May 2, 2024 Commission Meeting

Boardroom SX80: Commission.

Boardroom SX80: You were slow on that one. Commissioners, if you are.

Boardroom SX80: please unmute yourself to answer yes, whether you’re here or participating virtually, and then mute yourself. After responding, Sierra, will you please call the role?

Boardroom SX80: May we first have our video played Felipe to insist?

Boardroom SX80: Welcome to this meeting of the San Francisco Bay.

Boardroom SX80: chair, Wasserman here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner. Diego, here, Commissioner on we are

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Ambuel here, Commissioner Eckerley.

Jenn Eckerle, Commissioner: Here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Eckland, President, Commissioner Joy. Here, Commissioner Gun here.

Boardroom SX80: oof.

Karl Hasz, Commissioner: Karen.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Hawes. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: Here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson, here Commissioner Pemberton.

Sheri Pemberton, Commissioner: Here.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Pine here

Boardroom SX80: into the mic, please.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Here, thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner. Pardon me, Commissioner Ramos.

Boardroom SX80: Here, Commissioner Randolph, here, Commissioner, show Walter here, Commissioner Stefani.

Boardroom SX80: Present.

Boardroom SX80: Total. 17. Present. Malton Peters. Oh, pardon me, did I miss anyone? Commissioner Malton Peters? Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Total of 18 present chair Wasserman, you have quorum.

Boardroom SX80: We have a quorum and therefore can conduct business.

Boardroom SX80: I wanna thank all of you for being here particularly. I wanna thank the people who have responded to my request that on some of our meetings roughly every every other month we get as many people as possible, many commissioners as possible. Here in person there is a different sense, a different ability to communicate. Zoom has given us some very wonderful things. It’s just not quite the same.

Boardroom SX80: That brings us to item 3, which is the public comment period.

Boardroom SX80: This is the time when the public can comment on matters not on the agenda.

Boardroom SX80: or where there has not been a hearing

Boardroom SX80: to bring matters to our attention. So if you are here for either of the items on the agenda, you should speak on those items. Submit your speakers cards.

Boardroom SX80: physically or virtually

Boardroom SX80: and for public comment period I will give each person 3 min.

Boardroom SX80: Do we have any people for public comment, not on agenda items.

Boardroom SX80: We currently have 3 hands raised. Chair Wasserman. Go ahead and call them, please, Shawn Camden, your first stop, and I’m I hope, Shawn, I did let me before you start the timer.

Boardroom SX80: Typically, when we have people speak virtually.

Boardroom SX80: we show the timer, and that’s so that they know how much time there is. We have had some requests from people who wish to have their faces shown.

Boardroom SX80: And I absolutely want to respect that. If you want that

Boardroom SX80: say that we’ll do that, and since the timer will not be shown to you, we will have Sierra give you a 1 min and a 30 s warning.

Boardroom SX80: Sean, just to confirm.

Boardroom SX80: Would you like to speak on this item?

Boardroom SX80: No public comment. Currently, chair Wasserman, thank you.

Boardroom SX80: So that brings us to item 4,

Boardroom SX80: which is approval of the minutes of our April eighteenth meeting. We have received copies of the minutes.

Boardroom SX80: I would appreciate a motion to, and a second to approve the minutes.

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson moves Commissioner Gunther slightly slower on the trigger seconds.

Boardroom SX80: Are there any comments or

Boardroom SX80: changes to the minutes.

Boardroom SX80: seeing none. Is there any opposition to approving the minutes.

Boardroom SX80: or does anyone wish to abstain?

Boardroom SX80: I see none. The minutes are approved. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: That brings me to my report. I’m going to try to be brief. I don’t always succeed at that.

Boardroom SX80: First, since Commissioner Eisen is out of the country and not available to participate. I have asked Commissioner Randolph to act as our vice chair for the meeting this afternoon, and he has graciously agreed to do so. He has a fair amount of experience doing so.

Boardroom SX80: Just as I thanked everybody for being here today, or as many as possible. I want to remind you that we can’t do that at our next meeting it will be virtual because of construction going on in this meeting.

Boardroom SX80: so that if you are going you you need to give the address that you’re going to be at

Boardroom SX80: to Regina!

Boardroom SX80: No, to you. Sorry to Sierra.

Boardroom SX80: I was trying to divide responsibilities, and I did it wrong.

Boardroom SX80: by

Boardroom SX80: today or tomorrow

Boardroom SX80: end of business today. Chair Wasserman end of business today.

Boardroom SX80: So please send that to her.

Boardroom SX80: So that we can properly post it.

Boardroom SX80: hey?

Boardroom SX80: On a

Boardroom SX80: sad note, and yet a celebratory one, as you all know, I believe, Will Travis, the longtime executive director of Bcdc.

Boardroom SX80: Passed away last week.

Boardroom SX80: I did not serve on this commission with Will as executive director. We missed each other by about 4 months.

Boardroom SX80: But I knew him well before that, and we talked a fair amount afterwards.

Boardroom SX80: There is a tribute to him posted.

Boardroom SX80: and I urge you to read it. He was most certainly one of the leaders and effective leaders of both protecting the bay.

Boardroom SX80: but also thinking

Boardroom SX80: proactively and creatively on the things that we need to do, and not simply, reactively.

Boardroom SX80: He, I think, taught all of us a great deal.

Boardroom SX80: He was

Boardroom SX80: Strong in his beliefs.

Boardroom SX80: and not shy about sharing them.

Boardroom SX80: But he listened to people

Boardroom SX80: as part of

Boardroom SX80: the series of events that led me to becoming chair of this commission. Where there was some

Boardroom SX80: significant differences between regulated

Boardroom SX80: people, both governments and and developers and others about what new

Boardroom SX80: rules should apply as we adapt to rising sea levels.

Boardroom SX80: He was very effective in shuttled diplomacy.

Boardroom SX80: It was actually one of the

Boardroom SX80: great examples I have seen of public negotiations which are often not easy, because most of them, albeit not all, need to be conducted in in public. And he really did a superb job of that.

Boardroom SX80: He understood people, and he did listen, but he was absolutely not afraid

Boardroom SX80: to lead

Boardroom SX80: others may wish to comment on him briefly. I don’t. We have a lot of speakers, so I don’t wanna go on at great length, but I. I wanna give people the opportunity because the number of people work with him much more than I did. And I will recognize the Dean in the sense of longer serving member. This commission, John Joya.

Boardroom SX80: I had a chance to serve with Trav. When I joined the Commission in 99, when he was executive director through his retirement in 2011. So I just want to acknowledge one main point.

Boardroom SX80: I think Trav, more than anyone was really responsible for moving. This commission, this agency toward addressing, planning for sea level rise. Not just the work of the Bay Plan amendment which establish policies on sea level rise.

Boardroom SX80: but really just ramping up the work. And it was really part of our planning function. I think our planners here are the lead sort of group of individuals as many but lead group of individuals in the Bay area who really work with local government, state agencies and others and private sector to work on planning for resiliency. So I just wanted to acknowledge that point that really was Trav’s leadership, to move the Commission to

Boardroom SX80: into that. So instead of just dealing with a bay that was potentially going to get smaller back in the 19 sixties to dealing with the bay that was going to get larger.

Boardroom SX80: So I just want to acknowledge that

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson. I’m now gonna go around agree with everything the Chair and Commissioner Joy just said and all. I’ll add to that is that Trav was also, and I worked with it for many years before I was on the Commission when I was before the Commission while I was an advocate on Bay issues. trav on top of everything that the chair and the Commissioner, Commissioner Joyce said Trav was entrepreneurial, smart and funny, and a ton of fun to work with

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Yaxley. Thank you very much for allowing me an opportunity to talk about Will Travis, I started working with the US. Environmental, US. Army corps of Engineers in 1 69,

Boardroom SX80: and we had a lot. The Army Corps of engineers had a lot to do with the formation of the Bcdc. Believe it or not, but I really got to know him. When I moved over to the US. Environmental Protection Agency. I was in charge of the oceans and estuaries program for EPA. Region 9,

Boardroom SX80: and that’s where I really got to know and work with Will Travis on a lot of issues, because obviously we were in the 301 H and 4. One permitting process and everything else. So we worked with Bcdc. And all the other State agencies

Boardroom SX80: that were involved with water, and one of the things that I would most admired about him is his willingness and his eagerness to listen to others and to try to solve problems. And he did it in a way that you never felt that you were being put down, and you never felt like you weren’t part of the group, and I really respected him for how he treated others, even people that didn’t necessarily share his views.

Boardroom SX80: So I really spent a lot of time working with him because of both the agencies. In fact, my boss, Jean Huggins. He was a director of public affairs for the US. Army Corps Engineers, and that’s how I first got to to know about Bcdc. When it was formed in 69,

Boardroom SX80: and so, and then really got to know him. And I was in charge of

Boardroom SX80: oceans and water program for EPA. It’s

Boardroom SX80: he was just a really neat guy, and it’s really sad to see people pass away. But he left a legacy that he will always be remembered because of that.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, John. I. I had the privilege of working with Trav for almost 9 years as as chairman of the BC. DC. At the time, and he was.

Boardroom SX80: He was always incredibly professional, incredibly supportive of the Commission

Boardroom SX80: and of me. And he he had it felt like just the right balance in his focus on conservation and and development, which is what what we’re about here in the end of the day.

Boardroom SX80: And it was already pointed out that he was really the pioneer for us in Bcdc. And in the region among the agencies, in focusing on sea level rise and adaptation at a time when it wasn’t really on the agenda. We know there were issues out there, but there was no institutional focus, and there was a gap, and he. He led us into a leadership role in that. And.

Boardroom SX80: as Chair Wasson has said, it wasn’t an easy territory. There are conflicting interests, just to say the least. But in the end, when we did take that first step forward, I think it was to amend the Bay plan. It was a unanimous support by what are otherwise contending camps. And so I think that was quite an achievement

Boardroom SX80: to get us to that point. And I think it’s one reason why we’ve been especially diligent ever since then about making sure we had everybody on board with us across the region as we go forward.

Boardroom SX80: He was a terrific leader for the commission, and

Boardroom SX80: he he was also really engaging and charming. He was a terrific person to all, miss.

Boardroom SX80: All right, thank you all.

Boardroom SX80: We will adjourn the meeting in his memory

Boardroom SX80: online. I’m sorry none of the concerns on.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t think so.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t see any hands

Boardroom SX80: all right. Our next meeting, as I noted will be in 2 weeks. On May sixteenth it will be virtual.

Boardroom SX80: and we expect that we

Boardroom SX80: may take up the following matters.

Boardroom SX80: a permanent application for Pg’s continuing operation and maintenance projects throughout the bay.

Boardroom SX80: a permitted application for a development at 505 East Bay Shore in Redwood City.

Boardroom SX80: an enforcement case in the city of Richmond, and

Boardroom SX80: a memorandum of understanding among various state and regional agencies, to better organize how we will fund and manage adaptation to rising sea levels in the Bay Area.

Boardroom SX80: That last one is going to be really important. I do urge you to attend the meeting, albeit virtually

Boardroom SX80: that brings us to ex parte communications. If you have received a communication that is not on record on a matter that we are going to adjudicate

Boardroom SX80: you may report it now. If you have not reported it in writing, you do need to report it in writing in any event, and the portal is available to do that.

Boardroom SX80: Does anybody wish to make any ex-party communication reports?

Boardroom SX80: And when you say a matters are adjudicated, obviously, there’s an issue coming before us on a potential permit. So I’ve had conversations with

Boardroom SX80: like organizations, residents, bare council Mtc. and residents for and against the even though we have no application before us, and we’re not making any decisions, but just to be transparent.

Boardroom SX80: and I left out, turning back to Commissioner Joy, the environmental. No sorry

Boardroom SX80: you can report on the elected task force. There was a meeting of the elected officials task force on. They adapt yesterday, and Commissioner Joy, who chairs that we’ll give a brief report. So just briefly, yesterday, you know, we do have this.

Boardroom SX80: a very good group of elected officials, 2 per county around the Bay Area to really address from a local level. How we address sea level rise, and the meeting yesterday had 2 great presentations about best practices that are currently out there. One from San Mateo County and and Supervisor director. Pyne, was part of that presentation.

Boardroom SX80: and one from Bryn County, and supervisor and director, Stephanie Moulton Peters was part of that so great to see the work that’s occurring, and what we said we would do is collect best practices from counties around the Bay Area and communities around the Bay Area, about how cities and counties and the community are working together to address sea level rise. So we’ll hear from other counties and other efforts. And we did get an update on the regional shoreline adaptation plan from BC. DC. Staff.

Boardroom SX80: That was it?

Boardroom SX80: It’s

Boardroom SX80: any questions on that.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t have a question, but I do have a comment. I watched the presentation yesterday, and I have to tell you really impressed with what San Mateo has done? You’re a large county

Boardroom SX80: and a lot of cities, and just having worked with a lot of folks down there, too, when I worked for EPA. It is really a good effort. And again, I wanted to also compliment Supervisor Peters, too, for initiating the action, and we’re in

Boardroom SX80: and and getting that going. And I’m very interested in following that. And that’s why I watched it. And I was just going. Wow! Go, girl. Go, girl. So, anyway, both. Thank you very much for your fantastic presentations. Yesterday and discussion.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Pat.

Boardroom SX80: Just as of alert for future meetings. There will be a meeting of the Environmental Justice Working Group, virtually on the morning of May sixteenth, prior to our Commission meeting and a meeting of the sediment working group the following day on the seventeenth.

Boardroom SX80: in the morning also, virtually

Boardroom SX80: Our executive director had a sudden, not serious, but needed attention. Medical

Boardroom SX80: issuing his family. That is why he is not here. Steve Goldbeck, our deputy director, is here

Boardroom SX80: to make a report to us.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, chair. I will keep the report very, very short, because the executive director didn’t have one for today. But he did want me to make an announcement that I am going to be retiring.

Boardroom SX80: and it’s been a pleasure and an honor to work for the Commission and the bay since the eighties, but it’s time to pass the torch.

Boardroom SX80: and I won’t be leaving until the end of the fiscal year in a couple of months, and maybe returning in some capacity, perhaps, as a retired annuitant, so you may have to kick around for a while, but in any event I wanted to thank you all, and no need for any further speechifying right now.

Boardroom SX80: So that’s my report.

Boardroom SX80: We will have, and time at future meetings to

Boardroom SX80: Recognize Steve’s yeoman work for this agency, and on behalf of the people of California and the people of this region and the people of the bay.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, Sir

Boardroom SX80: Alright. That brings us to item

Boardroom SX80: 7

Boardroom SX80: the consideration of administrative matters. We have been furnished, a listing of them.

Boardroom SX80: and regulatory director, Harriet Ross, is ready and willing to talk about any. If you have questions. Are there any public comments on administrative hearing matters?

Boardroom SX80: Sean Camden, is your public comment for this item for or for a current item.

Sean Camden: No, it’s a general comment.

Boardroom SX80: I, it should have been done and open, but but I’ll allow it. Go ahead.

Sean Camden: Oh, okay, I thank you.

Sean Camden: I I just wanna say that

Sean Camden: removing a multi use bath from the Richmond Santa Fe bridge would be a huge step backwards for the future of Bay Area transportation.

Sean Camden: And I also want to address some of the lies that I’ve heard people telling about the about the path. I don’t think I need to.

Boardroom SX80: Shawn. This is direct towards item 8 will ask you to hold your comment until it’s for item 8. Carol.

Boardroom SX80: No further public comment at this time. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: That does. And I assume I don’t see any commissioners on items on the

Boardroom SX80: administrative listing

Boardroom SX80: that brings us to item 8.

Boardroom SX80: A briefing and discussion regarding the status of the four-year public pathway pilot project on Richmond, San Rafael Bridge.

Boardroom SX80: originally authorized by the Commission several years ago as a permitting matter. The briefing presented by Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll authority will include a report on the findings of the pilot project as well as proposed changes to the pilot being contemplated for a vote by Adam, the Toll authority later this year.

Boardroom SX80: I’m sorry. Later this month

Boardroom SX80: the Commission can expect a permit amendment request to be forthcoming after that is deliberations.

Boardroom SX80: So

Boardroom SX80: I want everybody to be clear in the public. I know there’s a lot of public interest in this.

Boardroom SX80: we are not taking action today. We will not take action until after

Boardroom SX80: the agency that has actually authority over it

Boardroom SX80: takes an action and then seeks our approval of a permit or modification to a permit, as the case may be, but because we know this is an item of importance

Boardroom SX80: we are. This is on the agenda for people to talk, but I want the public in particular to understand we are not acting today

Boardroom SX80: because it’s not timely for us to do so. We are a permitting agency.

Boardroom SX80: We are not the sponsors of this project

Boardroom SX80: shoreline development program manager. Kathryn Pan will introduce the briefing.

Boardroom SX80: Do we have an estimate of the number of hands raised who wish to speak on this? If you do wish to speak, you’ve submitted a card already. We’re counting you

Boardroom SX80: Guess on virtual hands the current count is 24, and climbing all right. I’m going to ask you to do 2 things, please for the public speakers. One. Reduce your time to 2 min.

Boardroom SX80: and second.

Boardroom SX80: please try not to be repetitive. If if you simply want to come up and demonstrate that you’ve made the effort to come here, or the effort to be on virtually and supporting what others people said. You can say that briefly, and and and I don’t want to restrict what anybody says. Say what you wish to. But in respect for people’s time, including the members of the public. I would ask you not to be repetitive.

Boardroom SX80: With that

Boardroom SX80: Take it away, Katherine.

Boardroom SX80: Alright. Well, thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I’m Katherine Pan, the Shoreline development program manager at Bcdc. And I’ll be introducing this item, which is a briefing on the Richmond San Rafael Bridge access improvement pilot project.

Boardroom SX80: A staff report on this briefing was shared with you on April 20 sixth, including a copy of Bcdc. Permit number 9, 97, 0 0, one Amendment 4 and a written report from Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll authority or data detailing the information that will be presented today.

Boardroom SX80: I’ll summarize some of the highlights of the staff report to provide the regulatory context for the project before passing things over to Cal Transambada, who will provide a status report on the project

Boardroom SX80: and just to situate you. Here’s a regional map of the project location. The Richmond San Rafael Bridge spanned San Francisco Bay between Marin and Contra Costa counties. It is owned by Caltrans, and managed in partnership with data. A sister agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, or Mtc.

Boardroom SX80: The bridge is a segment of Interstate 5, 80, and is a designated segment of the Bay Trail.

Boardroom SX80: The Bridge Access Improvement Pilot Project was a four-year pilot to evaluate the use of the shoulder on the westbound upper deck of the bridge, as a full-time separated class, one multi-use pathway and the shoulder of the eastbound lower deck as a peak hour, third vehicle Travel Lane, and that was approved by the Commission in September 2016, as part of a material amendment number 4 to permit number 9, 7 0 0 1.

Boardroom SX80: That permit was originally issued in 90 97, to authorize the seismic retrofitting of the bridge.

Boardroom SX80: At the time of the original permit. There was no bicycle or pedestrian access on the bridge, although it was already designated as a proposed bay trail segment by the Bay trail project

Boardroom SX80: when considering the project, the Commission heard from many community members advocating for bicycle and pedestrian connection across the bridge, and the findings of the original permit, stated that providing bicycle and pedestrian access was desirable, and would maximize the public access benefits of the retrofit retrofit project.

Boardroom SX80: However, the Commission also found that there was a need for further study as to whether this kind of access could be provided safely that could not be accommodated by the urgent timing of the project. Therefore the original permit did not include any special conditions to require bicycle and pedestrian access across the bridge.

Boardroom SX80: Instead, the Commission decided to work with Caltrans to complete the necessary studies and the permit findings document that Caltrans voluntarily committed to using its best efforts to study the feasibility of providing non-motorized public access on the bridge, and if such access was found to be feasible that it would ensure that it was provided

Boardroom SX80: nearly 20 years later. In 16, the pilot project followed from the series of studies and commissioned briefings and discussions stemming from that commitment which are further detailed in the Staff Report.

Boardroom SX80: Material Amendment number 4 authorized 2 elements of the pilot project, as well as some other permanent access improvements on the approaches to the bridge that were not part of the pilot on the eastbound lower deck of the bridge. The pilot involved the use of a 4 mile long segment of the shoulder as a vehicle travel lane during peak commute hours, and this part of the pilot opened in 2,018.

Boardroom SX80: On the westbound upper deck of the bridge. The pilot involved a 4 mile long, 10 foot wide, 2 way. Class, one accessible public pathway, as well as a 42 inch tall, 18 inch wide, movable barrier to separate the path from vehicle traffic, also safety railing and signage and usage instrumentation.

Boardroom SX80: And this part of the pilot opened in 2019.

Boardroom SX80: The purpose of piloting these uses of the shoulders was to seek a means of reducing congestion and travel time in the eastbound direction and providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the bridge.

Boardroom SX80: Caltrans intended to evaluate the performance and usage, to determine whether they should be made permanent.

Boardroom SX80: The special conditions of the amended permit required. Caltrans provide a written and verbal report to the Commission on the status of the public pathway, including, but not limited to, an analysis of public usage and benefits and assessment of any operational and safety issues, and the need for any future changes to the facilities, including removal or making them permanent.

Boardroom SX80: This briefing and the written report attached to the staff report are intended to fulfill this requirement.

Boardroom SX80: So at this point I’d like to introduce Larry Bonner of Cal trans. And Lisa Klein of Bada, and invite them to provide their status. Report.

Boardroom SX80: Right? Thank you, Catherine. Good afternoon. My name is Larry Bonner. I’m the Cal Trans. District for Office Chief for the Office of environmental analysis. And I’m here today with Lisa Klein, the Bay Area Toll authority section director for field operations and asset management

Boardroom SX80: to chair Wasserman and the commissioners. First of all, I just want to say, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the pilot today and for considering next steps, data and Cal. Trans. Are proud of this work and appreciate the commission support of the pilot which permitted the innovative uses of the shoulders on the Richmond Stanford bridge

Boardroom SX80: data. And Cal trans. Acknowledged BCD. C’s long history of advocating for access in this corridor. We want to assure you that we take this very seriously.

Boardroom SX80: We are pleased to provide this report and presentation today, and acknowledge that this is a little later than we had anticipated. But Covid was not part of our original plan, and it was important to let the post covid usage patterns abate in order to provide accurate findings and make recommendations.

Boardroom SX80: Lisa and I will be presenting updates and results of the pilot project on the Richmond Santa File Bridge. Along with some recommendations for the future

Boardroom SX80: for today’s presentation, we will cover the following 3 topics, an overview and recap of the project itself.

Boardroom SX80: the findings and results from the project’s pilot study efforts, and then we will conclude with, recommend the next steps in a proposal for the pilot, based on the current results and findings

Boardroom SX80: and 14 data, took responsibility for funding and implementing the Richmond San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Pilot Project undertaken in partnership with Caltrans. The transportation authority of Marin and the Contra Costa transportation authority with the combined goals to address traffic congestion and provide bicycle and pedestrian access to and across the bridge. This was undertaken to be consistent with the core strategies in the planned bar area 2050, including the Bay trail, build out

Boardroom SX80: the project partners committed to a 4 year pilot that in April of 2018 converted the lower deck, emergency shoulder to a part time. Third travel Lane followed in November of 2019, with the conversion of the upper deck emergency shoulder to a full time. 10 foot, multi-use, bicycle, and pedestrian path.

Boardroom SX80: Note for the sake of clarity, please, that the shoulder on the upper deck has not been used as a travel lane since the 1970 S. And in no part of this pilot or in the recommendations we will discuss today. Are we proposing to use this shoulder on the upper deck as a travel lane.

Boardroom SX80: The pilot project was designed for 2 main purposes. The purposes of this project were to provide pedestrian and bicycle access along the Interstate 5 80, which achieved the Bay trail connections between the East Bay and Marin County through the multi-use path on the upper deck of the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge, and to reduce congestion, congestion. Excuse me, and travel time on Eastbound I. 5 80, over the Richmond Santa trail Bridge through the part-time third travel lane on the lower deck of the bridge.

Boardroom SX80: In addition, the pilot project provided for several permanent improvements, including permanent trail connections for bicyclists and pedestrians in Richmond and San Rafael, and permanent traffic improvements through the widening on the bridge approaches.

Boardroom SX80: as mentioned in the previous slide. In addition to the pilot project, improvements built, monitored, and still under study, the project implemented, implemented non-pilot, permanent improvements and connections to existing trails and landmarks on each ends of the bridge to remote connectivity in support of the goals of the Plan Bay Area 50 plan.

Boardroom SX80: On the contrary, Costis County side. The project installed a class, one bidirectional path for bicycles and pedestrians, separated from automobile traffic by a permanent concrete barrier along the north side of Westbound I 5 80 from the tewkesbury Standard Avenue, intersection, near Point Richmond, to Stenmark Drive, near Point Milate.

Boardroom SX80: This replaced the existing one-way class, 2 bicycle lanes that were on both eastbound and westbound i. 5, 80.

Boardroom SX80: On the Marin County side the project widened a 10 foot sidewalk to provide for a bi-directional path for bicyclists and pedestrians along East Francisco boulevard in the city of San Rafael. In addition.

Boardroom SX80: there is an ongoing construction project to finish. The remaining sidewalk widens that will further close the gap between the multi-use path on the Bridgeman Bridge, and the connections to Sir Francis Drake, Boulevard Anderson Drive and connections to the Bay trail.

Boardroom SX80: Throughout the pilot period. Mtc. And data, also implemented initiatives to encourage bike commutes across the bridge they partnered with local organizations and coalitions for guided group rides, which which included options to try ebikes and bike education and safety demonstrations. They also started an ebay commute program that provided discounts on ebay purchases for qualified applicants.

Boardroom SX80: As Catherine summarized in the beginning for you all, and as detailed in the Staff Report, Bcdc. Has a long history regarding access in the corridor and the permit reflects that.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you all now I’ll turn it over to Lisa Klein.

Boardroom SX80: Good afternoon, thank you, Larry. I’m going to pivot now to the pilot. Study results. The evaluation of the pilot was conducted by Uc. Berkeley partners for advanced transportation technology, and I’m going to call them Uc. Berkeley Path for short. And it was a data driven evaluation that addresses the areas identified in the Permit amendment.

Boardroom SX80: The evaluation includes 2 reports, the phase, one report was issued in the summer of 2022. It’s included in full in your board packet, and, as you might suspect, and as Larry acknowledged, much of the data in that report reflects the Covid period.

Boardroom SX80: The phase 2 report adds data through this spring, you know very current data, and it’ll be published in a couple of weeks. We do have some preliminary results from that phase. 2 report. And we’ve included those in the summary memo in your board packet. And that’s what I’ll be focused on in my presentation today.

Boardroom SX80: So I’m going to very quickly run through the findings on the lower deck pilot first, because I suspect there’s going to be more interest in discussion on the upper deck path.

Boardroom SX80: So the results for the lower deck, finding the lower deck pilot, are really quite clear. The project has been very, very well received by the public as well, really, as soon as it opened the that part time Lane essentially eliminated the eastbound congestion on the bridge, and it now saves East Bay commuters between 14 and 17 min on their return trip home in the evening.

Boardroom SX80: We’ve also seen some reductions on the traffic on local streets, and we’ve seen reduction in the traffic incidents or crashes, and we also find that drivers are generally following the rules around part time, part time use, and you know, not driving in it when it’s, in fact, a shoulder

Boardroom SX80: when it comes to the upper deck. Honestly, the results here are far more mixed. And this is true both of the data I’ll share with you and of the public reaction to the pilot.

Boardroom SX80: We have, I believe, demonstrated that public access is important, and the path is is quite well used, especially on weekends. At the same time we’ve seen some puzzling data emerging related to traffic incidents or crashes in these phase 2 findings. And we believe that this suggests trying something a little different to see what more we can learn

Boardroom SX80: data, and all of the partners, and Cal, trans. And all of you, I believe, have heard very, very strong opinions that support keeping the path, and very strong opinions that support removing the path, and also strong opinions regarding use of the upper deck shoulder as a third traffic lane, and I just want to reiterate, as Larry noted the beginning, that that is beyond the scope of this pilot decision.

Boardroom SX80: The shoulder, because it has not been a travel lane for decades requires an entirely different analysis. It requires a full environmental review. Data and Cal Trans are embarking on some analysis at the direction of the Bata Board. But it’s not something we’re asking Bcdc. To consider. Now, there’s quite a bit more work to be done.

Boardroom SX80: There is a lot of data in the evaluation, and I’m going to focus on a few key areas in my presentation. I’ll start with path usage and safety.

Boardroom SX80: So the daily usage on the path is about 2 and a half times higher on weekends than weekdays. This means essentially that the number of people using it over a weekend is about the same as the number of people using it over the work week.

Boardroom SX80: On average, there are 360 bicycle trips per day on a Saturday or a Sunday and 140 trips on a weekday.

Boardroom SX80: and there is quite a bit of seasonal variation. For example, on Saturdays, in the summer the average is closer to 500 trips total. That day

Boardroom SX80: someone did ask me the other day about traffic volumes on the bridge, and those average about 35,000 vehicles a day on the upper deck.

Boardroom SX80: on the

Boardroom SX80: on the use of the path. The majority of trips, about 85% are recreational, based on surveys that were conducted in the evaluation. So over the course of a week that would be about 1,200 recreational trips and about 200 commute trips

Boardroom SX80: when it comes to safety. Those who use the path have rated it say they feel quite safe and comfortable, using it, giving it an 8 out of 10 rating.

Boardroom SX80: All right. There’s been a lot of attention, and some, I think, perhaps, confusion about traffic congestion.

Boardroom SX80: It’s true that over the past decade or so the congestion in this corridor has has grown considerably. When we look more closely at the recent data, however, the regular congestion patterns are not really that different today than they were before the past.

Boardroom SX80: before the path. And the pilot

Boardroom SX80: that’s illustrated by this graph. Here on the right, we call this a heat map it shows when and where traffic speeds are slowest during the morning commute.

Boardroom SX80: and it’s really good for looking at what I’ll call regular congestion patterns, but it doesn’t really do a good job of capturing the experience when there are incidents or crashes, and I’ll come back to that in a moment.

Boardroom SX80: The upper half of this colorful chart here shows 2019 conditions, and the lower half shows 2023, and you can see that the patterns of red and red showed speeds. They’re really quite similar.

Boardroom SX80: And that’s even though the traffic today is about 90% of the volumes that use the bridge in in 2,019 before Covid.

Boardroom SX80: The red indicates very slow speeds, less than 35 miles per hour, and the pink is up to 55 miles per hour.

Boardroom SX80: The width of the graph correlates with geography. So if you start on the right point d that letter D, there in Richmond correlates with Regatta Boulevard Point C. Is Stenmark. Drive right about at the Toll Plaza, and then Point B is Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Marin.

Boardroom SX80: and then the height of each graph represents the hours during the morning. So if you look at the 2023 graph on the bottom, you can see that the typically that congestion shown in red starts a little after 6 Am. And it’s very, very close to the Toll Plaza

Boardroom SX80: between 7 and 8 Am. It backup grows to or grew. This is 2023 to Regatta Boulevard, and then it decreases over the course of the morning and kind of dissipates there a little bit after about 10 Am.

Boardroom SX80: And compared to 2019, the backup in 2023 was about a quarter of a mile longer, and it also dissipated about 15 min earlier.

Boardroom SX80: So it’s very, very similar. Again, this is regular commute traffic, not really reflecting incidents, and I think it’s worth acknowledging that

Boardroom SX80: an incident probably generates much slower speeds on the bridge. The speeds on the bridge are shown in the big pink box. I forgot to mention that

Boardroom SX80: so probably generate much more slower speeds on the bridge, and perhaps more backup enrichment. I think that’s probably more likely what people remember.

Boardroom SX80: So I’m gonna turn now to incidents, and this is a place where the data leaves us frankly, with more questions than answers. You know. Honestly, it’s harder than we’d like, probably to correlate incidents and congestion, and we do have a lot of information on on incidence and incident rates. So the phase 2 findings suggest that incident rates overall are down about 15 to 20% over the course of the day, but they’re up about 20 to 30 Morning Peak.

Boardroom SX80: and that’s of interest to us, because the peak is when incidents are likely to cause the most backup and the most headaches for commuters.

Boardroom SX80: So on the left of this chart in the blue and red there. The slide shows that the increase in incident rate, you know, in incidence incident rates gone up in the morning. It’s largely in collisions that are rear ends or side swipes.

Boardroom SX80: and those are the most common types of incidents. So that’s perhaps not surprising.

Boardroom SX80: On the right, in the green and orange. The data shows that the increase in incidents are mostly the kind of incidents where there’s no reported injury as opposed to incidents where there’s a serious injury or fatality.

Boardroom SX80: So

Boardroom SX80: I spend a little bit more time on this topic.

Boardroom SX80: as you guessed, the time that it takes for emergency responders to get to an incident really makes a difference. Not only have incident rates increased during the morning peak, but the UC. Berkeley Path study also found, it may be taking longer to respond to them.

Boardroom SX80: And response times can really range a lot from, say, less than 5 min to 30 or 40 min. Or, you know, really, you know, really extreme incident even longer than that

Boardroom SX80: today, the average is 16 min to respond. And that’s compared to about 13 min before the pilot, and I’ll acknowledge that sounds very small, and you’re probably wondering why do we care if it’s a small change, and I’d say we care, because each minute of delayed response to an incident multiplies traffic by a factor of 4.

Boardroom SX80: And this creates more uncertainty about travel times, and that’s really can be a big deal when you got to get to work on time.

Boardroom SX80: So

Boardroom SX80: I’m going to, you know, kind of briefly recap the findings here and then talk about our proposed next steps.

Boardroom SX80: The results for the lower deck part Time Lane are very clear and very positive in terms of addressing the purpose of the project relieving congestion, and as I just discussed, results for the upper deck path are much less clear. I do think we’ve really demonstrated the importance of access on this bay trail segment, especially on weekends.

Boardroom SX80: While there’s no increase in the regular congestion. There is some kind of thought-provoking data when it comes to weekday incidents, and we would really like to try something different. So we can learn more.

Boardroom SX80: And that brings me to our proposal, which is graphically summarized on this slide. This is the Bat and Cal trans proposal, and it’s still subject to board approval. As the chair mentioned in his introductory remarks.

Boardroom SX80: we are proposing to make the lower deck part Time Lane permanent a permanent condition as it is, and we are proposing to extend the pilot with some modifications on the upper deck to answer the questions raised by the data and to better understand the role of an emergency shoulder. Specifically, we’re proposing to retain the multi-use path on days where there is less commute traffic.

Boardroom SX80: restore the shoulder on other days of the week, and run a bike shuttle when that space is functioning as a shoulder, the shuttle service operations and the days that we would provide the path. We’re still working those out. To be honest.

Boardroom SX80: I think you know, weekends and Fridays and holidays are good candidates for the path. We may even be able to open the path midday, Thursday as and we’ll be reviewing the traffic and operations on that. You know. If we could do that we’d really have an extension. That was about half time, a path and half time a shoulder

Boardroom SX80: we are proposing to extend through the end of 2025, and it might actually possibly we might possibly ask for a longer extension that would really depend on the start date. How quickly we can get in front of you. For a permanent amendment, or, if we need a little additional time for for proper evaluation.

Boardroom SX80: So let me just clarify what we’re trying to achieve with this proposal. The first is, it really allows us to learn more about this.

Boardroom SX80: this constrained real estate on the bridge, and how it operates while we keep the bay trail segment open and the times it’s most used. It allows us to get more data on safety and operations with the emergency shoulder open on weekdays, and it allows us a better understanding of access. I’m curious, really, whether we would attract some different bay trail users with a shuttle service.

Boardroom SX80: and it allows us to take a closer look at equity. The demographics and equity considerations of users was not something in the current, and the original scope for the Uc. Berkeley path, and we think this is worth spending some time on. I think it’s important when you think about the variability in congestion due to incidents in the morning.

Boardroom SX80: and it also allows us to continue working on projects such as the Richmond San Rafael, forward, that will make the approach to the bridge and Richmond work better, and speed up transit and carpools in the corridor.

Boardroom SX80: and before I wrap up I’m just gonna spend a minute on the Richmond. Sandra fell forward projects. These are fully funded projects that will move us toward a multimodal corridor, and we believe they will alleviate but not not eliminate, congestion in in Richmond.

Boardroom SX80: Probably the most impactful of these projects. The biggest is the open road tolling and H. Ov lane extension that would open by the end of 2025. And this project will do 2 things. It will remove the toll booths at the plaza, and it will streamline traffic through the plaza to reduce the slowdown that happens when the merging, you know, right now the plaza

Boardroom SX80: sort of wows out to 7 lanes, and then it goes back to a few lanes to get on the bridge, so it’ll streamline that traffic

Boardroom SX80: it’ll also provide an HOV. Lane, extension for carpools and buses through the through Richmond.

Boardroom SX80: We’re also working with A/C. Transit and Golden Gate transit to install, transit signal priority on cutting Boulevard, and we expect to make some improvements to the Richmond Parkway interchange by 2026 that will help with some of the local congestion and the traffic diversion.

Boardroom SX80: And then in parallel. Although not shown on this slide, Cal Transambada are looking at the ability to use the upper deck shoulder on the bridge as a carpool lane, potentially in conjunction with a part time path, and, as I mentioned earlier that really requires a full environmental review process. And it’s not the subject of our the item before you today.

Boardroom SX80: This is my last slide. So in terms of next steps, we’re certainly very interested to hear your thoughts and questions today.

Boardroom SX80: Our first step, though, before we can come back to you for a formal action is first to ask data to authorize staff. That’s me to pursue the proposal, and we’ll be making an initial presentation to Bada committee in next week, and then we’ll be seeking approval from the full authority at the end of the month.

Boardroom SX80: Second, we need to really define the the parameters of the modification. Like the days of the week, the bike shuttle operations, and work more closely with Bcd. Staff on the best approach to the permit, particularly with respect to the lower deck. And then, third, we would submit a formal request for amendment for your consideration at a later meeting. So thank you very much for your attention, and we look forward to your discussions after

Boardroom SX80: I’m Katherine closes this out.

Boardroom SX80: So thank you for that presentation, and I also wanted to note that the current permit specifically prohibits the alteration or removal of the facilities without a permit amendment. And so in this sort of weird space where the authorization for the pilot project has run out before the next amendment comes in. Caltrans has submitted a request for a non-material

Boardroom SX80: time extension to extend that authorization for the existing pilot as is to get them some time to like, finish up their proposal, finish up their valuation, and come back in with a material amendment request later this year.

Boardroom SX80: So at this point it seems worthwhile to share the legal and policy bases for how a future proposal for the pilot will be analyzed. So first, as always, it’s important to remember that section 6, 6, 6, 0 2. The Mcatir Petrus Act finds that existing public access to the shoreline and waters of the San Francisco Bay is inadequate, and that maximum feasible public access consistent with the proposed project should be provided

Boardroom SX80: the Bay Plan further expands on this in particular in its public access policies, and also includes a section of transportation policies and findings that are relevant to this case and to paraphrase transportation policies one and 4 require the Commission to encourage the development of alternative modes of transportation and to include pedestrian and bicycle paths in transportation projects on bridges over the bay.

Boardroom SX80: and these are based on findings that primary reliance on single occupant vehicles for transportation in the Bay area results in further pressures to use the bay as a route for future roadways and bridges, and that pressure to fill the bay can be reduced by providing safe and convenient public pathways for non-motorized forms of travel.

Boardroom SX80: So, before closing, I’d like to offer some questions for the Commission to consider in your discussion. A staff appreciates any insights or direction you’re able to provide. In response to these questions, as we prepare to return with the permit ease later this year with their amendment request. This first question is related to the conditions of the permit, and simply asks whether the Commission believes that there is sufficient information at this time to remove the improvements, make them permanent, or propose an alteration

Boardroom SX80: for the second question. Knowing that the Permity plans to request an amendment to the permit for a modified pilot project. What information would the Commission like to be included in the application and or the staff analysis to support a determination of whether the proposed modifications are appropriate

Boardroom SX80: for the third question. At the conclusion of the pilot, including any extended or modified version of the pilot, what information should be provided to support a determination of whether non motorized public access is feasible on the bridge.

Boardroom SX80: and lastly, at the conclusion of the pilot, what information should be provided to support a determination of whether any proposed permanent project would be providing the maximum feasible public access on the bridge consistent with that project, and with that thank you very much for your attention to this presentation staff, and the permities are happy to answer any clarifying questions you may have.

Boardroom SX80: Chair was, I would just like to make a short statement. I just wanted to remind everyone that this is an informational briefing, and that this may come before us for a permanent amendment, as you’ve heard. Therefore, I just wanna state that now is not the time to state support or opposition to something that may come before us for a permanent amendment, and that general comments and concerns that don’t state how you would vote on a permanent amendment are okay.

Boardroom SX80: and that the focus should be on responding to these 4 questions that Staff has posed.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you for that. I’m

Boardroom SX80: going to start with questions for clarification from the Commissioners.

Boardroom SX80: and then we’ll go to public comment. I’m going to start with Commissioner Joy.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Thanks for the presentations. And as someone who lives in Richmond and represents the area. That’s the approach to the bridge, and I’ve been both a driver in my car on the bridge and a biker across the bridge. So I’ve experienced the enjoyment of biking the frustration of delays. So I understand. I think the dynamics of this.

Boardroom SX80: I do. I do have a number of questions that will help us later to determine. You know what

Boardroom SX80: and answer the Commission questions, but one of them deals with air quality studies that you may do, and I wanted to get Greg Nudd before he leaves, I think, and then I’ll have Lisa come up. Greg. Greg has to is a senior official at the air district. And and as Greg comes up because I I think part of it is.

Boardroom SX80: you know, what are we gonna ask for in the study. And I know you’re gonna be doing air quality analysis. We’ll ask as an air district member, that’s an issue that’s been raised. I do wanna make. I I do think it’s important to clarify cause. There’s a lot of good information and not so accurate information that’s out there in the public about all of this potential proposal, and I know it’s clear that there’s no proposal to make this lane a

Boardroom SX80: vehicle lane for cars, potentially an HOV transit lane, but not just a vehicle lane and a lot of the comments we hear. I think people think it’s gonna be turned into a Vehicle Lane. Then there’s this stuff going around that the bike lane has caused more air pollution which hasn’t happened. I just wanted but I wanted to understand, Greg.

Boardroom SX80: so can you just comment about air pollution impacts so far. And then if part that’s part one and part 2, if we were to ask as they do studies. What kinds of studies would make sense? It sounds like the alternatives you’re looking at. I mean, using it as a shoulder, using it as an HOV. Transit lane have different implications for congestion and air quality.

Boardroom SX80: But just so I know you had to leave, so I wanted to ask you that before going back to Mtc. Sure, I’ll keep it brief right now. We don’t have any evidence that the bike lane is causing greater air pollution. In Richmond.

Boardroom SX80: The data that we see is consistent with what we see near every freeway in the Bay area, where there is significant increases in air pollution in the mornings. But that’s typical of pretty much every freeway in the Bay Area

Boardroom SX80: in terms of things to consider when you are doing an air quality, evaluation of a traffic improvement project.

Boardroom SX80: You want to look at the types of vehicles that are traveling. You want to look at. By that I mean light duty vehicles versus diesel trucks.

Boardroom SX80: You want to look at vehicle speeds before and after, and you want to look at total vehicle throughput before and after

Boardroom SX80: What we are finding recently is because light duty, vehicle, tailpipe emissions are so low.

Boardroom SX80: Congestion isn’t really an issue for light Dv vehicles from an air quality standpoint. Obviously, it’s an issue from a quality of life standpoint, and it can be an air quality issue if it causes traffic to back up on surface streets, especially if there’s Diesel vehicles in that traffic. Mix

Boardroom SX80: the thing to be careful about, though, is induced demand, and if you

Boardroom SX80: make some modifications that end up having greater throughput through the area you can actually see increases in particulate matter, even though the congestion is lower. So it’s a little bit of a different framework than what we’re used to dealing with in terms of congestion, and that really has to do with having a better first of all having cleaner cars, which is great.

Boardroom SX80: but also having a better understanding about the impacts of brake, wear and tire, wear and road dust from an air quality. So how does to the extent? How does more congestion, versus less congestion affect

Boardroom SX80: the the larger source which from cars now, which is their break entire wear and road dust as opposed to the tailpipe emissions. How does Con, having congestion versus not having congestion, affect that

Boardroom SX80: part? Well, tireware tracks directly with vehicle. Miles traveled

Boardroom SX80: as does road dust. And so the more vehicle Miles traveled you have, the more tireware you have.

Boardroom SX80: Recent study came out, showing that most of the microplastics in the bay are actually tireware.

Boardroom SX80: So the more Vmt you have, the more tireware you have, the more air pollution, more water pollution

Boardroom SX80: with electric vehicles. We’re we’re seeing increased tire wear because folks use their tires as brakes right through regenerative braking. But you see less brake wear so kind of the net impact of electric vehicles on that is is questionable.

Boardroom SX80: In terms of Diesel.

Boardroom SX80: if you’ve got Diesel trucks idling. That’s going to be a big problem for the community, especially if if they’re on surface, low surface level streets.

Boardroom SX80: So generally, then, when this thanks crake, that’s all I had, but it sounds like when, as you do, a study, their district will be involved making comments and reviewing the parameters of a study to ensure that we’re getting, you know, the the right overview and the right sort of comment on that. So and their district’s prepared to do that. Yeah, we’re happy to help Mtc.

Boardroom SX80: Provide some technical support on that. We’re we’re already working with them on the overall improvement projects and helping make sure that they

Boardroom SX80: that they’ve got the right technical approach, for with that their contractors are taking for their quality analysis. Great thanks. So I just had a few questions on the presentation, maybe to

Boardroom SX80: Lisa so, or can Cal trans. Just to be clear? So you’re you’re not proposing a through Lane you’re proposing HIV and or a, and transit long term, but your your permit, your permit application may seek. Just have a shoulder for a period of time, and then

Boardroom SX80: this HOV. Transit lane. How are you going to be able to distinguish

Boardroom SX80: during this modified period.

Boardroom SX80: the the cause of change, the MoD, the changes under the modified permit. If we’re also making the changes which are gonna benefit. This, the Richmond center fall forward, because right now you have 3 lanes of traffic going to 7 at the Toll Plaza going down to 2, and your proposals to have

Boardroom SX80: 3 lanes of traffic, 3. Through the Toll Plaza down to 2, which is, gonna have, I think, a big, positive effect on reducing congestion. So to the extent that you’re looking at that benefit from that project, how are you gonna distinguish that from the modified for what you’re doing in the modified proposal.

Boardroom SX80: the modified permit assuming it’s successful right? Assuming we’re not making be really clear here to the public. We’re asking questions to get information. We could potentially be disqualified from voting, as as our counsel said, if we, if we start specifying, you know, support and opposition. And plus, we don’t have all the information to make a decision. Right? Right? That’s right. That’s a very good question. And we are trying to thread a needle here, so what we would hope to be able to do

Boardroom SX80: do is very quickly come back to you with, submit. The request for the Permit amendment to try this modification. As you noted, the modification would restore the shoulder on the weekdays. No traffic on that lane.

Boardroom SX80: and we would like to be able to run that through before we’d like to be able to, you know. Open that pretty quickly. Run that next year before the forward project opens, that forward project is projected to open the end of 2025 and so that would give us, you know, I mean hopefully about a good year’s worth of data before that. Those improvements get made to the toll. It’s your belief that forward projects gonna have

Boardroom SX80: a great benefit of reducing congestion there. And have you thought about what? How much?

Boardroom SX80: Well, you know, I think the forward project is not gonna eliminate connection at the plaza right? I mean, we wouldn’t be building an H over Lane if it would, because you wouldn’t. You know you wouldn’t have an advantage right? So I think.

Boardroom SX80: I know that I have those numbers in my notes, and how much it is. It’s it’s up. I think it’s it’s a few minutes worth of of relief for the general lanes. It’s a bit it’s a far more beneficial to the carpools and the transit vehicles that will be able to use the HOV. Lane. And it’s, you know.

Boardroom SX80: was a few minutes worthy. How are you thinking of doing enforcement? I’ve had an electric car for 10 years. I drive in H. Ov lanes that are packed all the time, because I think I look around more than half the drivers are not

Boardroom SX80: either 3, you know, have the number of passengers or have an electric car. So I mean, obviously.

Boardroom SX80: there’s the potential for for a traffic lane. How does. How do you? How are you gonna address that? Yeah. And that’s a really good question. Yeah, enforcing carpool lanes is tough. There’s no doubt about it. You all see that all the time on the road, and so do I. We do a little bit better on the bridge approaches a little bit easier on the bridge approaches than it is, say on Interstate 80 in your neck of the woods there.

Boardroom SX80: and that’s because, you know, the drivers are going through a single point at the at the Toll plaza, where there’s an HOV. Lane. And they’re currently a little slower right there than they are on on Interstate 80, and you can put a highway patrol vehicle

Boardroom SX80: pretty much right there, and they can look and see who’s in the lane, and that’s much easier than having them drive by on, you know, when cars are drive by moving with traffic on the regular freeway.

Boardroom SX80: could you collect this same data with less days of modified changes. You just propose something that was a Thursday through Sunday, which is potentially 50 50. Do you need? How many days. Do you need to really collect the data to make a final decision?

Boardroom SX80: I don’t. I don’t think I have a real specific answer to that question. What we are doing in trying to assess the number of days is really trying to balance the traffic patterns that we see where there, you know, is the the congestion, and the number of vehicles that are traveling on the bridge, and we see very clear patterns. Thus far traffic volumes are very consistent.

Boardroom SX80: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Monday is very close to those, and then Friday, the traffic is lower. So that is really what that’s one of the things we’re really considering. When we look at what days we want to

Boardroom SX80: operate them out. You you’ve proposed a bike shuttle for the days that the bike lane isn’t available, which presumably is in the lane of traffic which is also congested. Is there any reason your proposal

Boardroom SX80: couldn’t include a bike shuttle

Boardroom SX80: on the shoulder? A smaller vehicle on the shoulder that puts the again. Assuming this, goes forward right? That puts bikes on a

Boardroom SX80: on on a on on the shoulder that gets them across bike or pedestrian, I should say, yeah, I mean, I think that’s a that’s a really interesting idea. And I think it’s something we’d have to look at, that’s we. We would want to really work through that with Cal. Trans. As the owner of the bridge and understand what you know what that kind of operation would mean. So I think it’s a

Boardroom SX80: it’s a really interesting suggestion, and something we’ll look at given that and this is more to Bcdc, I mean one of the things we obviously have to consider maximum feasible public access. All those standards

Boardroom SX80: have shuttles been used on some temporary or long term basis

Boardroom SX80: to to deal with public access issues. And this is really

Boardroom SX80: to to the staff, have they? Or and maybe it’s also a legal question of whether or not it meets Max public access having a shuttle.

Boardroom SX80: I’m looking at Ashley to see just in terms of like.

Boardroom SX80: I guess. Like detouring, I guess.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah. Does the maximum feasible public access interplay with using a shuttle on some days in place of actually providing the access. Actually Tomerland Bay design analyst we’ve seen shuttles

Boardroom SX80: on the Richmond Bridge previously.

Boardroom SX80: and then at Middle Harbour Road, related to Middle Harbour Shoreline Park.

Boardroom SX80: Use of shuttles. Doesn’t seem to be popular either with user groups or the people or the agencies running them. The Richmond felt bridge.

Boardroom SX80: A shuttle was ran prior to the 1997 Richmond Bridge permit, and it was canceled due to load ridership and unsatisfaction on the parts of the bicyclists

Boardroom SX80: just due to unreliability. Just wondered. Okay, thanks. And just a couple final.

Boardroom SX80: So also is, is there a reason you you want to go forward with the shoulder as opposed to waiting, collecting more and apply for a permit when you’re when you’ve done the analysis to look at an HOV. Transit lane.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, that’s a good question. Well, I think that you know, because the shoulder I’m just shoulders, or should I mean shoulder? And I’ll get to the incident question in a second. Right? Well, I mean, I think it really does relate to the it really does relate to the incidents, you know. I think there’s also really it’s been a. It’s been a while now since we had a shoulder on that bridge right? It’s been for

Boardroom SX80: 4 years, and there’s Covid in between it right. And I think you know, one of the things that we we wonder a little bit is.

Boardroom SX80: you know, do people really remember the experience of the of the bridge before before the pilot. And is there maybe some? You know, it’s been a while. So this question about what do? What do incidents. Really, what happens when there’s an incident at this point we we only have the more recent experience right where we have the

Boardroom SX80: where we have the the path. And we do think that there is some value in getting fresh data. You know, it’s also true that traffic is 90% of what it was before before Covid. And so it may function a little differently now in this period than it did, you know, back in (202) 018-2019. So that is one reason we’d like to go ahead and do it. Now, how long is it going to take you to

Boardroom SX80: determine, analyze, and determine whether

Boardroom SX80: whether it’s feasible to have a

Boardroom SX80: Hov transit lane there. Right? So we because, yeah, that’s, I assume that’s where you ultimately are trying to end up in your permit application. But this intermediate use of a shoulder, you know, it’s just different. So just how long is it gonna take you? Right? Well, I don’t know where we’re trying to end up. I mean, I think we’re looking at. We’re looking at options, and we wanna understand what the analysis will show

Boardroom SX80: I

Boardroom SX80: in terms of how long the analysis takes. It’s a 2 step process. We are doing an initial analysis. We call a design alternative assessment. And we are trying to move very expeditiously through that and complete that by the end of the year. That’ll tell. Give us a general sense of feasibility.

Boardroom SX80: But it’s but it’s not. Gonna in order to really pursue this and to come back for a permit, we would have to click complete and full environmental Review. It’d be comparable in scope to the Environmental review we did for the current pilot, and that was a 2 year process. So it is a good 2 plus years before we could come back and ask for a permit. For an Hv. Lane

Boardroom SX80: 2 plus years. So I mean, cause the Commission is looking at like I don’t know. Maybe 3 general alternative options. One is whether to continue

Boardroom SX80: the current status quo.

Boardroom SX80: second is whether

Boardroom SX80: to

Boardroom SX80: amend the permit to our shoulder.

Boardroom SX80: Third is whether ultimately to amend a permit to have HOV in a transit, and

Boardroom SX80: what you want us to do it sounds like is study.

Boardroom SX80: What the benefits or not of the shoulder are.

Boardroom SX80: and if we found that

Boardroom SX80: there wasn’t a great benefit

Boardroom SX80: that we go.

Boardroom SX80: we would potentially go back to status quo, or then entertain later an application on an HOV. Because that’s a yeah. There’s different cost benefits.

Boardroom SX80: I should say, for each of those right? I mean a shoulder versus HOV. Transit. It’s a big difference with different cost benefits and different impacts on congestion and air quality and all of that. But you’re only gonna collect data on the shoulder. You’re not gonna have collected data on the HOV. And the transit

Boardroom SX80: right? But that’s true, we will be doing analysis in parallel on the HIV lane on the shoulder. So the trick is to bring all this together. And there’s one reason. But you’re not going to have data from an HIV transit. We won’t have data for it. But I think

Boardroom SX80: we.

Boardroom SX80: you know, I think

Boardroom SX80: one of the challenges in traffic analysis is this notion of incidents and and this non-recurring congestion. And that’s a place where I think real life experience is especially valuable. Incidents are tremendously variable. Right? It’s anything from you. Get a flat tire and you pull over to a major crash, and they vary on the weather and the time of day and the lighting, and there’s just so much variation.

Boardroom SX80: And so I think that’s an area where direct experience is particularly valuable, I think, as as an industry, if you will, we’re do a little better at traffic analysis when we’re talking about

Boardroom SX80: right? You know. You calculate there were some increase in incidents. I get it in the morning. 6 to 9. But how many incidents are we talking about? What’s the actual, absolute number of incidents we measure technically. But we and what, in fact, what’s the data you have? That shows what the impact of that incident was on any increased congestion or not. Right? Oh, yeah. So we measure the incidence as rates

Boardroom SX80: typically. And the rates are the numbers that are included in your packet. It’s rates per 1 million vehicle. Miles traveled. So it’s a very, very small number, which you know, is really a good thing, right? Because a lot of crashes.

Boardroom SX80: So those numbers are in your packet, I would have to go back and look at the actual number of incidents over a period of time. I don’t have that, you know, on top of my head. It seems that’s useful. And and how much, then that’s a questionnaire. And to come back to us, how much.

Boardroom SX80: how many days was that? And how much did it actually affect congestion, or how much did it affect delay? Right?

Boardroom SX80: We don’t have that, really. Thanks. Those are some questions about

Boardroom SX80: speaking of.

Boardroom SX80: Thanks. couple of of additional questions. The first is very much along that same line. I have struggled when I was looking at those graphics to look at number of incidents per 1 million miles traveled. I have no idea what that translates to in terms of real world number of incidents.

Boardroom SX80: How they’re distributed, do they? All we do. They happen at different times a day. If you’re considering, varying the the the use of that shoulder that distribution might matter. So we don’t need those answers now, but as we think about about moving forward as you folks are preparing to come back to us really help if those numbers came back to us in numbers that we could understand.

Boardroom SX80: A couple of other questions, I mean it it just in general, we’re not I. I share Commissioner Joy’s questions and concern about this, you know, not not seeing this as sort of a one way step toward a transit line. We haven’t made that decision yet, and you’re not proposing. We make that decision yet. But the debate here really is about

Boardroom SX80: emergency. The the trade-off is really not about traffic. It’s about emergency use of that lane compared to at least it’s it’s emergency related traffic congestion related to the current bicycle use. Right? That’s the trade-off we’re talking about.

Boardroom SX80: So I just wanna make sure we’re all clear about that. And and one of the things. Just with that in mind. I was trying to understand.

Boardroom SX80: You said that the volume of traffic today is about 90% of the Pre covid levels. But the congestion level is pretty similar, or maybe a little bit worse than Pre covid. Can you help us understand why that is, I would expect the congestion to be

Boardroom SX80: lower a little bit lower, I mean, I think that’s that’s one of the questions. So I would say it’s comparable. I wouldn’t say it’s a little bit worse, I would say. It’s really very comparable. It’s a little different in shape, but it’s really pretty comparable. And I think you know that is a good question. And I’m not sure we have a great answer for it. There is

Boardroom SX80: you know. Still, you know, a lot of the congestion really has to do with that toll plaza and the fact it winds out and it comes back down. You’ve got a merge in the back. So that’s one of the considerations the path study did find. I didn’t highlight it because I don’t think it’s

Boardroom SX80: necessarily central to to the discussion today. But the Path study did find that there’s a slight decrease in capacity on the bridge with the barrier in place, and that, I think, has to do. It may have to do with how the cars are moving across the bridge. They may be a little slower right next to the barrier. That may be more in, you know, choosing more to be in the left lane, because they don’t want to be next to the barrier.

Boardroom SX80: But but what we found is that really, you know, it hasn’t really dramatically, it hasn’t dramatically affected the performance on the

Boardroom SX80: traffic across the bridge. It’s it’s sort of

Boardroom SX80: hiding in the background there. But it, you know. Could it be something with traffic? We don’t know. Now, if this is a new normal, we also don’t know that right? If traffic were to grow back, could it be a consideration? Could it make the backup worse? You know? Maybe it could. But that’s also very hard to test in real real life, when traffic is low, couple of other questions that it’d be helpful

Boardroom SX80: if you could provide us more information when you come back, and I suspect we’re going to be hearing about some of this from the public. The

Boardroom SX80: documents indicate that the Richmond Center fell. Bridge is the second most popular bridge for bicycle transit compared to the Bay Bridge. Be good to have those numbers as well. That that bridge, that that connection doesn’t go all the way across currently, but that those would be good numbers to see. I’d also be really interested. And I I’d be interested in members of the public. Talking about this as well is, is to what extent, if any, is the low use on the bridge

Boardroom SX80: are related to connections on either end. I wasn’t quite sure, Larry, you were talking about the the connection on the wet on the west end of the bridge, and I wasn’t sure whether that was really affecting bicycle use in a significant way that might have an impact on use.

Boardroom SX80: So that’s just a question for everybody about to the extent, to what extent, if any, is the use being frankly lower than I would have expected, especially during the weekdays related to access

Boardroom SX80: off of the bridge. And the last question is, if we’re considering going back to a shuttle, it’d be helpful to hear from the members of the public and it’ll help to see the numbers. Staff just said that that was cancelled because of a lack of

Boardroom SX80: public support.

Boardroom SX80: Was that

Boardroom SX80: I mean, that could have been unreliability of the shuttle. It could be the fact that members of the public are much more enthusiastic about traveling across the bridge by bicycle rather than in the back of a van.

Boardroom SX80: but those would be good numbers to have before us as well.

Boardroom SX80: And I think that’s it. Thank you through the chair. If you would like you to respond to any of those like, I can tackle them now, or I could. I could hold, and we could do, unless you think there’s something very specific. I think most of them are intended as guidance for what comes back to us. Certainly.

Boardroom SX80: thank you, Commissioner Gunther.

Boardroom SX80: just to follow up briefly, I think that

Boardroom SX80: the discussion seems to be

Boardroom SX80: centering around the need

Boardroom SX80: for benchmarks to better analyse the quantitative information that you’re giving us.

Boardroom SX80: So, for example.

Boardroom SX80: there’s 500 people

Boardroom SX80: each weekend on the bridge.

Boardroom SX80: Is that a lot.

Boardroom SX80: or is it not a lot did we project

Boardroom SX80: in 2,000

Boardroom SX80: 16, what it would be

Boardroom SX80: and that that kind of of of benchmarking would help us interpret right? So 14 to 17 min saved eastbound.

Boardroom SX80: I’m getting the impression. That’s a lot.

Boardroom SX80: compared to what I think that that would be really helping and just a couple of things like that. Number of incidents, you know, is, are there incidents in the pedestrian bike lane

Boardroom SX80: there for that week?

Boardroom SX80: Okay, okay, it’s very, very small, if there were any at all.

Boardroom SX80: would reducing the speed on the bridge.

Boardroom SX80: reduce the number of incidents.

Boardroom SX80: Saggy

Boardroom SX80: Joe, would you like me to respond now? Something. I’m happy to take your guidance. I know you have other business to. Take care I would take these as as guidance for the information. That’s all, that’s all that’s all they’re meant for. Thank you. So I think that that I know that sometimes

Boardroom SX80: it feels like you’re pulling something out of thin air, but in terms of interacting then with the greater public. As I, I was responsible for using scientific information to decide. If the bay is healthy.

Boardroom SX80: Well, is it? How do you do that? There’s no heathometer you put into it right? You have to come up with this a sense of what’s good, and and it would be great whatever you decide to do, and whatever we all agree to do, going forward to have some

Boardroom SX80: goals, some kind of benchmarks out there. We think this is going to reduce the number of incidents by whatever. And then let’s see what happens. And at least we can get a sense from that of of of what these statistics mean. And and again, I’m gonna reiterate

Boardroom SX80: there’s no right answer to this right. But your expert judgment.

Boardroom SX80: informed by everybody else’s helps. Kind of guide the discussion in the future. Thanks.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I just have some clarifying questions, because I have not been as involved in this project as a lot of others have been. But so what you’re saying is that the lower deck, which goes eastbound

Boardroom SX80: the bike lane will remain

Boardroom SX80: on the lower deck. There’s a part time, Traffic Lane. It’s not. The lower deck is a vehicle line lane, 2 to 7 Pm. Or part. So it’s not a bike lane. It is not a bike lane. Yes.

Boardroom SX80: that that is correct. Okay, so the bike Lane pedestrian. It’s only on the upper deck. That’s correct. Yes, okay, that’s a very important clarification.

Boardroom SX80: So

Boardroom SX80: you’re looking at doing the upper deck.

Boardroom SX80: which is westbound. You would like to try to convert that to an h of transit lane.

Boardroom SX80: during the week.

Boardroom SX80: and then on the weekends. Use that lane as the Bike Lane pedestrian Lane correct. There’s a series of things over time, right? And and we’re a little more spread out. So the immediate

Boardroom SX80: the immediate.

Boardroom SX80: It’s not an ask yet, because we still have to get authority, but the immediate proposal is to extend the pilot to on the upper deck, restore a shoulder on the weekdays and have the path. Retain the path on the weekends. We are in parallel with that, and we would seek to get

Boardroom SX80: a permit to do that very soon, and you know, perhaps have that in place ideally before the end of this year. In parallel with that, we are doing analysis studies first feasibility, sort of analysis, and then perhaps an environmental review that would look at using that shoulder as a bus, or HOV. Bus an HOV. Lane.

Boardroom SX80: But that is a separate analysis. We would. We would not be able to come before the Commission with that for several years, because it needs a full environmental review. So I guess I share some of the concern about how you’re gonna be able to compare different pilots. And since this proposal is substantially different than the pilot that has been occurring over the last few years.

Boardroom SX80: So I share that very much. So help me to understand the public opposition.

Boardroom SX80: It’s with the

Boardroom SX80: upper deck.

Boardroom SX80: Correct. That’s correct. Okay, and it’s the opposition to retaining it as a bike and pedestrian

Boardroom SX80: path. I’m gonna give her a lifesaver. But we’re gonna hear from the public. Okay, I’d rather hear from the public than than have the calculation. Okay, I’m speaking, I guess, for myself and others that may not have been involved in this, and from the beginning it’d be helpful

Boardroom SX80: to have. This is where we were. This is what we did, and this is what we’re proposing, and I sort of come in like this in midstream.

Boardroom SX80: And you know I just hear a lot of controversy. But I don’t know what the controversy is

Boardroom SX80: is about in particular.

Boardroom SX80: And so you stated, this congestion is triggered by the toll plaza.

Boardroom SX80: Has Cal trans. Ever looked at what they could do, and you probably have what you could do to the toll closet to

Boardroom SX80: minimize, if not eliminate.

Boardroom SX80: that congestion

Boardroom SX80: again. Sort of, and maybe that maybe that has to be at a separate hour later. Okay, so if you can explain that later, that’s fine. Just some of these basics.

Boardroom SX80: why is it that the bridge is more popular with bike and pedestrian? That’s a good question.

Boardroom SX80: Because the Golden Gate Bridge is pretty popular so.

Boardroom SX80: and it’d be interesting to have some of the other statistics, too, so we can compare them.

Boardroom SX80: So

Boardroom SX80: I have some other ideas of what I would like to see. But I think we’ve got a long way to go.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: I guess this is sort of an observation. Having been part of this conversation we had. Was it 2,016 that I remember very well at the time? And it goes to, I think, 2 questions. It’s the the optimal or most appropriate use of the space that is currently used as the Viking pedestrian lane as opposed to alternative uses. And I remember when this first came up.

Boardroom SX80: there was understandably a lot of advocacy by the bicycle community, and then Abag said, It’s gonna complete the bay trail, which is great. But I

Boardroom SX80: I registered a fundamental concern at that time. This is years ago, now that this was coming to us in the complete absence of any kind of data whatsoever.

Boardroom SX80: and some folks said, well, you know, bikes are so successful on on the Golden Gate Bridge, come on the Golden Gate Bridge and to the Presidio in San Francisco, and at the other end is in Sausalito.

Boardroom SX80: and it’s a major tourist destination scenic, and I don’t think any of us would call the Bay bridge scenic, rather the the Sandbridge scenic, and there’s very little at either end immediately that would draw people as destinations. So you got a little pretty far away to get anywhere that’s really going to folks. A marine and Contra Costa may disagree with that. You.

Boardroom SX80: I live in Marin County. Thank you very much, and I ride my bike. Oh, hundreds of miles. So anyway, I’m a biker, too, so I totally get it. But I guess this goes to the question. One is, I might use different terminology than you did, that the upper deck bath is quite well used.

Boardroom SX80: I’m not sure I would say that 140 bikes a day is quite well used, it compared to the other traffic, so I would probably use different language. But I I think the kind of. I think we have the key data that we need, which is the number of bikes and pedestrians on the bridge during commute hours and and non-commute hours.

Boardroom SX80: What I think would be useful

Boardroom SX80: again when you said that the Santa Fe Bridge has the the number 2 most popular bridge for bikes after the Bay Bridge.

Boardroom SX80: Well, it’d be great to see what is the Pat? How many bikes to use the Bay Bridge?

Boardroom SX80: How many bikes use other California bridges in the region, and how many use the Golden Gate Bridge. So if we see the data Golden Gate Bridge

Boardroom SX80: Bay Bridge, Santa Vale Bridge, San Mateo Bridge, any other bridges. I think that’s the data, I think, telling us it’s number 2 doesn’t tell us very much at all. So anyway, I’m I’m glad we’re having this conversation. I’m glad we have the data.

Boardroom SX80: We could use a little bit more, and I think anything else that you can share with us that would help us understand the

Boardroom SX80: the benefits of

Boardroom SX80: the shoulder that would get us, maybe eventually, if we go there someday to the age of Elaine. I know that’s not this permit.

Boardroom SX80: Request! But I think anything to understand

Boardroom SX80: the benefits of further of the of the getting the shoulder back would be very helpful. I’d love to see the data on all the bridges

Boardroom SX80: and just to complicate it a little bit more.

Boardroom SX80: I’d like to see data on other well used bicycle paths, commuter and recreational, not just limited to bridges.

Boardroom SX80: Yes, thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Okay. As the Commissioner, along with our previous Commissioner on in Marin County, so I have some follow-up questions about the safety issues that you raised.

Boardroom SX80: Because I I wanna understand, we talked about the accident rates. But actually, the impacts of accidents go to everybody else on the bridge at the time that it happens and backed up. And so I wonder if you could come back with us? You mentioned that

Boardroom SX80: minutes of delay on the bridge, due to incidents, have 4 times the impact. And so I’d like to understand that better 4 times the impact of what and to whom?

Boardroom SX80: Because we are hearing from teachers and healthcare workers who need to be to work on time, that they’re coming across the bridge one and 2 h early. Now.

Boardroom SX80: to offset the potential of an incident, they need to be at their jobs on time.

Boardroom SX80: So I’d like some better understanding of these impacts of 5 incidents may happen, and they may affect 50,000 people.

Boardroom SX80: Similarly, I wonder if you could come back to us with on your heat maps. You showed a longer period of delay in the commute in the morning, a more lengthy period of commute time that had increased over 20 the pre covid times.

Boardroom SX80: And if there’s any way to explain what is happening, there are there more. You said that the total volume of traffic has not changed, but the time duration of congestion is longer now. And so if it’s possible to understand that

Boardroom SX80: and a related question is, are you able to use Enrique’s data or other data to track commuters going over the bridge both by bike and by car in the morning. I know that we have origins and destination information about

Boardroom SX80: auto commuters, and and we know where they go. Part to Sonoma County, part to Moran. Be good to get an update on that.

Boardroom SX80: but also the bicycle commuters. Because I’m I’m quite certain we have a cadre of bicycle commuters who use it during the week.

Boardroom SX80: But if if it would be possible to determine. Are these repeat users

Boardroom SX80: going over? And of the 140 something or other each week? How many are repeaters that would just be helpful to understand.

Boardroom SX80: then I’d also, I agree the usership on Golden Gate Bridge would be interesting to know.

Boardroom SX80: I can say chair Wasserman. Incidentally, that we have some 3,000 riders over a weekend on the North Sausalito to Mill Valley Path.

Boardroom SX80: So we have 3,000 riders a weekend, which is quite different. So it’d be useful to get some comparative data on all that.

Boardroom SX80: I think that’s my questions.

Boardroom SX80: Yeah, I I would just say, I realize we do have a serious trade off discussion of a constrained bridge. It would be nice if it was a new bridge, and we could outfit it with bike lanes in both directions. But we we have what we have. We have to figure it out. So thank you. Those are my questions.

Boardroom SX80: Down to my right. I see no light, so I’m going to go to Commissioner Kashimoto.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: Okay. Yeah, thank you very much.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: I have. I do have 5 or 6 questions. So

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: one is kind of goes back to history. But I’m just curious. Why, that original.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: I mean, why do we have a part time? Vehicle laying added on the

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: heading, heading West versus East, I mean. And

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: and why was that decision made? I guess I just curious about that.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: second is

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: I I read that I can’t deliver bike and pedestrian facility was contemplated at 1 point, and I’d be curious to

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: here how much research was done. And is that a possibility?

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: I also had questions about the incidents per day. So that’s that and and then regarding transit.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: So so I actually, I have to confess I don’t even know if there are any buses crossing the bridge today. So that’s kind of a basic question. There are okay.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: And

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: and is there discuss, is there? This contemplation of HIV buses

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: or even other demand side strategies? I mean, it might be increasing, increasing the tolls and using, you know, the greater revenues, for, you know, improving, improving transit and and related to that the the the supervisor just just mentioned, the Origin destination studies. And and I imagine that

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: that’s that. If they were, I’m sure there were studies done at that point, I’d I’d be carrying kind of curious to know, you know. Quick, some summary of that about where the you know 70,000 vehicles are going per day.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: And does it actually, without, you know, without that it’s kind of hard, hard to make suggestions on on what would be the most effective.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: yeah, alternative transportation.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: Let me see? Let me see, I I guess alternatives for cyclists who want to cross the bay. I guess I you know I don’t know what has changed since that last look.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: and and then there was some discussion about the land side by connections and it wasn’t clear to me they’re still under construction. So if they are, when are they due to be done? And

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: if so, it does seem unfair that we’re kind of looking at this with without lands, by connections not being completed.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: Let me see if there I think was, and I and I suppose the last one I’ll throw out is, you know it. It just kind of, I mean, if we are looking for some combination of emergency shoulder room for disabled vehicles. Is there some way to combine it with.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: you know, kind of narrowed lanes, and some places for either pedestrians or bicyclists who might have to dismount to pass.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: That was that might. That might be a crazy idea, but wanted to throw that out there.

Yoriko Kishimoto, Commissioner: Okay. And I think that’s that’s those are most of my questions. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Through the chair. If if I may make one clarification, the improvements on the Marin side and the Contra Costa County side. Those are largely complete the access improvements. There is some additional work we’re doing on Marin that is, under construction now, but we have really completed on the Richmond side

Boardroom SX80: those path improvements to access are complete, and there have been substantial improvements completed already on the marine site as well. So I just want to clarify that because it’s come up a couple of times.

Boardroom SX80: Thank thank you.

Boardroom SX80: I don’t see any other.

Boardroom SX80: so we will now go to public speakers. We’re going to start with speakers in the room.

Boardroom SX80: You have

Boardroom SX80: 2 min, and please try very hard not to be repetitive.

Boardroom SX80: Bruce Baird, and coming up behind Bruce is Rosemary Corbin.

Boardroom SX80: There was some, and there’s a Commission

Boardroom SX80: Action Committee

Boardroom SX80: and a member of the San Francisco Bay Trail Project Board of Directors. The Richmond Sandra Fell Bridge trail is a key section.

Boardroom SX80: the multi-use San Francisco Bay Trail.

Boardroom SX80: It should stay open 365 days per year.

Boardroom SX80: Cyclists, pedestrians, joggers have enjoyed about 380,000 trips across this bridge. This opened in November 2019.

Boardroom SX80: There’s no justification for shutting it down 4 days a week in order to provide a vehicle. Breakdown Lane.

Boardroom SX80: page 7 of the Caltrans Battle report in your agenda package states, and I quote a relatively small number of incidents have occurred on the upper deck of the bridge.

Boardroom SX80: There have been a relatively small number of incidents. Why shut down the trail for a breakdown lane?

Boardroom SX80: My wife and I were driving across the bridge a couple of weeks ago, and there was a car broken down with a flat tire in the left lane.

Boardroom SX80: So what I’d like to suggest, and some of the Board members have alluded this in their discussion today is that rather than moving ahead now, and I’m talking to both. Cal. Transat also with shutting down the trail. 4 days a week provide a baked breakdown lane. We should wait for completion of the Richmond Santor bridge forward program. The data is carrying out now

Boardroom SX80: the major problems, the breakdown of delays in the bridge are the approaches. The rsa. 4 forward program will make major improvements to the Richmond Parkway Interchange approach to the bridge. It will eliminate as discussed earlier and eliminate the coal Plaza area. Going to open road tolling. It’ll extend the Hov Lane from Ricotta Boulevard to the bridge approach. It’ll make a huge difference in the traffic flow situation.

Boardroom SX80: and at that time you’ll then have a new baseline, and that would be the time to look at the options that are being considered closing the trail to provide a breakdown Lane, or provide an HOV. Lane, or whatever ideas might come up. It’s premature now, thank you for your public comments. Your time is now complete. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Boardroom SX80: Rosemary Corbin, followed by Tom Lent

Boardroom SX80: chair, Wasserman and Commissioners. I’m Rosemary Corbin and I used to be a Bcdc. Commissioner and voted when we approved the recommendation to have a bay trail on the Richmond center. So here I am again, and I am now the chair pro tem. Of the San Francisco Bay Trail Committee.

Boardroom SX80: and I’m here to tell you. I think you all received copies of our resolution. We passed a resolution last Friday in opposition to closing the Bay trail. Across the Richmond Centre fell Bridge. 4 days a week.

Boardroom SX80: and

Boardroom SX80: for many reasons the Bay trail is loved. Thousands of people around the bay, and the Commission has been supportive of it, and the goal of the bay trail is to ring the bay, and you can’t ring the bay if you don’t go across bridges.

Boardroom SX80: So

Boardroom SX80: I think we need to think about where the cause is. The congestion was there before the bay trail, and it will be there after the bay trail. The congestion is caused by the fact that Marin County and cities don’t allow for the building of affordable housing for the people who work there. So they have to live in the East Bay, and they cross the bridge every morning and then back at night.

Boardroom SX80: So please keep that in mind, and don’t make the bay trail a scapegoat. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Tom Lent, followed by Robert. Prince

Boardroom SX80: did it on both of the last 2 speakers. I would also suggest that you don’t really have the data you think you have yet a lot has changed. I’m Tom Lead. I come before you today as a user of the of the pathway. I live in. Berkeley, and I use the bridge for both business purposes to attend meetings in Marin and San Francisco, and for recreation access to a variety of locations in Marin.

Boardroom SX80: and I come also to give a voice to another group of San Francisco commuters from Berkeley, who I ride with regularly, who cannot attend a Work day meeting. I’m also the Ebay Project Coordinator for a walk by Berkeley, and this is 1 one change that is not captured in the data. Ebikes are a game changer for the practicality, the time, practicality of crossing that bridge.

Boardroom SX80: I know this because I’ve tested it myself against Google against Google Crossing Times. And I don’t mean just the bridge. I mean, going from

Boardroom SX80: from places where people live in Richmond to places where people work in San Rafael, and an ebay makes this practical, and Ebikes are just taking off now, so we don’t have a lot of data for how people with Ebikes would use this bridge. We also don’t have data for how people will use the bridge with the improvements in the access. You previously had to ride on an expressway to get on and off of this bridge, rather intimidating

Boardroom SX80: to a lot of people understandably. And now we have a different situation with access to the bridge, a few more improvements still to come, but much already there we should be looking at how it’s used now with the current conditions, not looking back at the previous 4 years, when it was constrained, and when people had different technologies for crossing. It’s a really important link

Boardroom SX80: in our transportation infrastructure that were just beginning to be understood and utilized. Don’t chop it off now. It will be a major step backwards for the Bay trail, for active, active transportation commuters and recreation, and for the residents of Richmond, who will breathe the the air in the particular matter that increased vehicle Miles traveled will put into their lungs.

Boardroom SX80: They’re feeling your public comment. Time is now completed. Okay, I’ve got it. I got answers on that bus that I’ll hold. Thank you. So hope someone else will pick that one up. Thank you, Robert Prince, followed by Sarah Benjamin.

Boardroom SX80: Hello, commissioners. Thank you for receiving my comment and happy bike month. I’m Robert Prince, obviously director of Bikies Bay nonprofit, representing contra costs in Elmia County since 1972 back, when we were called East Bay Bike Coalition and wearing my Uvc. Hoodie today, shortly after the Bcdc. Was formed in the late 60 S. And I mentioned that because Bikes Bay was formed as an organization, one of the primary goals of our organization was bike access across bridges connecting between the East Bay and other regions.

Boardroom SX80: We’re at 6 and a half bridges right now, with bike access. We’re working on that seventh half across the West Band Bay bridge, but we’ve never gone backwards. So I want to really stress how historic and serious this proposal is to actually go backwards for the first time ever on these connections. Yesterday our organization submitted a coalition letter to this body in support of keeping the trail open to people by king walking and rolling at all hours, 24, 7.

Boardroom SX80: At the time there were 57 local, state and national organizations that signed onto that letter focused on issues of active transportation, sustainability environment. One of those was, Save the Bay, an organization that was out also foundational in the forming of Bcdc. Back in the 60 S. I’m pleased to say that since then, even just yesterday, more organizations have signed on a new total of at least 65 groups. There’s a huge groundswell of interest in this topic.

Boardroom SX80: One of the purposes of converting the pathway to breakdown shoulder mentioned by Staff is the need for more experience. I’d like to remind folks here that we do have 37 years of experience with the bridge, with a breakdown shoulder from 1 82, when the pipeline was removed all the way up until 19.

Boardroom SX80: So far we only have 4 years of data with the bridge with a pathway on it. So if anything, I would encourage us to leave the pathway for there for longer, to have even more data about how the operations are handled with the current conditions. We can compare it against that 37 years prior.

Boardroom SX80: So also primary responsibility, Bcdc is to maximize feasible public access to the shoreline. So closing the bridge trail 4 days a week will affect that access negatively to significant degree. I encourage you to center this in your future decision making on the issue. Thank you. Thank you, Sir

Boardroom SX80: Sarah Benjamin, followed by Peter Gwynn.

Boardroom SX80: Peter, come on up.

Boardroom SX80: Thanks. Like you mentioned. My name is Peter Gwynn. I’m a Berkeley resident who works in San Francisco pretty close by. Actually, I have 2 young kids, ages 2 and 5, and I oppose the proposed path, closure and support, keeping it open. 24, 7.

Boardroom SX80: I first rode over the bridge back in December 2019, to commute to my office in San Francisco via Marin. It was a beautiful way to start the day, and I look forward to doing it more frequently. Then the pandemic hit. Like many folks during Covid, I struggled to maintain my mental and physical health. In early 2021 I put on additional weight on top of an already unhealthy baseline. The new change was necessary. Starting a decade earlier, I had a passion for cycling, and renewed my interest as a way to improve my health.

Boardroom SX80: With exercise and lifestyle changes, I was able to drop 30 pounds, felt better, forever, better than ever. Excuse me. Once Covid started to subside, and I was expected to return to the office. Like many parents of young kids, I faced a challenge, trying to continue to incorporate exercise into my day, but I was committed to find a way. My solution was to repurpose my commute into a workout, and the key to enabling this was weekday access. The rsr. Bridge!

Boardroom SX80: Since summer 2022, nearly every week I’ve ridden risen early and rid my bike from Berkeley to downtown San Francisco to Marin County. It’s something I look forward to every week, and has markedly improved my physical and mental health, watching the sun break over Mount Tam commuting and in the fresh air beats being on elliptical machine. Any day. When I heard the pilot period was ending, it was natural to expect that there would be a well informed discussion of what to do with the path. I think I’ve seen that here today with the committee. So thank you for that.

Boardroom SX80: But the news that we’re going to return it to a breakdown shoulder as opposed to addressing some of the root causes of the congestion caught me totally by surprise, and honestly, it was a little dramatic for me, but I was kind of depressed to hear that I might lose access to something that made my week so enjoyable.

Boardroom SX80: I get that no one likes traffic, however, making a change like this, in order to appease motorists, who are, you know, seemingly angered by the mere sight of the path without solving the the root causes of traffic. Congestion seems like a step in the wrong direction. So I’d urge the Board to consider some other options, maybe, in timing and sequencing instead of shutting down the the bypass. Thanks.

Boardroom SX80: Jackson Lester, followed by

Boardroom SX80: Terrell Calloway.

Boardroom SX80: Hi! My name is Jackson Lester, and I’m a resident of Oakland.

Boardroom SX80: So about 10 years ago I had a transportation epiphany that you couldn’t exist in the society that I grew up in in Lexington, Kentucky, without a car, and that led me to a career in transportation from a master’s in transportation engineering to working as a planner for a transit agency

Boardroom SX80: to moving here to work in the transit tech space. And one of the things that I love the most about living in the Bay area is the diversity of transportation options. It’s the first place I’ve lived in America where I feel like I can live a full life without having to drive everywhere.

Boardroom SX80: and I’ve ridden the bridge more than 40 times since it opened in 2019. It made moving to the East Bay feel like a viable option when I moved there in 2020, because I still had access to Marin into the city by bike and this nascent connective tissue that we’ve recently grown. It would be a tragedy to sever it, and.

Boardroom SX80: as I see it, this is a trade-off between short-term resiliency of travel time, where, you know when a vehicle breaks down or gets a flat, making the travel time more consistent versus the long-term resiliency of our entire region in terms of allowing us to have multiple transportation options, because across the US. And particularly California, we have

Boardroom SX80: hyper focus on the car as the serious way of getting around and everything else is secondary. And that’s apparent in talking about this path being only an option during weekends, and when it’s inconvenient kind of. But if we want to have a more resilient transportation system into the future, then we need to facilitate more real alternatives to driving everywhere.

Boardroom SX80: And so I ask you to please consider long-term resiliency and not just day of resiliency when an incident happens. Thank you. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Terrell Calloway, followed by Charlotte

Boardroom SX80: Duruso.

Boardroom SX80: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I’m Terry Callaway. I’m the executive director for Marine County Bicycle coalition, and I’m also the vice mayor for the lovely town of San Anselmo, in Marine County. I’m here today to urge you to keep the Richmond San Rafael Bridge open to people who walk in bike 24, 7

Boardroom SX80: in 2,019. When the pathway opened, I spoke at the ribbon cutting, cutting ceremony. On that day hundreds of people, including many in this room, were there, and we spoke about moving, moving our region forward into the future. We spoke about our commitment to moving away from fossil fuels and and improved access to mobility. On both sides of the bay.

Boardroom SX80: We talked about people from the East Bay having car free access to trails and beaches and marin, and we also welcomed increased connectivity and relations between our communities which hasn’t always been the case. Many of us who are committed to a less car dependent lifestyle, including my organization’s planning and policy director, who, many of you know.

Boardroom SX80: took jobs across the bridge in hopes that they would be able to ride to work in the days since Mtc. Announced it would recommend closing the trail certain days a week. We’ve heard from hundreds of people who use the trail to access work in play. Aiden is just one of them. He volunteers at the San at San Quentin on Wednesday evenings, and he uses the bridge to get there. He’s committed to a car-free lifestyle until we can

Boardroom SX80: the climate emergency. And this would take that away from him and the people that he helps at

Boardroom SX80: the prison. Curtailing. This path is a step in the wrong direction for our transportation system. It would roll back more bay trail. Miles in one fell swoop than have been committed in the last 6 years combined. I ask you to do the brave and right thing. Thank you. Thank you, Charlotte Durusso, followed by

Boardroom SX80: Colleen Monaghan.

Boardroom SX80: Hi, thank you for listening. And I want to mention that so this path is very an essential and unique connection in the Bay area. How else do you cross from the East Bay to San Rafael? So I think this path should be open to all kinds of transportation mode, especially the ones that we know are the most sustainable for our society.

Boardroom SX80: We need to allow alternatives to cars.

Boardroom SX80: Why only let people cross this bridge and do this essential connection by using an individual private car.

Boardroom SX80: I think just to bounce on the study that we heard today.

Boardroom SX80: This study is analysing little data, and I think it’s not very conclusive. And, on the other hand, I think we still have enough data to conclude, because many other studies have been conducted on this topic. This is a very classic topic of

Boardroom SX80: the car use, especially in urban areas. If we look at other metrics more relevant, for example, how many people can we get through the bridge per hour?

Boardroom SX80: Which mode of transportation, do you think is the most efficient to get as many people across the bridge as possible per hour.

Boardroom SX80: a car or a bicycle. If you compare these 2, we already have numbers. We know

Boardroom SX80: that the space used by cars creates congestion which diminishes a lot the number of cars you can get through the bridge per hour.

Boardroom SX80: So this is to mention that there’s more the bigger problem associated to this issue. We know and has been mentioned by other members of the public.

Boardroom SX80: Just the car. The relies on cars in the city has limited a lot of our options and makes this whole city and friendly for people that want to use alternate modes of transportation. So this is about a human right public comment. Your time is now done. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: Colleen Monaghan, followed by dress wedding.

Boardroom SX80: Good afternoon. Everybody knows

Boardroom SX80: my name is Colleen Monihan. I live in Berkeley, and I commute by bike over the Richmond San Rafael Bridge to and from my work in San Francisco.

Boardroom SX80: My access to these bike paths is part of the reason why I live in the bay.

Boardroom SX80: The bike pedestrian path is a critical part of the bay trail, as has already been discussed and eliminating, it will destroy equitable access to huge swaths of the coastline.

Boardroom SX80: It is your Commission’s responsibility to protect that access, and I urge you to take that responsibility seriously.

Boardroom SX80: It feels important to note all of the people that I see on the bridge every evening.

Boardroom SX80: I see little kids on mountain bikes. I see elders on Ebikes tourists. I see commuters and families.

Boardroom SX80: The bike in the pedestrian path is used by everyone and should remain open and accessible to everyone.

Boardroom SX80: Mtc’s proposal would eliminate equitable access to the Bay trail, and it would be a regressive move to prioritize transportation choices that are actively driving climate change.

Boardroom SX80: The congestion on the bridge is not the result of the bike path, and it will remain if you approve the permit.

Boardroom SX80: The congestion on the bridge is because the people who work in Marin County and in the city and county of San Francisco cannot afford to live there.

Boardroom SX80: This is the result of decades of exclusionary housing and land use policies and eliminating weekday access to the bike path will not fix that.

Boardroom SX80: All people should have access to the coastline, and all people should have access to safe, consistent, and sustainable modes of transportation.

Boardroom SX80: and I urge you to act in alignment with the very mission of your commission.

Boardroom SX80: The proposal is not responsible, it is not productive, and it is not equitable, and I urge you to deny the permit.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Dress wedding, followed by Brian Culbertson.

Boardroom SX80: Hi, Commissioners my name is Brian Culbertson.

Boardroom SX80: I work on art installations in Richmond. One of them, Lava Trolla, is installed in point San Pablo, just off the Bay Bridge trail near the Richmond Bridge.

Boardroom SX80: I biked law. Victroolla passed the Chevron refinery. So I want to talk to you about the air quality issues in Richmond.

Boardroom SX80: Refinery is the largest sole emitter of greenhouse gas emissions on the West Coast, and the largest polluter in Richmond by far air quality studies show that chevron is the number one culprit causing air quality issues in Richmond, followed by Philip 66, and then the landfill.

Boardroom SX80: It is crucial that we lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in Richmond. To do that, we should follow the direction of air quality experts whose study recommends electrifying and industrial truck fleets like chevron, because industrial trucks are the top source of vehicle emissions in Richmond

Boardroom SX80: and expanding public transportation to reduce the number of vehicles over the bridge that releases tire and road particulates the current. Bus comes less than once an hour only operates until 10 PM. Has space for 2 bikes, and many do not fit ebikes. It is not a viable option as a replacement, for this path

Boardroom SX80: removing the pathway would at best make air quality worse in the bay. Instead, let’s deploy proven solutions to improve air, quality and improve congestion in Richmond and direct chevron to electrify their trucks instead of getting rid of this pathway. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, Kyle Brundle, followed by Danny Lannis.

Boardroom SX80: and then we will go to Virtual.

Boardroom SX80: Hello! My name’s Kyle Brunel. Thank you for letting me speak today. I just want you a little bit of my personal experience with the Bike lane. I’m a long-time East Bay resident

Boardroom SX80: long-time homeowner in El Cerrito. I make frequent use of the Bay Bridge. I’ve been across there about 400 times across the rich from Santa Fe bridge by bike. That’s 400 automobile trips I didn’t take because I was able to ride my bike across there.

Boardroom SX80: I’m here obviously to urge you to

Boardroom SX80: keep the bridge open. 24, 7 for bicycle and pedestrian and jogger use.

Boardroom SX80: Tom.

Boardroom SX80: as a longtime resident. I’ve waited over 30 years for

Boardroom SX80: access from the East Bay tumor in without having to climb into my car and the opening of this bay trail finally.

Boardroom SX80: provided that I’m disappointed to hear that that that’s potentially in jeopardy now. So

Boardroom SX80: and this would again force myself and anyone else who wants to go between the East Bay and Marin to climb back in our cars and to add another car to the road.

Boardroom SX80: Hum!

Boardroom SX80: One thing I want to know, I’ve since this has

Boardroom SX80: become a discussion again. I’ve I’ve started making a personal observation to look at cars as I’m heading eastbound on the bridge and look at cars heading westbound and looking in a windshield. I notice that 95% of them are single occupant vehicles. And I think

Boardroom SX80: if we are going to do anything about congestion, we possibly need to do something about urging people to

Boardroom SX80: not drive their own car to somehow

Boardroom SX80: get better usage of these available space on a bridge than just single occupant vehicles.

Boardroom SX80: I also think that if there are that many incidents on the bridge, perhaps the traffic speed is too fast, and it should be lowered to accommodate the lowest common denominator of driver skills that are using the bridge.

Boardroom SX80: I see a lot of time. Thank you. Thank you, Sir

Boardroom SX80: Danny Lannis.

Boardroom SX80: Good morning, Daniel, Resident of Richmond.

Boardroom SX80: I would like to mention that this past Monday, April thirtieth, the city of Richmond, passed a resolution in support of 24, 7. Access to the Richmond from Raphael Bridge Trail.

Boardroom SX80: Thanks to Council, Member Dorie Robinson and Mayor Eduardo Martinez, who co-sponsored the resolution

Boardroom SX80: Sean and all Commissioners I’ve led dozens of rides, including the Richmond Summerfield Trail. I would love to invite you to go on a ride with me and show you how fantastic of an experience it is

Boardroom SX80: I have some others have mentioned, gone through the bridge to

Boardroom SX80: for mental health, especially during Covid, and partially thanks to that, I’m here.

Boardroom SX80: I won’t need to also show you this picture of my daughter being one of the first trailer bike bikes to cross through the original bridge trail. When she was about 5, 6 years old.

Boardroom SX80: and the whole poster here depicts her, and it tells you that she is invited and actually leading. 2 years later she was invited to lead a ride with a community organization called Re City Rise, that is, empowering her and brought community together through bikes.

Boardroom SX80: In addition to that I would like to point out that the data is very important. But the world shaped the Bay Area Bay Area and then

Boardroom SX80: the Bay Area shaped the world.

Boardroom SX80: What do? What is the message that we want to send? Where do we want to go? Do we want to increase vehicle miles traveled?

Boardroom SX80: Are we increasing public access to the bay and the shoreline?

Boardroom SX80: That was the question. Thank you so much. Thank you. I do have 2 more speakers, and then I’m cutting it off for the people, and you’ve had your opportunity.

Boardroom SX80: Herb Castillo, followed by.

Boardroom SX80: I think it’s Jason Vargas.

Boardroom SX80: Everybody. I’d like to cede 10 s of this, for everybody who has passed who has been a part of helping people around the bay mobilize around the bay.

Boardroom SX80: receding 10 s.

Boardroom SX80: But there’s Highland.

Boardroom SX80: I wanna say, thank you. And I think that we have a lot more tools like Kamu and Strava. And I wanted to come up here because I I did have this ride, and I grew up in Redwood City and right in the bay lands which almost don’t exist anymore. But most of my experience biking is on those bay trails, and what I remember is marshes. I remember the birds. I remember being able to bike around and seeing that there’s wilderness around you. And when I think about this room

Boardroom SX80: there’s a reason that it’s so beautiful

Boardroom SX80: it changes our minds, it changes the way that we view our perceptions and that we’re in a

Boardroom SX80: a

Boardroom SX80: we’re in a difficult moment for young people across the world.

Boardroom SX80: What we fail to understand is that the Bay Area could really lead for what is essentially touring. So, to give you an example of a ride that I do is from Hayward up to Tamales Bay.

Boardroom SX80: something that I think growing up, I didn’t imagine was possible, but having lived in San Francisco around the city. And now, Oakland, I get to imagine what the world would look like in a different way. If we really want to address climate change and these rising levels you’re talking about, we may as well, just put gondolas all over. Why are we even talking about a side of a bridge? Build a whole lane? We have so much infrastructure. And we’re talking about municipal things. But

Boardroom SX80: the other thing I wanted to say is, let’s just get rid of the Bike lane and make it just a private lane for side shows. So instead, on Saturday nights and Sunday nights, it could just be used for people to do side shows and fun events. And then that way, there’d be no bicyclist either. So I just wanted to say, thanks and

Boardroom SX80: there’s a potential here to view, and and I can show you to my heart rate data, there’s a difference. Thank you. Your time is now complete for public comment. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: James Vargas.

Boardroom SX80: Hi! My name is neither James nor Vargas. It’s Jason Vargo. Sorry about that good start good afternoon, Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I came here today to support keeping the bridge path open. 24, 7 to walking and biking. I live in Albany, California. I work in San Francisco. I frequently go to Moran. I use the bridge as a motorist and as a cyclist on weekdays and on weekends.

Boardroom SX80: The multipurpose lane is a necessary accessibility feature on this important regional infrastructure.

Boardroom SX80: approving the proposal, takes away the option from some people to use that bridge in the interest of reducing congestion times.

Boardroom SX80: The proposal to close the path on weekdays restricts access accessibility. And there’s a large body of research that infrastructure with less inclusive design fosters and maintains societal inequities, including disparate access to jobs, housing, and healthy lifestyles.

Boardroom SX80: preserving multi-use path like this is in the interest of eliminating those inequities, and that is in line with many of the general plans, transportation plans, and economic development plans of the region. Certainly it’s a chief concern of this commission.

Boardroom SX80: and this is a crucial reason for preserving ubiquitous access to the multipurpose lane as a highly visible and connected piece of the regional transportation network.

Boardroom SX80: maintaining round the clock accessibility prioritizes public safety, encourages active lifestyles and supports local economies. It also upholds environmental stewardship. It makes our region more vibrant, connected, and liveable for everyone. Again, I oppose the proposed Weekday Bridge path, Closure, and thank you for your time.

Boardroom SX80: I apologize.

Boardroom SX80: That did it. There you go. So there, please start with the virtual speakers.

Boardroom SX80: and again you have 2 min. If you want your face shown, we will do that and give you verbal warnings.

Boardroom SX80: John Spangler, you’re up first with Roland cats on deck next

Boardroom SX80: go.

Jon Spangler: Thank you very much. President Wasserman and members of the Commission. First, I want to thank you

Jon Spangler: because for your advocacy for the Bay, I grew up in Redwood City. I’m a second generation Nor Northern California, and I love the bay.

Jon Spangler: and I appreciate everything you do for the bay

Jon Spangler: and the staff as well, and I want to commend Lisa Klein for her wonderful staff report

Jon Spangler: recently.

Jon Spangler: It may help the rest of us who are commenting to have up the questions that she posed to the Commission.

Jon Spangler: And I wanna add to that in addition to the letter that I signed from the Bart Bike Advisory task force that you have received

Jon Spangler: electronically

Jon Spangler: as to the questions you should be asking.

Jon Spangler: concurrence is not causality.

Jon Spangler: and I believe that the increased incidence of collisions and collisions are the result of deliberate driver choices.

Jon Spangler: whether to drive distracted, to drive under the influence or to not pay adequate attention to what you’re doing.

Jon Spangler: Collisions

Jon Spangler: have gone up.

Jon Spangler: and my question

Jon Spangler: to the Bata Staff Uc. Berkeley

Jon Spangler: Group and to the Commission is how much of the increase in collisions, side swipes and rear enders

Jon Spangler: have been as a result of covid-related changes in driver behavior and emotions.

Jon Spangler: This is not mentioned in the staff report, and I believe that should be covered.

Jon Spangler: and I thank you very much for your time and your efforts.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Roland Katz.

Boardroom SX80: You are now up with Tomasso. Wanda.

Roland Katz: Share my share. My video, please. I’m Raleigh Katz. I’m the executive director of the Marine Association of Public Employees. We’re the union that represents the overwhelming majority of

Roland Katz: employees of the county of Marin.

Roland Katz: We have advocated for years that there be a

Roland Katz: third lane in the rush hour. Westbound as well as eastbound. I understand that’s not before you today, but we would support the proposal to

Roland Katz: the lane for 4 days a week.

Roland Katz: Yes, affordable housing is a significant cause of the traffic

Roland Katz: problem. But that’s not going to get solved tomorrow very simply. If there’s a stall or an accident.

Roland Katz: The bridge without a shoulder.

Roland Katz: You get one lane or no lanes. Emergency vehicles can’t get there on a shoulder. Cars cannot avoid the accident without a shoulder, so we think that having a shoulder

Roland Katz: will improve traffic time and congestion.

Roland Katz: and very simply put

Roland Katz: almost all of our members

Roland Katz: riding a bicycle to work from the East Bay is simply not a viable alternative.

Roland Katz: Thank you very much. If we build a new bridge, as Commissioner Peter suggested, it should have a bike lane. It should have a pedestrian lane and a

Roland Katz: rail lane, but we don’t have a new bridge, so it’s a matter of balancing the competing interest.

Roland Katz: and there are far more people driving across the bridge than are riding across the bridge. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you, Tomasso. You’re up next with Kristen Denver on deck.

Tommaso (he/him): Thank you, guys, thank you so much for your time. And, Mr. Mazubaja, I’m a resident in Oakland.

Tommaso (he/him): I do not own a car. And I don’t need to remind you, Commissioners, that your mandate is to expand access to the Bay.

Tommaso (he/him): You’re not the Metropolitan Transportation Transportation commission. You’re not the Bay Area quality district not making commutes maybe 10 min shorter, based on data that actually would fail. A stats class is not your mandate. This is one of our decisions that in front of you that you need to apply a class angle to the poorer the household, the least likely they are to have a car available.

Tommaso (he/him): You have the choice now to marginally improve access to cars, maybe once again based on questionable data, while severely restricting access to people who do not. This is in direct opposition to your mandate, as they are but very Development Commission. I’ve enjoyed riding the bridge to visit family and friends in Marin and Sonoma

Tommaso (he/him): and to recreate a China Camp State Park. But I honestly hesitate to do so every single time, because the noncar infrastructure in Marin is so hostile. I was kind of shocked by the questions from the Marin representative here

Tommaso (he/him): Marin County has been sabotaging this bike lane from Day one, and the connection between the path and destinations like China Camp, or even the further connections to the to the North Bay, like the smart train, are absolutely terrifying. I would like to encourage the representative on this board to ride that path. It, like

Tommaso (he/him): it, was one of the scariest right I’ve done.

Tommaso (he/him): Please do not use your commissions power

Tommaso (he/him): to restrict access to noncarning households. That is essential through this bridge. Thank you so much.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Kristen Denver. You’re up next with John Shorba on deck afterwards.

Kristin Denver: Hello! And thank you. First commission. Thank you for your time. I would like to endorse a lot of what rolling cats the Speaker, 2 speakers ago just said that was very well said. My name is Dr. Kristen Denver, and I’m here to express my support for the recommendations presented today with regard to keeping the limited availability lane on the bottom deck of the bridge and piloting a part time shoulder during higher commute times during the work week days.

Kristin Denver: My husband and I have lived in Richmond for over 20 years, and we have both worked in Sonoma County for that long as well. Additionally, our son attends school in Sonoma County, so we are an active commuting family, who crosses the bridge with 2 vehicles daily, 6 days a week, often crossing the bridge in both directions twice a day.

Kristin Denver: I’d like to thank the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the other cohorts who are involved for thinking creatively and facilitating changes to the lower deck and allowance. Limited use of the third lane, because that was an absolute game changer for our family, often cutting commute times up to 30 min daily.

Kristin Denver: With regard to the current proposal for the upper deck, similar to the information shared by Commissioner multimolars. We are among the daily commuters who leave home nearly 2 h in advance to ensure we reach work and school on time.

Kristin Denver: Please note that without traffic. It’s actually only a 45 min drive, and the majority of our commute time is spent approaching and crossing the bridge

Kristin Denver: in order to ensure that all 3 of us arrive to school and work on time. We have to account for the expanded and extended commute times that are caused by incidents with no access to an emergency shoulder

Kristin Denver: in summary. I’m here in support of a solution that provides continuing access for bikers and pedestrians during the times that the data shows they’re using it the most.

Kristin Denver: However, I’m an absolute support of a solution that will improve the flow of traffic for the thousands and thousands of daily commuters during the times when the bike and pedestrian lane is highly under utilized. Thank you all for your hard work, for your time and for your consideration.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: John Charba. You’re up next with Dwayne on deck.

John Chorba: Hi! Thank you so much for allowing me the chance to speak just in the in the nature of of being timely. I did submit my comments to the to the public information, so I won’t go through all of them here my name is Dr. Shawn, sure, but I’m a cardiologist and also a Marin County Resident and I I now work in North Oakland, and I commute my butt by bike. pretty much every day.

John Chorba: So I’m here to support the the 24 7 opening of the path 3 quick points I want to make one. I think you’ve heard many people say that place called commuting is good for personal health. I want to echo, that I think as a cardiologist, I can tell you that from first hand knowledge the second thing is that I I did hear some

John Chorba: concerns or requests, perhaps, for more data on what the benefit of the bicycle of of commuting would be in terms of numbers. I had just put my information in through

John Chorba: we’re in commutes.org. And I was pleased to see that over the past month I’ve reduced about

John Chorba: 789 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. So I just want, you know the commissioners, to understand what the benefits of having commuters going across the bridge as bicyclists would be.

John Chorba: And the last thing that I wanna mention is, it seems there’s a big question on you know how to best use the next period of time to get more data, and I would argue that perhaps the better question is not what would happen, what we should understand if the bike path were to go away, but perhaps to keep the bike path open, and then better understand what we could do with it.

John Chorba: For example, You know, I’ve learned from my commuting that the area of Point Richmond is really quite beautiful. And had I known that before, maybe I would spend more time there. Or might there be a way for us to decadest the bridge by putting in ebay or school rental depos on either side. Those are just some thoughts, and I I think I would leave you with those. So thank you.

Boardroom SX80: You

Boardroom SX80: left

Boardroom SX80: Dwayne. You’re up now.

Boardroom SX80: John Grubb, you’ll be next

Boardroom SX80: Dwayne. Can you go ahead and talk into your mic for us? We show that you’re unmuted.

Boardroom SX80: Go to John and come back.

Boardroom SX80: Dwayne will come back to you. John Grubb, go ahead and unmute yourself.

John Grubb: Thanks, John Grubb, thank you. Chair Wasserman and and Commissioners John Grubb. Coo of the Bay Area Council.

John Grubb: the pandemic and the rise of remote work has laid bare and sometimes conflicting public policy goals in the Bay area. Policy. Makers like yourselves must balance a desire to promote active transportation, such as walking and biking, while also working hard on social equity goals, making life and economic opportunity easier for historically disadvantaged places and people.

John Grubb: Perhaps nowhere in the Bay Area is that conflict more obvious or more raw than on the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge.

John Grubb: The bike pilot, at least during the commute hours, has not succeeded with 140 bikers on average a day, and 80,000 drivers.

John Grubb: We need to recognize that and correct it.

John Grubb: Who are the people in the backup, the vast majority of them 63% are people of color. 69% of them do not have a college degree, and the majority of them make 60% make less than the Bay area is Median income.

John Grubb: We argue that the Richmond side of the bridge preserves deserves the same relief that the Marin side got. We’ve pulled the residents of Richmond and 80% of them favor opening the lane to carpools in transit. Bcdc. Has a mandate to provide public access, and we would argue that in this case the weekend recreation on the bridge, and the numerous spike and pedestrian improvements that have been made on both sides of the bridge in recent years.

John Grubb: All satisfy the in lieu access requirement. We would ask you to please amend the permits for the Richmond Center Bridge to restore the historic third lane on the upper deck and dedicate it during commute hours to carpools and transit.

John Grubb: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: We’ll try and circle back. Dwayne. Go ahead and unmute

Boardroom SX80: showing is unmuted.

Boardroom SX80: Dwayne. We show you as unmuted. Go ahead and try and talk into your mic for us.

Boardroom SX80: Are there any speakers after Dwayne? Let’s go to them. We’ll try and circle back David Reynolds. You’re up next with Dave H. After that.

David Reynolds: Hello, members of the Commission.

David Reynolds: Are you able to hear me? Excellent! So I am a resident of Oakland, and I am an educator in the mission in San Francisco.

David Reynolds: I am committed to a No car lifestyle, and have been my entire life. I do this because of our looming climate crisis.

David Reynolds: I do it to live a healthful lifestyle, and I do it because of the financial constraints that have been placed upon me in my career

David Reynolds: I commute across the Richmond Bridge twice per week

David Reynolds: and 3 weeks ago my friends and I did it 5 days. We did it every single morning.

David Reynolds: It is a pleasurable experience to arrive at work, having already gotten a workout and to do so in a way that is environmentally sustainable and physically healthy

David Reynolds: many of the points I was going to raise have already been covered, so I wanted to just share a little bit of napkin math with you. I did some research on Strava. I looked up. How many riders have crossed the bridge

David Reynolds: in the past 90 days

David Reynolds: and assuming 33 grands of carbon dioxide saved per mile on bicycles.

David Reynolds: Richmond Bridge cyclists saved 18,422 pounds of carbon dioxide in the last 90 days alone.

David Reynolds: It’s a small step, but it is an important one, and one that we must make in this day and age, with a climate crisis crisis all around us.

David Reynolds: Looking at Bcdc’s mandate on your website, it says that the Commission is intended to forward the protection and enhancement of the Sfa. And the encouragement of the base, responsible use.

David Reynolds: I hope that you consider the health of our region and the health of our people when you make your final decision.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: David Reynolds. You’re now up with David S. To follow. I think we just did. David Reynolds.

David Reynolds: I will gladly speak for another 2 min. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Hard side. Thank you. Pardon me, Dave H. Several days.

Dave H.: Good afternoon. My name’s Dave. Morning over the past safe. 8 years I’ve lived in the East Bay, in Oakland, in the city, and I now reside in Sonoma County. I’m a frequent bike commuter. I’m a avid touring cyclist and a transit and urbanism enthusiast

Dave H.: data from the urban planners. Much smarter on science behind the traffic engineering than I is quite conclusive that an additional lane for cars does not alleviate traffic on a long term scale.

Dave H.: The the fact that we have traffic across the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge is actually a lever that can be used to adjust the behaviors of people who are stuck in that traffic to instead use public transit or use HIV vehicles.

Dave H.: The transition to returning this to a non bike lane or an Hov lane

Dave H.: will not alleviate traffic, it will worsen community resiliency and equity. It will increase carbon emissions, even if this were made into an Hov lane. This is a massive step backward, and it is not based on data and facts that have been a scientific consensus for decades. I strongly oppose this measure and ask the commission to advocate against this motion. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: I believe we have David S. Up next

Boardroom SX80: with Maureen Gaffney to follow.

David S: Hey? Now I’m muted, I guess.

David S: Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is David Shreeman, and I’ve lived in the East Bay for 8 years, and I have a degree in applied physics.

David S: First, I am for the bike path as long as it doesn’t affect the equal nature of lanes in both directions. That doesn’t appear to be the approach that is being taken.

David S: 2 lanes, one direction, and 3. The other direction is illogical. Cars have to come back. There is no argument that makes 2 equal, 3

David S: 3 lanes westbound on the Richmond bridge until the south one on one interchange, is the only logical solution.

David S: Only 4.9% of bikes. Slash pedestrians use the bridge to commute to work as seen on page 132 of the report. The path is overwhelmingly for recreation, which is optional and should not be prioritized above low income workers from the East Bay.

David S: I would encourage the Commission to conduct a poll to look at the relative income levels of who supports the bike lane and who opposes it.

David S: I support a bike lane, in addition to 3 permanent lanes, both directions 7 days a week, and to increase taxes on the wealthy, to make this possible and to not punish low income workers who are forced to commute to where the job where the jobs are in Marin.

David S: Thank you very much for your time.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: We have Maureen Gaffney with Barry

Boardroom SX80: Tarantino to follow.

Maureen Gaffney: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Maureen Gaffney. A huge part of Bcdc’s mission is public access to the bay, and this has historically included unwavering support for the San Francisco Bay trail. I would posit that. The current condition is the maximum feasible public access. As you know, many people have worked for many years to secure this pathway, and the low hanging fruit on the bay trail has been picked.

Maureen Gaffney: Removing this pathway will be a first for the Bay trail, going backwards, removing public access, removing 4 miles of bay trail. As has been stated, the upper deck has never had a third Lane. It’s not proposed to be a third lane here, so it will not help traffic. Yes, this pathway is under utilized on weekdays, and that is, in fact, in large part, because the infrastructure on the marine side is incomplete and inadequate.

Maureen Gaffney: We need more transportation choices and options not less. This path is not a silver bullet for sea level rise, Vmt. And climate change, but removing it is a clear and definitive step backwards for all of these things, for the Bay trail for public access to the bay and the shoreline that is, this commission is tasked to protect.

Maureen Gaffney: Shuttles are notoriously unreliable and do not provide maximum feasible public access. Again, maximum feasible public access is the current condition on the bridge. I would like to second the notion about Ebikes. We they’re they’re really just taking off now. And and they are a great

Maureen Gaffney: a great option for people to to be outside of cars to use this pathway. And we really haven’t seen their their full deployment yet. And we should definitely keep this pathway open so that we can continue to get to gather the information that we need, and that will be done by retaining the path, not by going back to the previous condition. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Barry. You are next with Nick Sweeting to follow.

Barry Taranto: Good more. Good evening. Good afternoon. Excuse me. So I am calling as a long time resident of San Rafael.

Barry Taranto: and and I want to support the marin position on this. The thing is, though, is, I think, you should look at a permit

Barry Taranto: on a limited timeframe until they build more affordable housing, as as was reported by John Grubb, that the the type of people who use their cars to commute into marin are people of color and of minorities, and I think you’re not gonna expect them with their families in the East Bay, and and they afford to Bill and a second jobs to be able to ride a bicycle across the bridge to get to and from their jobs.

Barry Taranto: And we need these these employees and workers in Marin in order for the county to function just as valuable as other workers. So I wanna say that I think that

Barry Taranto: the proposal put before you to to have a a a curb, a curb lane,

Barry Taranto: and a a shoulder, and then to also have h ov Lane would be the best alternative, and a compromise to what would be having a third lane for all traffic.

Barry Taranto: I it. It doesn’t need to be third lane for all traffic all the time. But I think there has to be some type of change, because people’s lives are changed in different ways and and income income and wages have not met up with the changing economy. So I beg you, and when you do have come this before you that you look at creating a permit

Barry Taranto: that deals with this issue, and yet is limited to allow for the creation of more housing and more affordable housing in Marin County. Thank you for allowing me to speak today, and great questions from the Commissioners to the presenters. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Nick Sweden. You’re up with Lucas to follow.

Nick Sweeting: Hello! I’m a Emoryville resident and Long Time Bay resident. I oppose the path, closure and support, keeping it open. 24, 7 in particular. Uniquely for me weekday nights

Nick Sweeting: in the spirit of maximum feasible public access. Night access is critical to my ability to use the Bay trail for transit and exercise.

Nick Sweeting: Without the path. There’s no way to get to Marin back at night without a car, as the soonest bus is 6 in the morning.

Nick Sweeting: I have been stuck on the wrong side at night before the path existed, and it really sucks

Nick Sweeting: I asked the Commission to seriously consider freedom of movement for all citizens. Not just during the day, but also for people who work and exercise at night.

Nick Sweeting: Also regarding the usage of a shuttle. I, personally, would not use a shuttle much. But I do. I would. I do currently use the path about once a week. The shuttle sort of defeats the purpose of having the bridge as a destination for exercise, and it makes me dependent on a service that’s likely not going to be offered at night.

Nick Sweeting: Regarding benchmarks to judge the success of the path I recommend everyone. Take a look at Terry Town in New York city. They have a similar situation where they started with no bike path. They added a shuttle service on an existing bridge. It wasn’t used much, and then eventually, when there finally was a a bike path solution going across

Nick Sweeting: induced demand gradually brought more ridership, so induced demand teaches us that adding a new lean doesn’t necessarily reduce traffic, but it cuts both ways.

Nick Sweeting: adding a lane, for bicyclists

Nick Sweeting: will eventually induce demand for more cyclists and pedestrians across that way.

Nick Sweeting: Thank you for your time.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Lucas. You’re up with Jan Shiller to follow.

Lucas: Hi commission. My name’s Lucas. I experience the bike lane every single day. By looking out of my car window and seeing almost nobody in it, along with thousands of other people moving very, very slowly, just trying to get to work.

Lucas: I don’t think we need more data. It shows that, like maybe 20 people are commuting with it every day, the rest is recreational.

Lucas: And so I think this is really a fair proposal that when most people are using it, they get to use it for biking, or walking, or running, or whatever on the weekends and Friday.

Lucas: but otherwise, like

Lucas: thousands of us are just trying to get to work.

Lucas: and it really sucks. I have a kid I’d rather be hanging out with instead of getting up early and leaving so that I don’t lose my job.

Lucas: There are more people advocating for the bike lane in this meeting than are using it to commute.

Lucas: I think this is sort of ridiculous that we are equivocating like this.

Lucas: that’s it. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Chan Chiller. You’re up next with Drew Levitt to follow.

Jan Schiller: Can you hear me?

Jan Schiller: Okay.

Boardroom SX80: Yes.

Jan Schiller: Great. Thank you.

Jan Schiller: Thank you. I really appreciate being here. I’m a resident of Sonoma County.

Jan Schiller: and I serve on the Advisory Board for in-home supportive services, representing people with disabilities.

Jan Schiller: and my caregiver is my sister. She lives in the East Bay, and she drives over here quite often, and it’s very difficult for her, with the congestion that it is now

Jan Schiller: in Urban.

Jan Schiller: We would really appreciate having this third lane.

Jan Schiller: so not just her, but

Jan Schiller: but other caregivers would have an easier time coming over to the North Bay and also I’d like to suggest as alternatives before I became physically disabled. I used to ride my bike and I I noticed they’re making improvements now in Highway 37, and it’s a beautiful scenic route.

Jan Schiller: and also I’d like to suggest that carpools that there’d be an easier system for people to connect with carpools, because that’s been very difficult to to get to the North Bay with Carpool. So thank you so much for all the good work you do, and I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you

Boardroom SX80: and Drew Levitt. You may unmute Patrick Lake. You’ll be up next.

Boardroom SX80: Drew.

Boardroom SX80: Can you unmute.

Drew Levitt: There we go! Yes.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Drew Levitt: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Drew Levitt. I live in Oakland. I work for Mtc. But I’m speaking solely in my capacity as a private citizen. Today. I am a travel demand modeler. So I think a lot about self fulfilling prophecies. And it turns out that if you make it easy to do something and give people long enough to adapt their lifestyles accordingly, more of that thing tends to happen, and if you make it hard to do something, people tend to stop doing that thing, whether they want to or not.

Drew Levitt: A hypothetical question to consider how many people might walk or bike over the Golden Gate bridge a popular bridge if there weren’t a bike path on that bridge. 0 obviously

Drew Levitt: travel outcomes take many, many years to emerge. Land, use changes. People change their houses in their jobs. People make sticky decisions based on what they believe and will remain available.

Drew Levitt: So the choice, as I see it, is that we can keep making easier to drive, and harder, or sometimes impossible to do anything else. And then, many years from now we can wonder, while we’re all S sitting in car traffic, why everyone drives everywhere and nobody walks or bikes, or we can make important decisions, large and small, that may be frustrating this year. But what we remembered is visionary in decades to come.

Drew Levitt: A few concrete points for the Commission. Please consider how keeping or removing the Richmond S. Nfl. Bridge, bike path would align with regional plans and policies, such as our stated commitments to reduce vehicle miles of travel and greenhouse gas emissions, the incredibly important San Francisco Bay Trail, as has been discussed, as well as smaller efforts like Mtc’s Ebake subsidy program.

Drew Levitt: Frankly, the proposal before you. I, in my opinion, personal opinion is so at odds with these efforts that it feels a little like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, and perhaps Bcdc. Can help get the 2 hands on the same page. Specifically. But for question 2. I would urge the Commission to request an analysis of the changes in walk sheds and bike sheds and land use accessibility for non motorized travelers with and without the path. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Patrick Lake. You’re up next with Bruce to follow.

Patrick Lake: Hi! Getting audio! Here!

Boardroom SX80: Yes, we can hear you.

Patrick Lake: Hi! I’m Patrick Lake in Point Richmond, and I’m lucky to have the bridge in my backyard.

Patrick Lake: I ride a bike on it many days a week. My favorite ride in the world is a double bridge ride to Sf. Of my dog in a backpack.

Patrick Lake: This access lets me thrive.

Patrick Lake: If here as a neural diverse.

Patrick Lake: So at all the hours of day and night.

Patrick Lake: My city counselors, Bcdc. Commissioner, is a Paida, and Commissioner Joya appointed me to the contract. Costa County Bicycle Advisory Committee.

Patrick Lake: I’m a bike instructor with Bike East Bay. I organize events, and this week I’m joining 1,000 people for a hundred mile bike ride with the Grizzly Peak cyclists.

Patrick Lake: We ride for all the reasons that drivers drive, but we also have a community for all ages and and identities, and we deserve equity.

Patrick Lake: I oppose closing the bridge path because the data says there’s nothing to gain. Let’s keep it open. Opponents of the path. Say they want to relieve congestion, but they’re making it worse.

Patrick Lake: The real impact of more car space isn’t less congestion. It’s induced demand, more cars, more miles more, pollution, more parking. It’s choking. Living space out of our cities.

Patrick Lake: Opponents exaggerate where issues like crashes once in a million miles, but working cars jam the bridge every day, just like the Bay bridge gets jammed with 5 full lanes. Extra space doesn’t solve this. If people really care, the only solution is alternatives, more rail, bus and bike instead of a car per person.

Patrick Lake: Many cyclists are also drivers, but the less we rely on cars the more we solve the problem. There’s no going back. If we want a working system, don’t roll back the access to the bay. It can’t be an afterthought just on weekends or somewhere else. After we get out of the way of cars we need reliable 24 7. Access to end car reliance. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: I’m going to interrupt.

Patrick Lake: Going to interrupt.

Boardroom SX80: We have.

Boardroom SX80: Hip!

Boardroom SX80: The echo stopped.

Boardroom SX80: 22 more speakers. We have an additional, also very important item on this agenda. We are not making a decision today.

Boardroom SX80: Assuming that Caltrans and Bata wish to proceed with this proposal.

Boardroom SX80: we don’t know that they will or not. This will come back to us for a permit.

Boardroom SX80: So I’m going to cut. I’m going to stop the public speaking. But any of you who have not spoken, and for that matter, any of you who have

Boardroom SX80: are absolutely free to submit to us through our portal comments, whether by email or by letter, and those will be distributed to the Commissioners, and this will come back to us if it’s going forward. So I thank all of you for your attention and your patience. And we’re now going to move on to the next item.

Boardroom SX80: Out of respect to the Dean of our commission. I’m going to give him one last short comment. I just want to make sure, since we’re asking questions. And I think I just want to reset it at the beginning.

Boardroom SX80: because this has come up and as well in the speaking is is collecting more granular data on the incidents that you do have. And I realize you don’t have the best data

Boardroom SX80: that any information you have in the pilot period regarding the number frequency of incidents we’re talking going westbound now.

Boardroom SX80: during the peak hour, right? During the specifically, I mean at all times, but specifically during the peak hour. So that getting more, I think I’ve heard from several Commissioners, we need more of that.

Boardroom SX80: How much the delay was. You know what type of incident you have some of that in there. But putting it all together and summarizing.

Boardroom SX80: thank you.

Boardroom SX80: We are now going to Item 9, which is a briefing on the San Mateo County. Flood and sea level Rise resiliency district.

Boardroom SX80: commonly known as one shoreline

Boardroom SX80: representatives of one shoreline working throughout San Mateo County, will brief the Commission on the vision and plan for the future to build resilience to rising sea level.

Boardroom SX80: Regulatory director, Harriet Ross, will introduce the briefing

Boardroom SX80: once again I would ask Sarah to keep a close eye on the number of hands that pop up, and if you do want to public. Speak

Boardroom SX80: on this. You’re a member of the public. Be sure to submit a card. If you’re in the room and raise your hand. If you are participating virtually.

Boardroom SX80: Director Ross, you’re gonna start. Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I’m happy to introduce the next item. BC. DC, staff have been working with one shoreline over the last several months, as we both share common goals of protecting the Bay’s development and resources while creating resilience to climate change. Much of one shorelines. Projects are located within Bcdc’s jurisdiction.

Boardroom SX80: There’s much to learn from each other. One shoreline was established to address all water related impacts of climate change, including the most significant long-term impact of sea level rise. They were ahead of the curve in addressing climate impacts in San Mateo county across jurisdictional boundaries much like Bcdc. Was ahead of the game in tackling sea level rise on a regional basis here in the Bay area

Boardroom SX80: I would like to acknowledge Commissioner Pine, who has been on BC. DC’s commission since 2011, and he was the driving force for creation of one shoreline for almost a decade, and has served as one shoreline board chair since its inception in 2020. So with that, I’m going to go ahead and turn it over to Lenderman, chief executive officer of one shoreline to brief the Commission.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. It’s good to see you. Thank you for the introduction. Harriet, appreciate that. And, thanks to Commissioner Pine, who’s the chair of our board as well as others in Bcdc. Who have been so actively involved in our efforts at the staff level and at the Commissioner level over the years.

Boardroom SX80: Including Commissioner Showalter. Good to see you.

Boardroom SX80: So maybe what I will do is is first invite one of one Shorelines Board members, and the Mayor of Burlingame, who, I know, has to leave the meeting shortly. She. She signed on to make a few comments, in part because of her service, and one Shorelines board since our inception, also, in part because one of

Boardroom SX80: things I’m going to dive into a little bit is a project that we have on the Millbrain and Burlingame shoreline, and she’s the mayor of that city. So if I could invite her to say a couple words, and then I’ll proceed with the presentation.

_Donna Colson: Thank you very much. Mr. Maderman, I appreciate this. My name, and thank you. Chair and commissioners for entertaining this conversation today. My name is Donna Coulson. I’m the Mayor Burlingame, A. Re. And a regional director of one shoreline. I am grateful that you have added this topic to your busy agenda today. Sea Level rise is a critical concern to Burlingame. Our businesses, residents, and visitors.

_Donna Colson: For the last 4 years we have worked to develop the first in the Bay area and possibly even in the nation. 100 years. Sea level rise, resilience, zoning code. And just last week, with the support of environmental advocates and our community. We approved a new biotech development of approximately 13 acres

_Donna Colson: that will provide a nature base and other pre protections as well as complete our bay trail and add stream and other habitat restoration to about 13 acres of the shoreline.

_Donna Colson: This this result. This result protects inland businesses, residents, and our vulnerable infrastructure, which includes highway 101, at no expense to the tax pair.

_Donna Colson: This is a feasible model that is being shared with other communities. I’ve done a lot of work with Sausalito as well, and our leadership up there in in in the city and the county to share all the work we’re doing, and I’m grateful for their openness. To receive information that is based on what we’ve already done.

_Donna Colson: The Bay front is a large part of our economic engine in Burlingame.

_Donna Colson: It provides almost 30% of our budget

_Donna Colson: resources, and it hosts critical recreation, infrastructure, including parks and fields as well as our wastewater treatment center, which is quite literally 10 feet away from the bay

_Donna Colson: protecting these assets has been a priority for my generation of leadership. Here in Burlingame one shoreline has proven indispensable in our efforts to protect our city from rising seas.

_Donna Colson: We wanna thank CEO Matterman, and of course, Supervisor Pine, my colleagues on one shoreline and all of the regional agencies that have expressed interest and support for the work we’re doing.

_Donna Colson: Mr. Maderman’s outstanding staff has really led the way on this, and we appreciate our collaboration with the agencies like Bcdc.

_Donna Colson: We look forward to continued collaboration and mutual support. I am so sorry I have to leave to go to another meeting at about 4 30, but I’ll stay on until then and again, just wanna thank you and tell you how important this work is for our city.

_Donna Colson: All done.

Boardroom SX80: Okay.

Boardroom SX80: thank you, Mayor Coulson.

Boardroom SX80: so I will share screen

Boardroom SX80: and begin a presentation

Boardroom SX80: and given the the

Boardroom SX80: the time we’re at, I will try to make this as

Boardroom SX80: efficient as possible.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, so my name is Len Matterman. The name of our agency. We go by one shoreline, and you’ll understand why, once, I say, our full name is San Mateo County. Flood and sea level rise resiliency district and we also one shoreline also kind of expresses the the sentiment and ethos of our of our efforts. It was created with the mentality. By this all the 20 cities in San Mateo County, as well as the county itself, thinking that we’re all in this together.

Boardroom SX80: Bit of background. On one shoreline, 65 years ago, a flood control district was created in San Mateo County. Like many other counties in the Bay area and around the nation, it only worked in 10% of our county. In the areas that are shown in various colors here watersheds.

Boardroom SX80: and meanwhile, over the past about 10 years, many studies done by the county or Caltrans, or Mtc. A bag or Scripts Institute or Stanford or Berkeley. They pointed to the San Mateo County’s all too common vulnerability to wildfire and drought

Boardroom SX80: increased vulnerability compared to others in relation to groundwater and and just unique vulnerability to sea level rise around California.

Boardroom SX80: So there was a realization, after all, that that climate change is transformative for our county, and that no one jurisdiction can do it together.

Boardroom SX80: In 1919 Assembly Member Kevin Mullen authored a bill in the State House to create one shoreline out of this former flood control district, and it was established on January 1, 2020, to address the climate, related impacts of the water, related impacts of climate change.

Boardroom SX80: We take a holistic view to threats, geography, and objectives. What that means is we work multi-jurisdictional. That’s in our DNA. Let’s say in terms of threats. We’re not just looking at a historic flood event that was modeled by Fema in the 1980 s. Or 90 S. We’re looking forward to extreme storms, and of course, sea level rise.

Boardroom SX80: we think, in terms of objectives holistically

Boardroom SX80: cross sector governmental schools, private sector, community based organizations and also cross disciplinary climate affects everything, it affects housing, transportation, utilities, everything that is related to our society, and so our objective is to have housing advocates or utilities advocates also see climate as their issue, because it’s important to the resilience

Boardroom SX80: of their interests. We take a quick look at our priorities. Land use. I show these 2 pictures. One is is a housing project in our county, and you can see the the bay water level today is quite high compared to the front door and and first floor windows of this housing development, and then, of course, an underground parking garage that has water after a major storm event. During a high tide.

Boardroom SX80: I bring these up

Boardroom SX80: to say that that these are these pictures are from developments from about 10 years ago, but these are also developments that are coming to BC. DC. In 2024, with underground parking and with front doors right next to the bay, without any back, without any setback. And so these are not just issues that we face 10 years ago. These are issues we face today. And it’s important for all of us to work together so that Bcdc. Has the authorities to create resilience beyond its important mission of public access.

Boardroom SX80: so we’re interested in land use. We want any project, whether it’s public infrastructure or private development to function for its lifespan. That’s really what this is about. Can it function for the for its intended lifespan, based on our changing climate. So we’re creating policy guidance around. We already created one related to private development that was approved by the one shoreline board last year.

Boardroom SX80: and next year we’re focused on public infrastructure. So that’s things like pump stations. You see a picture here of a pump station on a sunny day. No rain across from a private development. And of course, you see the effects that we’ve seen in other parts of the Bay area as well, where on the sunny days. There’s quite a bit of water. This picture, with at Highway 380. This is west of Highway 101. It’s about a mile upstream in San Bruno

Boardroom SX80: Creek, and this is again with no rain. Of course this is Highway 101. The public access trails also have substantial resiliency issues. And then here is a picture of a Pg. And E. Tower that won’t have to worry about its No Trespassing Sign much longer. And so we are creating a public infrastructure. Guidance in 2024 to 2025, and working with Pcdc. Staff on both of those efforts which is.

Boardroom SX80: are helpful.

Boardroom SX80: As part of this planning guidance. We have what we call a map of future conditions. And this shows the whole county. Basically, we look at both effects of sea level rise water coming over the edge of of our shoreline, but also groundwater rise. And that’s a emerging field with data is, is improving on that quite a bit as as time goes by. There’s a lot of work being done.

Boardroom SX80: On that in at Uc. Berkeley, and one of our fellows, the Stanford Ph. D. Student, is specializing in groundwater, and we’re trying to kind of fine tune our understanding of the effects of groundwater in the shoreline area.

Boardroom SX80: zeroing in on the area I’m gonna talk a little bit about in a few minutes. This is San Francisco International Airport, just south of. There is city of Millbury, and just south of there is city of Burlingame. This area is impacted, you see, in in kind of blue green the fema flood zone. And then

Boardroom SX80: in that area, plus is the yellow area which is the sea level, rise overlay district, and then beyond that is groundwater. So groundwater actually goes farther inland than the effects of anticipated sea level rise. And I need to stop you for one quick moment for procedural action.

Boardroom SX80: We have lost our quorum, not your fault. And we’re going to move to a committee of the whole and proceed that way to receive your very important information. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: You can just continue. Okay, okay, I will not lose a beat and go to the wrap up of our other priorities. Wanted to say, we were created as a long-term resiliency agency. That was the intent, in 2015, 2016, etc, all the way through our legislation, signed by the Governor in 2019. What quickly became apparent in the fall of 2021 to all of us.

Boardroom SX80: as well as 22, the winter of 2223 is the atmospheric rivers that we see, and we

Boardroom SX80: at one shoreline believe are fueled by climate change. That’s an impact of climate change now.

Boardroom SX80: and it was not sufficient for us to just focus on thinking about long term resilience when the the greatest impact of climate is happening today. And so we spend a lot of time on alerting people, too, and reducing the impacts of extreme storms. Many of those impacts are exacerbated by high tides, as you know, and in a low lying area like the bay shoreline of San Mateo County. That’s a huge issue.

Boardroom SX80: Where we have storm surge and extreme tides coincident with a big storm. And that’s what creates problems. We don’t have a long-term stable source of funding. That’s a high priority for us as well, and then finally projects, and this will transition to zeroing in on this Millbrey Berlin game shoreline. But this is a snapshot of the 53 miles of San Mateo County shoreline. We have 12 cities impacted by the bay, 11 that touch the bay, and within those 53 miles and 12 cities there are 10 distinct

Boardroom SX80: efforts that are looking at long term resilience on our shoreline, and they range from early early planning to completed construction. Completed construction has been Foster City, and that was a project really focused on the current fema flood plain, and our work at one shoreline is to align as much as possible all of these efforts that you see in different colors throughout the shoreline, so that they are substantial and that they complement one another.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, zeroing in on one aspect of our shoreline, San Francisco Airport

Boardroom SX80: course, a major important facility, very large, and they also have a project they call it their shoreline protection programme. You see in yellow the outline there, and

Boardroom SX80: what’s interesting to me is when the airport was developed, not surprisingly, the creeks were rerouted around the airport, and the impacts of that are partially shown in in the pictures that we see of the areas around the airport. So on the right. That’s Colma Creek during the king tide, and then below that is the city of San Bruno during a storm and and high tide.

Boardroom SX80: And then the city of Bill Bray, with the flooding scene. This is all areas west of Highway 101 along the creeks and then to the south of there. It’s really just a shoreline shot of the city of Burlingame. So our job with these dashed lines and arrows in green, extending north from the airport and south from the airport is to leverage the work of San Francisco airport to create greater

Boardroom SX80: section to the north and south within San Mateo County.

Boardroom SX80: So it’s important to talk about kind of what our objectives are. Our objective is really one objective. And that’s climate resilience for areas with existing or potential development. You see, appear a picture during during a high tide, but not extreme tide of a walkway. Alongside a hotel in Berlin game. So resilience for development, resilience for trails.

Boardroom SX80: There’s bay trails here in in this area, like there are in many areas, most areas thankfully, of San Francisco Bay. But those trails, even where they exist, may not be terribly attractive, or may not be resilient to climate change, and so our project is also about creating resilience for public access, and then resilience for habitat. These are also images from this part of the shoreline.

Boardroom SX80: So it’s it’s not so much in my mind about just building habitat for today. It’s about, what can we build today? That’s not gonna be washed away when the bay expands in in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, it’s about resilience for development, public access, and habitat.

Boardroom SX80: So we have a project that is in large part at this moment funded by the State of California, and that is to look at the shoreline of Bill Bray, which is just next to Sfo, and then Burlingame, with the potential to extend it to the city of San Mateo and the fundamental alternatives of this project are shoreline and creek flood protection. We have 6 creeks or channels that flow into San Francisco Bay. You can see that

Boardroom SX80: kind of purple lines that extend outward from the bay here. And and so this project looks like a very traditional approach of building a levee or wall on the shoreline, and then building. In this case walls not so much levees along these creeks. I’ll talk about some of those constraints in a second. The other option is, we stay away from working in the creeks because of land rights, concerns riparian issues of concerns about environment.

Boardroom SX80: and cost and working with highway 101, which is very complicated when all these creeks go under Highway 101 and flood the highway today, and instead we put tide gates and pump stations on the mouth of these creeks that has opportunities and constraints like all of these. And so we could talk about that

Boardroom SX80: third fundamental alternative is to put some sort of of a wave break offshore. And this has been done in San Francisco Bay, and it’s essentially putting a hardened structure that you put some habitat on top of, and you put these out in the bay, and they break the waves, and that reduces the wave height and wave energy which allows for a slightly smaller shoreline protection. But at the end of the day you still need

Boardroom SX80: shoreline protection. If you’re talking about sea level rise, because you’re trying to address the water level at some point.

Boardroom SX80: and then the fourth one is an offshore barrier, with doors and as well as a pump station and shoreline enhancement for access and for habitat. And this sense is that now today, if if this were put in, these doors would basically remain open at all times, except for during a atmospheric river, when you need the

Boardroom SX80: offshore to collect that water to reduce flooding on shore, so that would be a few times a year, and then also during king tides, on whatever 4 days a year. So the doors would be closed for those half dozen days a year, otherwise they would remain open to allow for

Boardroom SX80: Riparian Creek flow and tidal action, and as sea level rises the doors would be closed more so. What our engineers estimate is that after a foot and a half of sea level rise from today the doors would be closed. A total of 1 h per day, basically 30 min at each high tide.

Boardroom SX80: and then, after 3 feet of sea level rise, they would be closed about 6 HA day, so they would be closed more and more as time goes on, and whenever we reach a foot and a half sea level rise, that’s kind of what the scenario would be, but for today we can also provide the protection of against allowing these these during the storms the creeks to flow into the bay.

Boardroom SX80: So those are our options where look at the constraints in the area, and the number one is that this area is heavily urbanized. You see here a picture of of a building in Burlingame, right alongside the bay shoreline. Not a lot of room to build protection for this area unless you go into the bay or you take out the building. And so those are your fundamental options. If you have this. And this is not just at this site so

Boardroom SX80: a concern. And then this is on a creek channel. You see the building on one side, the parking on the other, and utilities. And so we have constrained Creek channels as well. Other constraints are. Our goal is to get people out of the fema flood plain, in part because it’s a certain means as a certifiable project that will last, and in part, of course, because of the financial benefits for the property owners in the area.

Boardroom SX80: And then this is just adjacent to San Francisco airport, which has a lot of concerns about birds, not surprisingly. And so building habitats that attract flying birds is something that they’re they’ve expressed a great concern about

Boardroom SX80: and and something I wanted to. Highlight is we don’t have a lot of room here, basically, the areas that you see in pink are the only areas that either don’t involve private taking or going into the bay. Those are the only areas that we have for actually building resilience. And we have a concern that as the bay shoreline is developed or the creeks are developed in the shoreline area.

Boardroom SX80: that those projects that are being currently approved by the cities and by regulatory agencies, are limiting our ability to do natural solutions do resilience period, but including natural solutions into those projects. It makes it more difficult as the buildings get developed closer and closer to the bay, like you see in that picture on the left.

Boardroom SX80: So we’re left with 2 alternatives that we’re currently analyzing. One is onshore fundamentally, and one is offshore fundamentally. And and our status right now, on this project is we put out a notice of preparation. We’ve got a lot of comments. They were very robust comments, mostly on our offshore idea, and we’re taking those comments in. We’ve learned from them quite a bit.

Boardroom SX80: and we are beginning analysis! It’s called a leadpa analysis, which is required by both feet, both the core and the water board, and that’s defined the least environmentally damaging practical alternative. We’re also this month hiring an outreach consultant to enhance our outreach efforts. And and after all of that, and meeting with regulatory agencies. In fact, next week. And after all of that, we will begin the environmental process.

Boardroom SX80: So we’re at early, so early days on this. But it’s an important project, and it’s one that’s gotten a lot of attention. And BCC. Bccdc. Staff have asked me to to

Boardroom SX80: speak on it, and I’m happy to do so because it just presents all of us with a lot of questions about what is this place gonna look like, if we’re really serious about about becoming resilient. And we are we in San Mateo, Caron County are serious about becoming resilient, and that poses a lot of opportunities and a lot of constraints. So with that, I thank you. And I’m happy to answer questions.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you very much.

Boardroom SX80: How many public speakers do we have

Boardroom SX80: currently

Boardroom SX80: through

Boardroom SX80: 4. Chair Wasserman 4 4.

Boardroom SX80: Alright. I’m gonna

Boardroom SX80: as I did in the last item.

Boardroom SX80: Give the Commissioners the opportunity to ask questions.

Boardroom SX80: and then we’ll turn to the Public

Boardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson.

Boardroom SX80: Just one quick question. One of your earlier graphics showed that you were looking at the potential for walls along some of the creeks that lead out to the bay between one and one in the bay, and your discussion at the end showed that you’d apparently screen those out. And I’m just hoping you can help me understand why? Why you made that decision. Yeah, we, the

Boardroom SX80: basically going up the creeks. We would have to. If under our sea level rise assumptions we’d have to go all the way up to the caltrain tracks. So it’s beyond highway 101. So the combination of

Boardroom SX80: of all of that work which is costly and and has environmental impacts. All of the land rights that would be needed to be acquired as part of that, because a lot of those properties they don’t just end at the edge of the parking lot. They go into the mid center line of the creek, and so all of the land rights that would have to be involved in building that

Boardroom SX80: also, as I mentioned, the complications of integrating that with highway 101 at 6 different crossings just made it infeasible to us and and the trade-off, for though all of that is the tie gate and pump station approach at the creek mouse.

Boardroom SX80: There may be ways to limit that slightly but fundamentally. That’s that’s the alternative. So the the shoreline based alternative that you were looking at includes those tide gates about stations. That’s right, exactly. I appreciate that.

Boardroom SX80: Mr. Gunther Lynn. Thanks so much for this. It’s

Boardroom SX80: it’s really great to see somebody putting pencil and paper to like, okay, so what do we actually do? I wanted to ask you first of all, when we had our South Bay Shoreline Conference in 2,017 and created a map just by asking people, Are you thinking about something? Are you thinking about something? There were lots of holes.

Boardroom SX80: There was a project, and then there was no project. Then there was another project. You presented us a.

Boardroom SX80: Obviously, there are very different stages of these things. But now everybody that’s got shoreline in San Mateo County is thinking about this issue

Boardroom SX80: collectively.

Boardroom SX80: Okay, that’s that’s well, I mean congratulations. I mean, that’s a great, that’s a really a really great achievement. I also wanted warm to my heart as a Water Board member to hear you talking about thinking about groundwater and I assume you’re in communication with staff at the waterboard

Boardroom SX80: on this issue. And that’s gonna be a challenge, no matter what alternative, right that you you select. And then, lastly, obviously, you’re gonna eventually get into the dollars and cents of all this, and I, unless I missed it, and sorry

Boardroom SX80: there’s been a lot coming at us today. But there, you didn’t seem to have an alternative in which some kind of retreat is mixed in with everything else. That is the assumption is every building that’s there is gonna be protected.

Boardroom SX80: Do you want me to address that. Well, I just want it if they do. Yeah, yeah, no, I would like to hear, cause I know that’s that. That is an alternative that is bandied about. But of course, you know, every every place is gonna be a little different. But I just wondered if that was thought of at all, and and and then how that compares to to the idea of areas getting wet, bringing more birds near the airport. I didn’t know if that was part of the thinking.

Boardroom SX80: If I could comment on the retreat question because it is an important one that we hear often.

Boardroom SX80: there are really 2 parts of my response to that. And one is

Boardroom SX80: We have put out this planning policy guidance that I discussed about land use policies that we recommend that cities adopt and the county adopts, and many cities have, and Burling, as Mayor Colson mentioned, Burlingame has taken lead on that the first one in our county to do that, and in the area generally.

Boardroom SX80: that planning policy guidance calls for setbacks from the shoreline. It’s not a wholesale retreat of a community or a neighborhood, but it’s retreat from water to enable us to do

Boardroom SX80: resilience measures, including natural features, within those resilience measures rather than just a wall.

Boardroom SX80: That’s the part. One of my answer.

Boardroom SX80: which yeah, part 2 is as one shorelines does in very specific areas of the county. Do we have land use authority. We don’t really have land use authority. We have land rights in certain areas, and and none of those areas are on the shoreline

Boardroom SX80: except for creek mouths in 2 locations

Boardroom SX80: as long as these projects are, and I’m not picking on this area at all. I’m talking about Bay Area wide as long as these projects

Boardroom SX80: are debt buildings right along the shoreline are being approved by environmental regulatory agencies.

Boardroom SX80: and as long as they’re being approved by local governments, cities, and counties.

Boardroom SX80: Our job is not to say that project you approved last year, or the one you’re considering in 2,024

Boardroom SX80: has to move. Our job is to say, how do we take the context of our environment?

Boardroom SX80: Not just on these development projects on Sfo as as an entity right? How do we take the context of how, of the and of the

Boardroom SX80: environment, small E that we inherit and turn that into the most resilient environment that we can. So I am not an advocate.

Boardroom SX80: and I’m not talking about me. Personally, I’m just saying organizationally, I’m not an advocate for large scale retreat, because that’s not where our community or governments are, and bodies like Bcdc. And the water board and other bodies, they are not at a place to compel that.

Boardroom SX80: and I think that should change personally, but until that does, my job is to take the most vulnerable county and make it the most resilient county.

Boardroom SX80: That’s all I can do

Boardroom SX80: well, I really appreciate that. I I certainly didn’t. Imp! I’m not

Boardroom SX80: in asking this question

Boardroom SX80: suggesting that

Boardroom SX80: retreat is actually the preferred alternative. However, there’s

Boardroom SX80: we, you know, people say there’s gonna be either managed retreat or chaotic retreat. And and or there’s gonna be more hardening of the shore in the area like you’re talking about. So so and and I think this will come out a little. These alternatives will become clarified. Once we start talking about

Boardroom SX80: how much these things cost, and who’s going to pay for them? And then what are other cheaper alternatives?

Boardroom SX80: And and that’ll also be influenced by our sea level rise projections changing over the next few years. But I really I just really appreciate the way you guys are thinking about this I I mean. And and Dave is, is there? Is my last question. Is there?

Boardroom SX80: Is there an analogous

Boardroom SX80: public institution

Boardroom SX80: anywhere else? I mean the the way that you guys went and had your. You know, the legislation rewritten that I don’t know of anyone else in the Bay area. No, I don’t think so I mean, we spent a better part of 5 years putting this together. Right? So. But I mean, so this is you. This is a an approach of national significance. I would think

Boardroom SX80: I I know you don’t. Guys don’t think about spend time thinking about yourself that way. But but the integrated way that you’re you’re doing this on both shorelines. I mean, you’re only talking about the bay shoreline now is is something that is, I think, worth just remembering that this is really the you know, you guys are on the cutting edge of of what’s gonna have to happen.

Boardroom SX80: Anybody else

Boardroom SX80: you have your light on, but that was just to answer that

Boardroom SX80: couple of comments. One question.

Boardroom SX80: terrific, is the major comment. I know there’s a lot and a lot and a lot of work to go, and a lot of problems. What you’ve done over the 5 years and beyond is is terrific. And I I think.

Boardroom SX80: so I’m sorry. Let me ask my question first.

Boardroom SX80: Here’s state legislation that

Boardroom SX80: created you or structured it to create you with the approval of the local agencies

Boardroom SX80: does give you specifically taxing powers.

Boardroom SX80: Am I correct in assuming that those taxing powers under the authority given still requires a two-thirds vote.

Boardroom SX80: I’ll just say they record our voting thresholds are the same as any other public entities.

Boardroom SX80: Right?

Boardroom SX80: I would add that we

Boardroom SX80: made sure that the legislation provided us with all the tools, revenue raising tools

Boardroom SX80: that are available.

Boardroom SX80: and one shoreline did spend an extended amount of time looking at a potential parcel tax

Boardroom SX80: combined with fire, the combined fire and sea level rise, flooding measure. And the sport just wasn’t, wasn’t there? Yeah.

Boardroom SX80: One of the issues that I know has been talked about in the past. I don’t know if there’s any current discussion about it is

Boardroom SX80: changing the law for flood control districts to make them more like the utilities in imposing fees which do not require 2 thirds do require a majority.

Boardroom SX80: So I, as we are looking at our financing the future issues. That’s one of the vehicles I I think we wanna look at.

Boardroom SX80: if I may comment on that extremely briefly. There is a measure. On the November 2024 ballot to lower the threshold for bonding

Boardroom SX80: from 2, 3 to 55. Right now that lower authority, or that that lower threshold rests with school districts, but not with climate, resilience, projects, or housing projects, and the legislation in November, just for the general public, and others who may not be aware, or anyone not aware is is to lower that for those types of projects. So

Boardroom SX80: one of the things that we’re waiting on to think about, do we go back. Go to the voters in our county is what happens this November in regards to that and other measures that that makes absolute sense. Our our funding, simply put.

Boardroom SX80: is half funded by the county and half funded by the cities. Each of the 20 cities put in puts in very modest amount, but they all contribute towards the towards the operation.

Boardroom SX80: most of the staff I’m talking to no disrespect, Harriet, are not present for a variety of reasons. I think it would be useful, not necessarily at a commission hearing, but perhaps in in one of our workshop formats, to have a more detailed presentation and and interaction, and we might want to include Sonoma in that, because, although they have not done what you have done, they have done some interesting and different things.

Boardroom SX80: And I think the one shoreline in Sonoma are the 2

Boardroom SX80: most progressive, and in in thinking of holistic changes within government agencies to address the issues that we are addressing.

Boardroom SX80: I thank you very much for the work in the presentation, of course.

Boardroom SX80: Oh, sorry. Public comment is there. We do have public comment.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Sometimes you get wrapped up in your own thoughts. Please call the public speakers

Boardroom SX80: Arthur Feinstein, your first up.

Arthur Feinstein: Whoops unmute chair Wassman and Commissioners. Thanks for the opportunity to talk on this.

Arthur Feinstein: I first recommend that all of you look at this

Arthur Feinstein: scientific article published in urban sustainability in 2,022

Arthur Feinstein: I hope Staff can tell me whether you can distribute it to all of the Commissioners. Protection and restoration of coastal habitat

Arthur Feinstein: yield multiple benefits for urban residents. As sea levels rise. Now this is 2,022.

Arthur Feinstein: Many of the scientists working on this, and there were like 10 are local ones working for agencies and for Sfei

Arthur Feinstein: and their conclusion. And

Arthur Feinstein: they studied specifically the San Mateo coast

Arthur Feinstein: to look at what were the problems and what could be the solutions?

Arthur Feinstein: Their conclusion, this work, as to the growing body of research from around the world, demonstrating that nature-based solutions help protect coastlines and yield diverse ecosystem services.

Arthur Feinstein: The issue that I’m pointing to. They also recommend and

Arthur Feinstein: not recommended already existed, but they point to one shoreline as an excellent way of bringing a regional perspective to a shoreline. So you can address all the issues along that shoreline very simple, similar to what the Rsap and the sub regional sap are doing.

Arthur Feinstein: The problem but run out of time very quickly. Is that what Len is proposing for the shoreline, the off shoreline gates? It’s already been proposed for the whole bay. You put a gate across the Golden Gate

Arthur Feinstein: and just stop the water, and then we don’t have to worry about any of this. Well, his.

Boardroom SX80: Exactly.

Arthur Feinstein: Well, it got shot down I’m similarly hoping that this gets shot down

Arthur Feinstein: because it proposes the same reason. Every agency that’s examined it has had. Thank you for.

Boardroom SX80: Like comment. Your time is now complete. Moving on to Michael Browning.

Michael Brownrigg: Thanks very much. I’m Michael Brown Rigg. I am a long time council member for the city of Burlingame, and I really just am here in solidarity for the inquiry in gratitude to one shoreline into Supervisor Pine for creating it. This is, as Mayor Colson pointed out, a vital piece of our own economy, and without

Michael Brownrigg: a healthy shoreline that allows to allows businesses and recreational use, our city would be devastated. So this is us a very serious matter for us, and we appreciate bcdc’s willingness to explore all potential options. In my view, retreat is not an option.

Michael Brownrigg: I think the good news is, you know, back in Paris in 2,015, we thought the world was on path to a 4 to 5 degree warming. Now we’re down to 2 and a half to 3, which is still unacceptable, but we’re going in the right direction.

Michael Brownrigg: so I have hope that we will, as a planet, figure this out, but not before a wall of water comes at us, and that’s what we need to defend. So I thank Len for his work and his team’s work, and I appreciate Bcdc. In the spirit of inquiry. That, you guys are adopting towards this work. I think the only thing that is less sensible than a bad answer is not doing the exploration and research at all.

Michael Brownrigg: And I think that’s you know that’s the Dark Ages versus the Enlightenment. So thank you very much. I’m done. I’ll give you the balance of my time.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you. Moving to Eileen Mclaughlin.

Eileen McLaughlin: Good afternoon. Chair, mosterman and commissioners. Thank you for this these few minutes. Here. I’m Eileen Mclaughlin, with Citizens committee to complete, direct.

Eileen McLaughlin: and have been

Eileen McLaughlin: studying and following the the one shoreline project and Millbrand rolling game, for since last fall, when it was first

Eileen McLaughlin: announced to the public.

Eileen McLaughlin: I want to take a focus on the habitat issues here one that that would be affected by the barrier particularly. This is a place, Hannah, 2 mile barrier

Eileen McLaughlin: they want to have at one area. They have tidal marsh at one end, which is marsh that Sfo must protect for the Ridgeway rails that moves on down southward onto beach and

Eileen McLaughlin: broad mud flats that are have waves coming back and forth them and the shore birds all winter long. Thousands and thousands just use that thoroughly, and then down further to it, where the water gets deeper at the shoreline, and every single day recreational fishermen or women or children

Eileen McLaughlin: are out there catching fish.

Eileen McLaughlin: because the hydrology of idle action serves all of those different kinds of habitats, and underneath the waters there’s eel grass, which is also known as something that inhibits and cleans fresh water.

Eileen McLaughlin: This is an area that the project, says one of its threats and and and opportunities or objectives is habitat, but that barrier, even with all its breaks, is going to completely destroy the hydrological flow of this cove, and all of the habitats and wildlife

Eileen McLaughlin: that use it today. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Kita Dev is our last public commenter.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: Good afternoon chair, Washington and Commissioners. I know it’s getting late.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: I wanna thank once your line for a lot of good work that they’ve done in San Mateo County, which is part of our our Sierra Club’s chapter.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: However, I have to tell you, right upfront that every single agency, and also the airport has taken rather violent exception to filling in the bay with a lagoon.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: and it’s clear to us that while this may seem like an easy solution.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: and we always appreciate research.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: But the scientific community

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: has weighed in on the side of nature

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: and using nature-based solutions which they believe

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: will help not only the land, but also the bay.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: and we’ll keep costs down.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: I do want to point out that

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: since one shoreline worked on its guidelines, which we were very involved with, and which we very much appreciate.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: Sb. 2, 72 has passed.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: which requires all cities to follow be adapts

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: 6 goals, the second of which is to put nature first whenever possible.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: but that is because

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: it recognizes that the bay itself.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: its living shorelines, and its ecosystems are as much at risk

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: with sea level rise as the shoreline and the buildings and the infrastructure around it.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: Therefore, to fulfill the obligations of that law.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: We need Bcdc.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: Policy makers to make sure that the public staff and the consultant teams that work on it

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: to extend their adaptation plans

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: to include integrating nature into their plants, not just as vegetation on levees.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: but with some of the other elements that the scientific community in the paper that Arthur Feinstein mentioned includes.

Gita Dev, Sierra Club: Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you.

Boardroom SX80: That concludes our published research.

Boardroom SX80: One more. You’re Mike, David.

Boardroom SX80: any Commissioner want a final comment on this?

Boardroom SX80: Yeah. Hi, Lynn, it’s great to see you and I want to compliment you on this wonderful agency that you’ve created, and in particular, I’m delighted to see how you are looking at the protections

Boardroom SX80: as a continuum all along the shoreline, because one of the things we learned in Katrina was that those touch points, those connection points between projects were where things typically broke down. And if that happened, you had a big flood.

Boardroom SX80: So we don’t want to do that anymore. And having you look at it all as a system, is the best way to avoid that. So I’m really delighted to see that this has gone so well, and so far, and I’m bringing you greetings from Santa Claire County, where we are blessed with being ringed by old salt ponds. That can be, you know that can be restored to marshes.

Boardroom SX80: But I just want to say that we’re delighted to see that you’re working with that. And I as both A. BC. Commissioner, as the Mayor of Mountain View, will do whatever I can to make sure that that connection between your county and my county

Boardroom SX80: works beautifully, even though I know that the methodologies there will be different from time to time. But thanks and thanks for this wonderful work, and keep it up. Let me know how I can help. Thank you very much. Lynn and David.

Boardroom SX80: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Boardroom SX80: so moved. We have a motion sorry by Commissioner Cheryl Alter, and I think a second by Commissioner Randolph. Although there were a number of offered seconds, we are adjourned.