALLY SAY THE BAY

SHORELINE IS MEAN HIGH WATER BUT

IN THE AREAS OF TIDAL MARSH IT

MAKES IT EDGE EVER TIDAL MARSH

UP TO FIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA

LEVEL SO THAT’S THE LINE THAT

THEY’RE GOING FROM AS BAY

SHORELINE THAT’S MARSH

VEGETATION FIVE FEET ABOVE SEA

LEVEL MARK.

>>MARK ADDIEGO: IT’S

INTERESTING IT’S CALLED A DITCH

I ASSUME AT ONE POINT IT WAS

CALLED A DRAINAGE DITCH WHEN IT

WAS ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES

THEN IT BECAME PART OF THE MARSH

OVER TIME BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN’T

MAINTAIN THE DITCH AND THE FLOW

OF WATER OFFSITE.

>>SPEAKER: YEAH. MY

UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS

ONCE WAS A TIDAL GATE IN THAT

AREA BUT AT SOME POINT IN THE

PAST IT MALFUNCTIONED AND

ACCORDING TO OUR REGULATIONS, IT

TURNED THAT AREA BACK INTO BAY.

>>MARK ADDIEGO: OKAY. THANK

YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

JEFF, DID YOU WANT TO SAY

SOMETHING?

>>SPEAKER: JEFF SMITH: JUST

FOR CONTEXT I FEEL LIKE I HAVE

BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SO LONG

AND JUST A BIT OF HISTORY THAT’S

EXACTLY THE CASE COMMISSIONER

ADDIEGO THERE IS ONE SMALL PIPE

12 INCH PIPE THAT CONNECTS THE

DITCH TO THE SLOUGH IT WASN’T A

DRAINAGE DITCH AND ALLOWED WATER

TO GO OUT IT DID NOT ALLOW WATER

TO GET BACK IN AND UNFORTUNATELY

AT SOME POINT SOMEONE FAILED TO

MAINTAIN THAT AND MADE

CONNECTION BUT IF YOU HAVE TO GO

BACK OUT TO THE SLOUGH IT WOULD

MOVE THE LINE NORTH 60 TO 70

FEET THAT WAS INITIAL DISCUSSION

WE SAID RATHER THAN FIGHT OVER

THE LINE LET’S WORK TOGETHER

THAT WAS SIX YEARS AGO, WORKING

WITH THE CITY AND BCDC STAFF AND

THEN THE COMMISSION SO

APPRECIATE THAT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I HAVE ONE

FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, SINCE THE

ARGUMENT IS IT’S SUCH A

RELATIVELY NARROW PARCEL OR

SMALL PARCEL, SO JUST GOING BACK

TO — I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE

HISTORY OF THE PARCEL WAS OR

WHEN IT WAS SOLD, BUT I MEAN,

WHEN IF IT WAS SUBDIVIDED, OR

WHEN IT WAS SOLD, I MEAN, IT WAS

SOLD WITH THAT 100 FOOT

JURISDICTION LINE IN MIND. IS

THAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT

SOMETHING THAT BCDC HAS, OR THE

CITY WOULD HAVE ANY — GIVES ANY

CONSIDERATION TO?

>>SPEAKER: WOULD YOU MIND

REPHRASING THAT QUESTION.

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: JUST KIND

OF LOOKING AT THE VIABILITY OF

THAT PARCEL AS COMMERCIAL PARCEL

FOR EITHER HOUSING OR COMMERCIAL

USE AND IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THERE

IS THAT IMPORTANT 100 FOOT

JURISDICTIONAL AREA, WOULD THEY

HAVE SUBDIVIDED IT WITH — OR

SOLD IT WITH THAT FULL

UNDERSTANDING?

I MEAN, IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT

IT IS THAT THE PEARLS IS TOO

NARROW TO GIVE THE FULL

CONSIDERATION FOR PUBLIC

ACCESS?

>>SPEAKER: SO, THAT HISTORY IS

NOT SOMETHING THAT I’M AWARE

OF.

I WILL SAY OUR JURISDICTION HAS

HAD THE SAME DESCRIPTION SINCE

THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT WAS

PASSED, AND, SO, ANYONE DOING

DUE DILIGENCE ON PROPERTY ALONG

THE BAY FRONT SHOULD BECOME

AWARE THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS

SUBJECT TO BCDC PERMITTING

AUTHORITY. WHAT I WILL SAY,

THOUGH, JUST TO GIVE WHOEVER

ORIGINALLY SUBDIVIDE THAT AREA,

THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, YOU

KNOW, AS JEFF WAS SAYING AT SOME

POINT, THAT AREA ACTUALLY WENT

SUBJECT TO BCDC JURISDICTION THE

SAME WAY BECAUSE THAT DITCH

DIDN’T — WASN’T ALWAYS PART OF

OUR BAY JURISDICTION.

>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONERS, I

THINK I WANT TO BE REALLY

CLEAR.

OUR JURISDICTION HERE IS MAXIMAL

— MAXIMUM PUBLIC — MAXIMUM

FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS IN OUR

SHORELINE BAND. THAT’S WHAT

WE’RE —

>>SPEAKER: CONSISTENT WITH THE

PROJECT.

>>SPEAKER: YES CONSISTENT WITH

THE PROJECT. STAFF DOES A

PROCESS, THEY GO LOOK AT THE

PROJECT AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT

IS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC

ACCESS. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE

CALLED UPON TO DO HERE. THERE

IS NO 100 FOOT SET BACK. THAT

IS A MISNOMER THAT. IS

NOTHING.

IT DOES NOT EXIST. SO WHEN

PEOPLE BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY

THAT IN OUR SHORELINE BAND, IT’S

NOT THAT THEY EXPECT TO MOVE THE

PROPERTY 100 FEET OFF THAT. IS

NOT — THIS IS NOT AN EASEMENT

FOR PUBLIC ACCESS. WHAT WE DO

IS WE DETERMINE WHAT IS MAXIMUM

FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS

CONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT THAT

IS THERE. THAT’S — AND I WANT

TO BE REAL CLEAR ABOUT THAT

BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE’RE

GETTING OFF ON A TANGENT HERE

AND MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT THE

PROCESS IS. THE PROCESS IS

SIMPLY, IS THIS THE MAXIMUM

FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN

WITH THIS PROJECT, GIVEN THE

CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. WE’RE

GIVEN A PARTICULAR SITE, DECIDE

WHAT ARE THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE

SITE HOW DO YOU PROVIDE MAC MUM

FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THERE ARE

MANY PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME

BEFORE BCDC AND A LOT OF THOSE

ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECTS

SO IF SOMEONE HAS A

SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECT WE

SAY WHAT’S THE MAXIMUM FEASIBLE

PUBLIC ACCESS WHICH MAY BE ZERO

WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME

BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT PEOPLE

WANDERING INTO THE SINGLE-FAMILY

HOME SO THERE IS NO PUBLIC

ACCESS IN THE SHORELINE BAND ON

THAT OR IT MAY HAPPEN THERE MAY

BE ABILITY TO PROVIDE SOME

STAIRS DOWN THERE OR SOMETHING

WE LOOK AT EACH PROJECT AND MAKE

CASE BY CASE DETERMINATION AND

FROM IS NO SET BACK IT JUST

DOESN’T EXIST AS A CONCEPT

WITHIN OUR REGULATIONS I THINK

IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE

UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMISSION

CAN APPROVE OR DENY THE PROJECT

BUT IT’S GOT TO BE BASED ON

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS

AND STAFF HAS PROVIDED

CONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT —

YES LARRY KEEPS

SAY CONSISTENT WITH THE

PROJECT, HE’S CORRECT WE LOOK AT

THE PROJECT, LOOK AT THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION AND SAY HAS THE

APPLICANT PROVIDED MAXIMUM

FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS.

STAFF BELIEVES THEY HAVE GIVEN

THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROJECT

THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU THINK

THEY HAVE, AND THAT’S WHAT

YOU’RE VOTING O REALLY NOTHING

ELSE. I MEAN, THE CITY OF

REDWOOD CITY HAS GONE INTO THE

OTHER ISSUES, YOU KNOW, THAT’S

OUR JURISDICTION, THAT’S OUR JOB

TODAY.

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. I —

OKAY, POINT TAKEN. I UNDERSTAND

THAT. YEAH, ARE THE ONLY POINT

I WOULD MAKE IS

PERHAPS BEYOND TODAY A

DISCUSSION IS WHEN IN THE LONGER

TERM WHEN CITIES DO LOOK AT

ZONING FOR AREAS ALONG THE

SHORELINE AS WE HOPE THAT THEY

ALLOW, YOU KNOW, ZONE WITH —

WITH SEA LEVEL RISE, ET CETERA,

IN — AS ONE OF THE

CONSIDERATIONS. SO, THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I

HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND A

REQUEST/SUGGESTION. I WANT TO

REEMPHASIZE WHAT GREG SAID. THE

100 FEET SHORELINE BAND IS

WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION UNDER

STATE LAW, UNDER THE

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT FOR PURPOSES

OF MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC

ACCESS WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF

THE PROJECT. THERE IS A

SEPARATE OVERLYING PIECE, WHICH

I THINK WE WILL GET TO IN THE

FUTURE, COMING FROM OUR

GUIDELINES TO JURISDICTIONS

UNDER SB272 OF HOW TO RESPOND,

THAT MAY HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE

ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 100

SHORELINE. BUT THE PRIMARY

JURISDICTION OVER WHAT GOES

THERE, ACCEPT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS

IS UP TO LOCAL JURISDICTION NOT

THIS AGENCY.

MY SUGGESTION REQUEST IS

WHETHER WE CAN HAVE A CONDITION

THAT THE — THAT THE CONDITIONS

IN THE EXISTENCE OF PERMIT IS

RECORDED.

WE HAVE HAD OCCASIONAL

DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS THERE IS

A CONDITION HOMEOWNERS BE GIVEN

NOTICE BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE

WAY DO THAT NOTICE IS RECORDING

THE PERMIT SO THAT SHOWS UP IN

THE RECORD AND IT’S PARTICULARLY

OUT FOR THIS PROJECT WHICH IS

FOR SALE PROJECT SO THAT THE

INDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND SUCCESSORS

AND BUYERS WOULD THEN CLEARLY

HAVE NOTICED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE

IN THE RECORD AND TITLE REPORT I

POSE THAT TO STAFF AND THEN

ASSUMING THAT’S OKAY WE’LL POSE

TO SEE WHETHER IT’S ACCEPTABLE

TO THE APPLICANT

>>SPEAKER: QUICKLY THERE IS

ALREADY ONE CONDITION WITHIN THE

PERMIT SO IT’S IN ADDITION TO

THE NOTICE TO BUYERS ANY TIME WE

HAVE DEDICATION CONDITION WITHIN

A PERMIT IT’S TYPICAL WHERE WE

WOULD REQUIRE RECORDING AS WELL

THE TIMING ON THIS ONE IS

SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF THAT IT’S

REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF CLOSE OF

SALE OF THE PROPERTY.

>>KATHARINE PAN: BECAUSE THE

PERMITTEE CURRENTLY DOES NOT

ACTUAL LE OWN THE PROPERTY, THEY

HAVE AN OPTION TO PURCHASE. BUT

IT IS IN THERE THAT AT THAT

TIME, WHEN THEY’RE READY TO MOVE

FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT, THAT

IT WILL BE RECORDED.

I THINK AT THIS POINT IT’S NOT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO,

YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU

CAN’T RECORD THE PERMIT UNTIL IT

COMES INTO THE APPLICANT’S HANDS

THAT, MAKES PERFECT SENSE. I

JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF IS

SATISFIED THAT WE’RE FULLY

PROTECTED. NO DISRESPECT AT ALL

TO THE APPLICANT THAT THAT WILL

BE DONE. SO, IT’S THERE.

THAT’S FINE. I’M SATISFIED.

>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR

WASSERMAN, CAN I INTERRUPT FOR A

SECOND. CAN I PLEASE ASK ALL

COMMISSIONERS TO TURN ON YOUR

CAMERAS, ALL COMMISSIONERS ON

THE CAMERA AT ALL TIMES WE NEED

TO MAKE SURE WE’RE KEEPING

QUORUM AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN

TELL IS IF WE CAN SEE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IF

THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS THEN

STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE.

OH I’M SORRY. WE DID CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING, DIDN’T WE?

THANK YOU. STAFF

RECOMMENDATION,

PLEASE.

>>SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. SO THIS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS MAILED

TO YOU ON MAY 10TH, 2024. IN

HERE I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A

MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THAT A LOT

OF THE HARD WORK ON THE STAFF

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION WAS

ACTUALLY COMPLETED BY JESSICA

FINKEL ONE OF OUR EXCELLENT

PERMIT ANALYSTS WHO RECENTLY

WENT ON PLAN LEAVE AND SO

COULDN’T BE HERE TO PRESENT THE

ITEM TO YOU TODAY I WANT TO

PRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR HER

EFFORTS BECAUSE IT MADE IT

POSSIBLE FOR US TO CARRY IT THE

REST OF THE WAY. WITH THAT

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE

COMMISSION APPROVE THE PERMIT

APPLICATION WITH SEVERAL

CONDITIONS AMONG THEM ARE

DEDICATION OF THE ON-SITE PUBLIC

ACCESS AREAS AND IMPROVEMENTS

WITHIN THE TOTAL PUBLIC ACCESS

AREA INCLUDING IN THE CALTRANS

REDWOOD CITY RIGHTS OF WAY

PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PROCESS

ENSURING FEASIBILITY AND

CONSISTENCY OF FINAL DESIGN

SUBMITTING PROPERTY INTERESTS

FOR WORK ON LANDS THAT ARE NOT

CURRENTLY OWNED BY PERMITTEE

PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK

SUBMITTING APPLICABLE WATER

QUALITY CERTIFICATIONS OR WASTE

CHARGE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE

WATER BOARD PRIOR TO BEGINNING

WORK DOCUMENTING COMPLETION OF

ON-SITE AND OFFSITE REMEDIATION

PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ON

INHABITABLE SPACES MEASURES TO

PROTECT BAY RESOURCES

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE

HABITAT IMPACTS OF NEW BAY FILL,

MONITORING AND ADAPTATION

PLANNING TO ENSURE CONTINUED

VIABILITY PUBLIC ACCESS NOTICING

FUTURE HOME BUYERS ABOUT

RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER PERMIT

INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS TO

MAINTAINS ADAPT PUBLIC ACCESS

AREAS STAFF CONSISTENT WITH THE

COMMISSIONS LAWS AND POLICIES

RECOMMENDS THAT YOU ADOPT

RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

TAKE DOWN THE SLIDE SO YOU CAN

SEE THE SCREEN PLEASE. IS THERE

A MOTION?

>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE THE

STAFF —

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M

RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER

ADDIEGO.

>>MARK ADDIEGO: I WOULD LIKE TO

MOVE APPROVAL OF THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION PATTED PAT EKLUND

I’LL SECOND. THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

ECKLUND SECONDS. IF THERE ARE

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS SIERRA

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?

>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER ECKLUND?

>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER GILMORE?

>>MARIE GILMORE: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER GORIN?

>>SUSAN GORIN: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER KIMBAL?

>>SPEAKER: ABSTAIN.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: IT’S A

TOUGH ONE, BUT, YES, I GUESS SO.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ?

>>SPEAKER: AYE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS?

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER NELSON?

>>BARRY NELSON: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON?

>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER PINE?

>>DAVE PINE: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH?

>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA?

>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR

WASSERMAN?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: I HAVE A

TOTAL OF 14 YESES, ZERO NOS, AND

ONE ABSTENTION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE

MOTION PASSES. THANKS ALL OF

YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK

AND THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION

FOR THE THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN, WE

WILL RECEIVE A BRIEFING AND

CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING OUR

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO

A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

AMONG BCDC AND THE MEMBER

AGENCIES OF THE BAY AREA

REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE, BARC.

THE PURPOSE OF THE MOU IS TO

COORDINATE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS

THE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA

LEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO

BAY AREA.

JESSICA FAIN OUR PLANNING

DIRECTOR WILL INTRODUCE THE

ISSUE THEN INTRODUCE ALLISON

BROOKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE

LEADER OF THIS EFFORT TO DRAFT

AND ADOPT THE MOU.

>>JESSICA FAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON

CHAIR WASSERMAN AND GOOD

AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS I’M

PLEASED TO BE HERE AT THE END OF

TODAY’S MEETING WITH YOU TO

PRESENT AND SEEK YOUR

AUTHORIZATION FOR OUR EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN

INTER-AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING ON FLOODING AND

SEA LEVEL RISE. I’M JOINED

TODAY BY ALLISON BROOKS THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BAY

AREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE WHO

HAS HELPED SPEARHEAD THIS EFFORT

AND WHO IS GOING TO BE

COPRESENTING WITH ME TODAY. SO

IF SOMEONE CAN PULL UP THE

PRESENTATION, WE CAN GET GOING.

THANK YOU. SO, THE COMMISSION

IS WELL AWARE THAT SEA LEVEL

RISE IS HAPPENING AND THAT AS A

REGION IT WILL FUNDAMENTALLY

CHANGE THE WAY THAT WE WILL

LIVE, WORK, AND RECREATE ALONG

OUR BAY SHORELINE. NEXT SLIDE

PLEASE. IT WILL ALSO COST A LOT

OF MONEY. HERE IS A SLIDE FROM

A RECENT REPORT THAT BCDC AND

MTC ABAG RELEASED LAST SUMMER

THAT MAPS OUT THE $110 BILLION

THAT IS ESTIMATED, THAT IT WILL

COST THE REGION TO ADAPT TO

RISING SEA LEVEL BY

MID-CENTURY.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS $110

BILLION ESTIMATE, ABOUT HALF

THOSE COSTS ARE BASED ON WHAT WE

KNOW OR OUR PLANNED PROJECTS, IF

YOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE RIGHT

THOSE ARE THE BLUE SPACES AS

WELL AS WHAT WE CALL PLACE

HOLDER PROJECTS GREEN LINES

WHERE NO PROJECT EXISTS BUT WE

KNOW SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO

HAPPEN THERE. WHILE THIS IS A

LOT OF MONEY IT APPEALS IN

COMPARISON TO THE ESTIMATED $231

BILLION IN

ANTICIPATED DAMAGES SHOULD WE

DO NOTHING.

$230 BILLION ARE BASED ON

ACCESSED PROPERTY VALUES AS WELL

AS TRANSPORTATION ASSETS. THE

REPORT INDICATED THERE IS

CONSIDERABLE UNEVENNESS ACROSS

THE REGION IN TERMS OF PROJECT

TYPES HOW FAR ALONG PLACES ARE

AS WELL AS ABILITY OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER PLACES TO

RAISE FUNDS THERE ARE EQUITY

IMPLICATIONS TO THIS WORK AS WE

LOOK ACROSS THIS REGION TO TRY

TO ADAPT AS A REGION.

ADDITIONALLY IT’S WORTH NOTING

THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF

ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NEEDED BOTH

THE RESTORATION OF OUR BAY

WETLANDS, AND OTHER NATURE-BASED

STRATEGIES. BUT WE ALSO KNOW

THAT A VARIETY OF GRAY

INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES ARE

NEEDED IN OTHER PLACES. SO

WHILE A LOT OF THE WORK THAT A

LOT OF OUR REGIONAL AND STATE

AGENCIES ARE FOCUSED ON NOW

ACCELERATING NATURE-BASED

STRATEGIES THERE IS NOT A

SIMILAR ANALOG FOR GRAY

INFRASTRUCTURE WHERE

NATURE-BASED STRATEGIES ARE NOT

FEASIBLE AND BOTH OF THESE TYPES

OF SOLUTIONS ARE REQUIRED. NEXT

SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THIS REPORT AS WELL AS BCDC’S

WORK THROUGH OUR BAY ADAPT

PROGRAM HAVE REALLY IDENTIFIED

THE NEED TO NOT JUST IDENTIFY

THIS BIG FUNDING GAP, BUT THAT

WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO

IDENTIFY HOW WE CAN IDENTIFY

LEADS WHO CAN SPEARHEAD AND HELP

FILL THE GAPS WITH SOME OF THESE

FUNDING HOLES. THE BAY ADAPT

JOINT PLATFORM FOR EXAMPLE,

CALLS FOR A REVENUE GENERATION

AND DISTRIBUTION PLAN AND

ACCOMPANYING GOVERNANCE

STRUCTURE TO RAISE AND

DISTRIBUTE FUNDS AND THIS REPORT

WE RELEASED LAST YEAR LIKEWISE

CALLS FOR ESTABLISHING AND

DEVELOPING BETTER LEAD ROLES FOR

ORGANIZING HOW WE FUND THIS

WORK. THE BAY AREA REGIONAL

COLLABORATION HAVE ROLLED UP

THEIR SLEEVES TO DEVELOP THE SEA

LEVEL RISE MOU IT IS ATTACHED IN

YOUR MEETING PACKAGE TODAY,

ATTACHMENT A, AND I’LL TURN IT

OVER TO ALLISON TO TALK US

THROUGH IT.

>>ALLISON BROOKS: THANKS

JESSICA, AND THANKS FOR HAVING

ME HERE TODAY. I CAN SIT DOWN?

[LAUGHTER]

GREAT. THANKS JESSICA. IT’S

GREAT TO BE WITH YOU TODAY

COMMISSIONERS. NEXT SLIDE. A

QUICK RECAP OF WHAT IS THE BAY

AREA REGIONAL COLLABORATION. IT

WAS CREATED THROUGH STATE

STATUTE. WE HAVE FOUR MEMBER

AGENCIES WRITTEN INTO THE

LEGISLATION. THE TOP $4,

INCLUDING BCDC, AND THEN WE HAVE

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THREE

AGENCIES THAT PARTICIPATE

REGULARLY IN OUR EFFORTS, AND

THEY ARE SIGNATORIES OF THIS

MOU, AS WELL. AND THEY’RE ALL

— WE’RE MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH

GETTING THEIR APPROVAL, EACH

AGENCY’S APPROVAL TO HAVE THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS

SIGN THE MOU. EACH ARE KIND OF

APPROACHING IT IN THEIR OWN WAY,

BUT YOU’RE THE FIRST ONE TO

BRING — YOU’RE THE FIRST ENTITY

THAT WE’RE BRINGING IT FORWARD

TO, SO THAT’S EXCITING. NEXT

SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO, WHAT IS — WHAT’S IN THE

MOU? WHAT IS THE MOU, IF YOU

HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO POUR

OVER IT QUITE YET, WELL, ITS

PURPOSE IS TO ALIGN EFFORTS

EXPERTISE AND CORE FUNCTIONS

ACROSS THOSE SEVEN AGENCIES TO

ACCOMPLISH SOME KEY GOALS,

ACCELERATE PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION, INCREASE THE BAY

AREA’S COMPETITIVENESS FOR

FUNDING SO HOW CAN WE WORK

TOGETHER TO GO AFTER

INCREASINGLY MORE SCARCE

RESOURCES AT THE STATE LEVEL AND

AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO SUPPORT

SOME OF OUR BIG ADAPTATION

PROJECTS WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD

AROUND THE REGION. ANOTHER GOAL

IS TO ESTABLISH STRUCTURES

COORDINATION AND PROJECT

PRIORITIZATION, SUPPORT

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL

PARTNERSHIPS, AND SUPPORT CITIES

AND COUNTIES, AND WORK WITH YOU

ALL TO EXPAND YOUR CAPACITY TO

FUND AND IMPLEMENT ADAPTATION

PROJECTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL,

BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT’S REALLY

WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD.

SO, I’LL QUICKLY GIVE A BRIEF

SUMMARY OF EACH OF THE FIVE

TOPIC AREAS WHICH YOU’RE SEEING

ON THE SLIDE HERE THAT ARE

COVERED IN THE MOU, THESE CORE

FUNCTIONAL AREAS WHERE WE HAVE

IDENTIFIED LEADS WHERE, AS MUCH

AS POSSIBLE. SO, ON THE

PLANNING SIDE, PREPARING FOR SEA

LEVEL RISE AND FLOODING RISK,

THAT FOCUSES ON PLANS, POLICIES

AND PROJECT PRIORITIES TO FOSTER

AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR WIDE

SCALE ADVANCEMENT OF EQUITABLE

MULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION

PROJECTS. THE FIRST MAIN ITEMS

INCLUDED IN THAT ARE BCDC

DEVELOPING YOUR REGIONAL

SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR

SENATE BILL 272, WHICH IS OFF

AND RUNNING, AND THE SECOND IS

TO DEVELOP A SEA LEVEL RISE

FUNDING AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY

THAT’S BEEN GOING TO BE LED BY

BCDC AND MTC ABAG TO REALLY

PRIORITIZE PROJECTS AND FUNDING

STRATEGIES WHICH WILL THEN BE

INCLUDED IN PLANNED BAY AREA.

SO, WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES

WORKING TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS

TO REALLY START TO INTEGRATE

THESE EFFORTS AND I THINK IT’S

SHOWING UP HERE REALLY NICELY.

ON THE FUND MANAGEMENT SIDE, IT

DESCRIBES HOW THE AGENCIES WILL

COLLABORATE TO SEEK, SECURE, AND

DISTRIBUTE FUNDING TO SUPPORT

THE DELIVERY OF PROJECTS THAT WE

HAVE IDENTIFIED THE STATE

COASTAL CONSERVANCY IS THE LEAD

FOR FUNDING PROPOSALS TO FEDERAL

AGENCIES, THE STATE COASTAL

CONSERVANCY WITH BARC WILL TRACK

WITH STAFF AND COORDINATE

FUNDING PROPOSALS AND THERE ARE

ROLES IN THERE FOR SAN FRANCISCO

ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP, MTC AND

ABAG AND CALTRANS TO RAISE

FUNDS, ALIGN AND DISTRIBUTE

FUNDING, AS WELL AS COORDINATE

ON LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY AND

REGIONAL FUNDING MEASURES. THIS

SECTION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

FOCUSES ON HOW REGIONAL AGENCIES

CAN BEST SUPPORT PROJECT

DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY THROUGH

A REGIONAL TA PROGRAM. THIS IS

INTENDED TO AUGMENT THE CAPACITY

OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SPECIAL

DISTRICTS AND LOCAL

ORGANIZATIONS. OF COURSE,

REALLY BRINGING THIS TO THE

SCALE, I THINK WE ALL WOULD

BENEFIT FROM AND REALLY WHAT WE

NEED IS

GOING TO NEED IS MORE FUNDING.

THERE IS A LOT TO START WITH AND

MANY INVOLVED IN THIS SPACE

WE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO FOCUS

ON HOW WE CAN ORGANIZE OURSELVES

AND POTENTIALLY EXPAND AND MEET

THE NEEDS OF THE REGION

PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

THE REGULATORY ALIGNMENT SECTION

IS FAIRLY SHORT BUT WE COMMIT

THE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER

AND WITH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY

TO CONTINUALLY IMPROVE THE

PERMITTING PROCESS TO FACILITATE

MULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION

PROJECT DELIVERY WHILE

MAINTAINING IMPORTANT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS, AND

FINALLY THE COORDINATION SECTION

FOR COLLABORATIVE

DECISION-MAKING DESCRIBES THE

PROCESS AND FORUMS FOR

COLLABORATION AND

DECISION-MAKING. AND IT’S WORTH

NOTING, THINGS CHANGE. WE KNOW

THINGS — THERE IS A LOT OF

CHANGE IN THE WORLD. SO, THE

MOU DOESN’T SUPERSEDE OR CHANGE

ANY AUTHORITIES OR JURISDICTIONS

OF INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES. IT

DOESN’T LOCK US INTO THIS

RELATIONSHIP MOVING FORWARD, IT

ALLOWS FOR CHANGES TO OCCUR

MOVING FORWARD. IT’S EXCITING

THE AGENCIES ARE COMMITTING TO

REALLY KIND OF FIGURING OUT HOW

TO SYNC OF AND ALIGN THESE

EFFORTS AROUND THESE FUNCTIONS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

HERE IS A QUICK ROLES AT A

GLANCE SUMMARY SHEET WE HAVE

PREPARED THAT IDENTIFY THE PRIME

ENTITIES FOR THE DIFFERENCE

FUNCTIONAL AREAS THE CORE AGENCY

IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM AND

ESSENTIALLY EVERYBODY’S INVOLVED

IN EVERYTHING ON THIS NEXT

SLIDE. SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

WHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL, WE

HAVE NEVER DONE SOMETHING LIKE

THIS BEFORE IT’S INTRODUCING A

COORDINATED REGIONAL STRATEGY TO

FUND AND DELIVER PROJECTS WHICH

REALLY HASN’T BEEN UNDERTAKEN.

IT IS SIGNIFICANT AND THERE IS A

LOT OF WORK TO DO TO REALLY

OPERATIONALIZE THIS BUT IT IS

OUTLINING RULES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES ACROSS

FUNCTIONAL AREAS TO ACHIEVE

THESE SHARED GOALS. I THINK WE

HAVE ALL BEEN WORKING ON THIS,

AND I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY BIG

DEAL, AND I’LL HAPPENED IT OVER

— WE HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE? I

THINK THAT’S IT. THAT WOULD BE

IT. OH, YEAH, I CAN HAND IT

OVER TO JESSICA NOW.

>>JESSICA FAIN: SORRY. IN CASE

THIS SOUNDS SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR TO

YOU OR ANY OF THESE CONCEPTS, IT

REALLY SHOULD. MUCH OF THIS

COMES FROM THE BAY ADAPT JOINT

PLATFORM THE CONSENSUS DRIVEN

ROADMAP FOR REGIONAL SEA LEVEL

RISE ADAPTATION LED BY BCDC

ADOPTED IN 2021 THE MOU SPECIFIC

CALLS OUT FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF

OUR BAY ADAPT GROUPS LIKE THE

IMPLEMENT BAY ADAPT

IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING

GROUP OUR LEADERSHIP GROUP TO BE

A FORUM THAT’S TO HELP MOVE THAT

MOU FORWARD RELIES ON REGIONAL

SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN

BACKBONE TO SUPPORT THAT BCDC IS

PROVIDING TO HELP MOVE IT

FORWARD AS L LASTLY THE MOU

ADVANCING SEVERAL OF BCDC’S

STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS NAMELY GOAL

ONE LEADING REGIONAL PLANNING

EFFORTS THAT RESULT IN

SUCCESSFUL EQUITABLE ADAPTATION,

GOAL TWO IMPROVING OUR

REGULATORY PLANNING FUNCTION IN

A UNIFIED REGIONAL SCALE

APPROACH AND GOAL THREE

EMBEDDING EQUITY INITIATIVES AND

PRACTICES THROUGH THE OUR

PROGRAMS. NEXT SLIDE.

SO, OUR NEXT STEPS, AS ALLISON

MENTIONED, EACH OF THE AGENCIES

IS WORKING THIS THROUGH THEIR

OWN SYSTEM WE LIKE TO BE FIRST

LIKE ALL THINGS RELATED TO SEA

LEVEL RISE, PAVING THE WAY, THEN

THE IDEA IS THAT THE BARC

GOVERNING BOARD MEETING IN JULY,

HOPEFULLY THE FULL BOARD WILL

APPROVE THIS, THEN THE HARD WORK

BEGINS AS WE START TO REALLY

DIVE INTO THE WORKPLAN THAT

WE’RE DEVELOPING AND MOVING

THESE PIECES FORWARD.

NEXT SLIDE.

I’LL READ THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION AND THEN PERHAPS

WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR

DISCUSSION. BUT, WE’RE ASKING

YOU TODAY TO AUTHORIZE THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO

A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

AMONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY

CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT

COMMISSION AND THE ASSOCIATION

OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS, ALSO

HOST SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY

PARTNERSHIP, THE BAAQMD, THE BAY

AREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE, THE

CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL

CONSERVANCY, THE CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DISTRICT FOUR, THE METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, AND

THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER

QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SAN

FRANCISCO BAY REGION. TO

COORDINATE EVERYDAYS TO ADDRESS

THE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA

LEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO

BAY AREA.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE

THANK ALL OF THE PRESENTERS. I

WILL HAVE SOME REMARKS IN A

BIT.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS?

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NONE

IN-PERSON AND NO HANDS RAISED,

CHAIR WASSERMAN.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION?

COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE?

>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANKS

CHAIR WASSERMAN, AND THANKS TO

ALLISON AND STAFF FOR THE

PRESENTATION. JUST WANT TO

CONGRATULATE YOU ALL ON GETTING

TO THIS POINT. I KNOW IT’S

GOING TO BE COMPLEX TO FIGURE

OUT HOW TO WORK ACROSS SO MANY

DIFFERENT AGENCIES BUT HAVING A

SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IS

DOING WHAT AND WHAT THE PURPOSE

IS IS INCREDIBLY HELPFUL AND I

THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A

VALUABLE TOOL. SO,

CONGRATULATIONS FOR THAT. I HAD

ONE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT MAYBE

ALLISON CAN SPEAK TO. I NOTED

IN THE WRITE-UP THAT YOU HAVE A

LEAD IDENTIFIED FOR SEEKING AND

SECURING FEDERAL FUNDING. I

DIDN’T SEE ANY REFERENCE TO THE

SAME THING ON THE STATE LEVEL.

BUT THAT’S — I ASSUME THE

PATHWAY THAT WE’LL NEED TO

PURSUE AS WELL, AND I WONDER IF

YOU COULD SPEAK TO THE APPROACH

THAT’S PLANNED THERE?

>>ALLISON BROOKS: YEAH. THAT’S

A GREAT QUESTION. IT’S PART OF

THE COORDINATION THAT WE’RE

DOING, WHERE WE’RE HAVING A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE KEY AGENCIES

AROUND THE FUND-RAISING TO,

FIRST, IDENTIFY — WE’RE GOING

TO HAVE A LIST AND IDENTIFY ALL

THE ACTIVE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

THAT ARE COMING FORWARD, AND

THROUGH OUR WORK TOGETHER AND

COORDINATION, WE’LL IDENTIFY WHO

THE APPROPRIATE LEAD IS FOR A

SPECIFIC GRANT OPPORTUNITY AS

THEY COME FORWARD BASED ON WHO

IS BEST POSITIONED TO GO AFTER

IT. AND THEN THROUGH THAT,

WE’LL IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR

JOINT PROPOSALS THAT MAY COME

FORWARD. BUT, REALLY, I THINK

IT’S HELPFUL TO JUST SAY WE’RE

GOING TO START WITH THE COASTAL

CONSERVANCY AS THE KIND OF MAIN

ENTITY. BUT THERE WILL BE

OPPORTUNITIES WHICH WE RECOGNIZE

FOR STATE GRANTS AND OTHERS

WHERE ANOTHER APPLICANT CAN

PROBABLY BETTER SUITED TO GO

AFTER IT. SO, THAT’S REALLY

WHERE THE COORDINATION AND THE

SYSTEM WE’RE SETTING UP TO

REGULARLY BE ON TOP OF THESE

OPPORTUNITIES WILL KICK N FOR

SURE. .

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER NELSON?

>>BARRY NELSON: A QUESTION

ABOUT FINANCE. I’M REALLY

PLEASED TO SEE THE DISCUSSION

WITH INVESTMENT STRATEGY IN

PLANNING, NUMBER ONE, BUT UNDER

NUMBER TWO, I HAVE A QUESTION, A

LOT OF THE DISCUSSION AS STAFF

WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, IS ABOUT

A LOT OF LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT

SEEKING FUNDING FROM STATE

GRANTS FEDERAL GRANTS AND

REGIONAL SOURCES. WE HAVE

TALKED MANY TIMES ABOUT THE

POTENTIAL FOR A REGIONAL — A

REGIONAL BALLOT MEASURE, LIKE

MEASURE AA, THAT WOULD BE

SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER, FINANCE

ADAPTATION, I KNOW 2H DISCUSSES

THAT POTENTIAL, BUT IT SAYS

LEAVING INSTRUCT BE DETERMINED

FOR THAT ITEM, THAT IDEA IS

CRITICAL THERE MAY BE ANALOGOUS

IDEAS THAT ARE JUST NOT QUITE

THAT BUT SOMETHING ELSE CREATIVE

ALONG THOSE LINES. I WANTED TO

ASK WHY 2H IS LEFT UNRESOLVED

AND WHETHER THIS MOU ADEQUATELY

CAPTURED OTHER POTENTIAL

CREATIVE FUNDING MECHANISMS?

BECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO

COME UP WITH THOSE

MECHANISMS.

>>JESSICA FAIN: I CAN TRY TO

ANSWER THIS, I DON’T THINK

ANYONE IS JUMPING TO LEAD THE

FUNDING MEASURES AT THIS POINT,

AND CERTAINLY, WOULDN’T WELL

SUITED, BCDC IS NOT GOING TO

LEAD A REGIONAL FUNDING MEASURE

FOR EXAMPLE, MTC AND ABAG ARE

OCCUPIED RIGHT NOW WITH OTHER

BALLOT MEASURES INCLUDING

HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION WHICH

HAVE RESILIENCY COMPONENTS AS

WELL BUT AREN’T SPECIFIC ON THIS

TOPIC. I THINK THIS IS

IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THIS IS A

CONCEPT WE DON’T WANT TO LOSE

IT’S KNOWN IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE

DISCUSSED FOR A LONG TIME THAT

WE’RE COMMITTING TO BUT I THINK

THERE IS MORE TO BE DONE IN

TERMS OF FIGURING OUT EXACTLY

THE RIGHT LEAD ON HOW TO MOVE

THAT FORWARD.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ONE

OF THE DIFFICULTIES IS THIS MOU

IS REALLY AIMED AT THESE

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND WHILE

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WERE

INVOLVED IN AA, THEY WERE NOT

THE LEAD AND THAT MAY BE THE

CASE AGAIN. BUT WE WILL

CERTAINLY BE VERY INVOLVED IN

NOT ONLY THINKING ABOUT IT, BUT

MAKING SURE IT STAYS AT THE TOP

OF EVERYBODY’S ATTENTION.

COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS?

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK

JESSICA AND ALLISON AND ALL OF

THE AGENCIES. I HAVE BEEN

FOLLOWING THIS AND VERY

GRATIFIED TO SEE ALL THE

PROGRESS IT’S MADE. I WANT TO

OFFER A FURTHER THOUGHT ALONG

THE LINES THAT COMMISSIONER

NELSON JUST OFFERED, AND THAT

IS, I KNOW THE FOCUS HERE IS ON

COORDINATING GRANT APPLICATIONS

FOR FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING, I

THINK IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO

REALIZE THAT THE PRIVATE AND

NON-PROFIT SECTORS WILL PLAY A

ROLE IN FUNDING IN THE KIND OF

MITIGATION ACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE

LOOKING FOR. AND SO WHILE IT

DOESN’T TOTALLY FIT WITHIN THE

GRID AND TABLE THAT WE SAW, I

THINK THE AGENCIES, AND BARC,

WANT TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE

HOW WE WOULD INCORPORATE THE

PRIVATE AND NGO SECT ON WERES

WHO WILL INEVITABLY GET INTO THE

PICTURE AND HOW WE LEVERAGE

THOSE DOLLARS ALONG WITH THE

STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING. SO

JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT INTO

THE POT FOR FUTURE

CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I

WANT TO JOIN IN THANKING

EVERYBODY. WHEN I WAS INVOLVED

IN A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS

LEADING UP TO THIS MOU, AND

THERE WAS INITIALLY A LOT OF

SKEPTICISM, NOT ABOUT DOING IT,

BUT HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE,

OR NOT, AND HOW QUICKLY WE COULD

DO IT. AND I THINK WE ARE

BEATING PEOPLE’S EXPECTATIONS.

I SHARE JESSICA’S PRIDE IN OUR

BEING FIRST AGENCY TO APPROVE

IT, AND I THINK IT WILL MOVE

ALONG WITH ALL OF THE AGENCIES,

BUT IN PART BECAUSE THIS CLEARLY

WAS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT. NOT

ALWAYS WILLINGLY, BUT EVERYBODY

UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF

DOING THIS AND TAKING THIS

APPROACH. AND A LOT OF THE

FOCUS IS ON FINANCING, BUT THE

MOU GOES BEYOND THAT AND TALKS

ABOUT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND

MOVING TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION.

SO, I WOULD — IF THERE ARE NO

FURTHER QUESTIONS, WELCOME

SOMEONE MAKING THE MOTION TO

APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT

WE AUTHORIZE OUR EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR

WASSERMAN, I BELIEVE YOU NEED TO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST?

NEVER MIND. I STAND CORRECTED.

>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY, I WOULD

LIKE TO MOVE THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES.

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SECOND.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS.

IF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS, SEER A

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CAN I

CONFIRM THAT WAS ECKLUND AND

GUNTHER, CORRECT?

>>PAT ECKLUND: YES.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK

YOU. COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?

>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND?

>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GORIN?

>>SUSAN GORIN: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER?

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: KIMBALL?

>>SPEAKER: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ?

>>SPEAKER: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON

PETERS?

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON?

>>BARRY NELSON: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

PEMBERTON?

>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER PINE?

>>DAVE PINE: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH?

>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZEPEDA?

>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD:

COMMISSIONER BEACH?

>>JUSTINE BEACH: ABSTAIN.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU

CAN THROW IN A REGRETFUL.

>>SPEAKER: VERY REGRETFULLY,

PERSONALLY SUPPORT.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR

WASSERMAN?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

VERY HAPPILY, YES.

>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: A TOTAL

OF 15 YESES, ZERO NOS, AND ONE

ABSTENTION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU, ALL VERY MUCH. I

APPRECIATE THIS. I APPRECIATE

YOUR ATTENTION AND EFFORTS, AS

ALWAYS.

AND WITH THAT, I WOULD

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN

>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO

ADJOURN.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES TO

ADJOURN AND COMMISSIONER NELSON

SECONDS.

>>PAT ECKLUND: SO WE’RE ON OUR

WAY NOW TO ABAG.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

[LAUGHTER]

IF THERE AREN’T NO OBJECTIONS

—

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.