• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Liveaboards, United!

Throughout the San Francisco Bay Area

We are Building a Membership of San Francisco Bay Marina Residents and their Supporters.
Please contact us today at:
liveaboardsunited@gmail.com (650) 270-0066 or (415) 720-0159

  • Home
  • Mission
  • About
    • Committees
  • Notice
    • April 20, 2023 BCDC Commission Meeting
    • Get organized with us!
  • Sign the BCDC Petition!
  • Liveaboards, United! Zoom Meeting Sign-Up
  • Monthly Calendar
  • Sign in to Liveaboards, United! on Slack
  • Vault
  • Articles
  • 2PAL Sister Site

November 2, 2023 Audio Transcript

FRANCISCO BAY CONVERSATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WITH THAT INTRODUCTION AND RECORDING

IN PROGRESS, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN, AND I AM

THE CHAIR OF BCDC. BEFORE WE START, LET ME TAKE CARE OF A COUPLE OF AGENDA

ITEMS. WE ARE GOING TO DELAY OUR DISCUSSION OF THE UPCOMING CONTRACT

WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO PORT TO FINISHED WATERFRONT PLANNING ACTIVITIES.

STAFF HOPES TO BRING THAT CONTRACTITOUS AT OUR NEXT MEETING IN EARLY DECEMBER.

IN ADDITION TO THE STATE’S NEW RISING SEA LEVEL GUIDANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE

IN NOVEMBER THAT WILL BE ON THAT AGENDA. WE WILL DELAY ON THIS AGENDA

— OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU

ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF TO ANSWER AND THEN

MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN. AFTER RESPOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR WASSERMAN?

>>ZACK WASSERMAN: HERE. >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: EISEN?

>>V. CHAIR, REBECCA EISEN: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: ADDIEGO? >>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: AHN? >>EDDIE AHN: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: BEACH? >>SPEAKER: PRESENT.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: PEMBERTON?

>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: EKLUND?

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

EL-TAWANSY? >>DINA EL-TAWANSY: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: GILLMOR? >>SPEAKER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? >>V. CHAIR, KARL HASZ: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

PEMBERTON? >>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: PESKIN? RAMOS?

>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

RANDOLPH? RAN. >>SPEAKER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: SHOWALTER?

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: VAZQUEZ?

>>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: ZAPEDA?

>>SPEAKER: HERE. >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I MISS

ANYONE? GORIN? THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE HAVE QUORUM AND CONDUCT BUSINESS. THAT

BRINGS US TO ITEM THREE, PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE

COMMISSION ON A MATTER NOT ON OUR AGENDA, OR WE HAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC

HEARING MAY DO SO NOW AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

PRIOR TO STARTING THE COMMENT, I DO WANT TO REEMPHASIZE WHAT WAS SAID IN

THE VIDEO. WE HAVE, UNFORTUNATELY, ACROSS OUR REGION IN THE COUNTRY,

EXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN A TOMORROW I WOULD JUST AS SOON NOT KNOW, ZOOM

BOMBING, IN WHICH PEOPLE UTILIZE TIME TO ENGAGE IN HATE SPEECH, PERSONAL

ATTACKS, OR THREATS. I WANT TO REITERATE THAT AS CHAIR THAT WILL NOT

BE TOLERATED, AND PEOPLE WILL BE CUT OFF QUICKLY.

FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, I’M GOING TO START WITH PEOPLE HERE IN OUR HEADQUARTERS

BUILDING. PEOPLE HAVE SUBMITTED CARDS. IF YOU DO WANT TO SPEAK AND HAVE NOT,

PLEASE SEE REYLINA. AND THE FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER IS SUNG LEE.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I APOLOGIZE. SORRY. SORRY. OH, IT’S

ALL — HOLD ON. MY APOLOGY. I MISUNDERSTOOD THE MESSAGE.

WE ONLY HAVE ONE COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM, JOHN COLEMAN.

>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSER COMMISSIONERS AND BCDC STAFF. FOR

THOSE WHO DON’T KNOW ME I’M THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROFFICER. EVERYBODY

SHOULD GET THEIR SECOND OR THIRD SHOT IF THAT’S NECESSARY. _ HERE HERE TO

INTRODUCE A NEW PERSON ON OUR STAFF. ROBERT ROGERS TO MY RIGHT IS A NEW

POLICY ASSOCIATE HE COMES FROM SONOMA WATER. HE HAS A BACKGROUND IN WATER

RESOURCES AS WELL AS LEGISLATION, AND I WAS ABLE TO INTRODUCE HIM TO SOME OF

YOU HERE AND CLEARLY SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON THE SCREEN. I COULDN’T INTRODUCE

YOU TO HIM. BUT WE WELCOME HIM AND YOU WILL

PROBABLY SEE OR HEAR FROM HIM AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I ASKED HIM IF

HE WANTED TO SPEAK NOW AND HE SAID NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH BCDC, 11, 12 YEARS AGO, I THINK THOSE AROUND CAN

ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT IT’S MUCH DIFFERENT NOW.

WE MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE, THAT’S FINE. MY WIFE AND I DON’T ALWAYS AGREE

EITHER. WE WORK THROUGH ISSUES WHEN ISSUES COME UP IN A COLLABORATIVE

MATTER TO SUPPORT HOPEFULLY ISSUES COMING UP BEFORE YOU. WE BELIEVE THAT

BCDC PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN NOT ONLY PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT BUT THE

ECONOMY OF OUR REGION. THAT’S WHAT WE ENJOY AND WHY WE’RE HERE. IF WE TOUCH

THE WATER OR DRIVE OVER THE WATER WE WANT TO MAKE SURE RESOURCES ARE

PROTECTED FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.

WITH THAT, AGAIN, ROBERT ROGERS. AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU, JOHN. WELCOME TO THE COMMUNITY, ROBERT.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO WE

HAVE REMOTE SPEAKERS, REYLINA? >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC

COMMENT. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRINGS US TO ITEM FOUR, APPROVAL OF

THE MINUTES OF OUR OCTOBER 19TH MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN FURNISHED

DRAFT MINUTES. I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE

MINUTES. DO I HEAR A MOTION?

>>PAT EK LUND: I’LL MOVE IT.

ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. IS ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION

OR WISHES TO ABSTAIN FROM THE MINUTES.

>>SPEAKER: I’LL ABSTAIN. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

MINUTES ARE APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE, MY REPORT. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS

INTRODUCE ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE AND WATCHING,

TO A MARVELOUS NEW VIDEO THAT HAS BEEN CREATED AS PART OF OUR BAY ADAPT

REGIONAL SHORELINE OUTREACH PROGRAM. IT HAS BEEN CAREFULLY WORKED ON.

I’M SURE YOU COULD FIND SOMETHING TO IMPROVE IN IT THERE’S, ALWAYS

SOMETHING TO IMPROVE. BUT IT’S GOOD AND IT HELPS TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT

AND WE’RE GOING TO SHARE IT. I THINK.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: ANGELA? [ VIDEO PLAYING ]

>>SPEAKER: EXERCISE WITH STUNNING VIEWS WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES ARE

HOME TO FISH, FREEWAYS AND TRANSIT AND BAY TRAIL LEAD US TO VISIT ONE ANOTHER

POWER LINES AND WATER LINES PROVIDE CRUCIAL SERVICES WHERE DIVERSE

COMMUNITIES COME TOGETHER TO LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY, MAKING THE BAY AREA A

ONE-OF-A-KIND PLACE TO CALL HOME. >>SPEAKER: BUT ALL OF THAT IS AT RISK

AS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES WATER IN THE BAY AND GROUND WATER BENEATH US TO

RISE. WITHOUT ACTION, THOSE RISING WATERS

WILL AFFECT ALL OF OUR DAILY LIVES. THE WAY WE TRAVEL TO SCHOOL OR TO THE

GROCERY STORE EVEN ING TOILETS WILL BECOME LESS RELIABLE. AIRPORTS, BART,

AND UTILITIES ARE ALL VULNERABLE. WE WILL ALL FEEL THE EFFECTS EVEN IF WE

DON’T LIVE IF A BAYSIDE COMMUNITY. SOME EFFECTS ARE LEAD HERE. IN RECENT

YEARS RISING GROUNDWATER HAVE LED TO FLOODING. OUR SHORELINE IS CHANGING,

OUR COMMUNITIES ARE AT RISK SO HOW WE COEXIST WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT ALSO

NEEDS TO CHANGE. IT’S A CHALLENGE OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE.

IF WE DON’T ACT, 190,000 JOBS, 83,000 HOMES, AND 20,000 ACRES ARE WET LANDS

ARE THREATENED WITHIN THE NEXT 40 YEARS.

>>SPEAKER: WE HAVE DONE TOUGH WORK TOGETHER BEFORE. IN THE 1960s WHEN

THE BAY’S NATURAL AREAS WERE BEING FILLED FOR DEVELOPMENT CONCERNED

COMMUNITY MEMBERS LED THE WAY FOUNDING SAFETY SAVE THE BAY AND LEADING TO THE

CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. NOW BCDC IS ORGANIZING

AROUND COLLECTIVE ACTION ONCE AGAIN CONVENING REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY

PARTNERS WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING ON SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES WHILE SUPPORTING

OTHERS TO GET STARTED. WORKING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH NATURE, WE CAN

PLAN FOR A NEW SHORELINE THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF EACH COMMUNITY.

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

>>SPEAKER: THAT ENSURES AURAL AREAS THRIVE INTO THE FUTURE.

>>SPEAKER: SOME AREAS HAVE HIGHER RISK OR ALREADY AT PREVIOUS HARM AND OUR

DUTY IS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS FIRST. _.

>>SPEAKER: WE NEED EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING.

BECAUSE THIS WILL AFFECT ALL OF US EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE NEAR THE SHORELINE.

>>SPEAKER: IT’S A CHALLENGE THAT

CAN’T BE SOLVED IN A SINGLE GENERATION. WE NEED TO LEARN AND WORK TOGETHER

OVER TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE AHEAD.

>>SPEAKER: AND NOW YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS

UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A FUTURE BAY THAT CAN SUPPORT ALL OF US

FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. (END OF VIDEO)

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT SHOULD BE

POSTED SHORTLY ON THE WEB SITE. IT IS THERE NOW. AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE

A COPY FOR DISTRIBUTION, PLEASE CONTACT LARRY OR STAFF, WE WILL GET THAT TO

YOU. MY NEXT PIECE IS THE NOMINATION OF A NEW MEMBER OF THE ENGINEERING

CRITERIA REVIEW BOARD AS AN ALTERNATE. AS YOU MAY RECALL, ONE OF MY DUTIES AS

CHAIR IS APPOINT MEMBERS OF THE ECRB. WE HAVE A VACANCY, AND HAVE GONE

THROUGH A PROCESS TO FIND A NEW ALTERNATE. JENN HYMA, IN OUR CHIEF

ENGINEER DID A SEARCH PROFITED ON THE BCDC WEB SITE LINKEDIN AND REACHED OUT

TO LOCAL UNIVERSITIES UC BERKELEY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND SAN FRANCISCO

STATE AND SENT TO LOCAL CHAPTERS OF SOCIETY OF WOMEN ENGINEERS, SOCIETY OF

HISPANIC ENGINEERS AND SOCIETY OF BLACK ENGINEERS WITH COMPLEX PROJECTS IN AND

NEAR THE BAY AND BROADENING DIVERSITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE COMMISSION RECENTLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL

EQUITY GUIDING PRINCIPLES. AFTER THE SCREENING, AN INTERVIEW

PROCESS THERE, IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT PATRICK RYAN BE APPOINTED TO THE OPEN

ALTERNATE POSITION. MR. RYAN IS A LICENSED SPECIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

ENGINEER AND PRINCIPLE COFOUNDER OF RYAN JOY STRUCTURAL DESIGN SAN

FRANCISCO BAY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRM.

HE HAS 31 YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, MANAGING BAY AREA PROJECTS

WITH STRUCTURES ON LAND ALONG THE SHORELINE, AND IN THE BAY. HE SERVED

AS A STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLE FOR THE EXPLORATORIA RENOVATION, AND SEISMIC

RETROFIT AT PEERS 15 AND 17 AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENTS IN MISSION BAY AND OYSTER

POINT. HAS RECENT DESIGN WORK APPEARS AT SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE, HE IS

CONSTRUCTION NEAR ON THE ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND SERVES ON

BOARDS OF AIA, SAN FRANCISCO, AND SAN FRANCISCO SPECIFICATION IN SAN

FRANCISCO. I CONCUR THIS RECOMMENDATION UNLESS I HEAR AN

OBJECTION I WILL APPOINT MR. RYAN TO THE ECRB.

SEEING, HEARING NONE. HE IS SO APPOINTED. THANK YOU, JENN, FOR YOUR

WORK. WE CONTINUE AS THE VIDEO INDICATED

ADVANCING BAY ADAPT FIGURING OUT WHAT WE CAN DO, STAFF IS WORKING HARD ON

THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ROLLING OUT UNDER RESPONSIBILITIES OF SB272.

_ I AM GLAD TO SEE SO MANY COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROOM. AND HOPE

THAT OTHERS WILL JOIN US FOR OUR POST MEETING GET TOGETHER SOCIAL HOUR IN

THE TEMESCAL ROOM, RIGHT OVER THERE. AFTER WE CONCLUDE OUR MEETING.

NO DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC BUSINESS UNDER BCDC JURISDICTION WILL OCCUR AT

THE SOCIAL GATHERING SO IT IS NOT A MEETING SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF

BAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETINGS ACT BUT IT’S A CHANCE FOR US TO TALK TO EACH OTHER,

INCLUDING ALTERNATINGS, SENIOR STAFF, AND SENIOR STAFF WHO ARE HERE ARE

WELCOME. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD NOVEMBER 16TH HERE AT THE METRO

CENTER. AT THAT MEETING WE HOPE TO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS CONTRACT

WITH PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT AREA WATER

PLAN DISCUSSION ON THE PROGRAM TO RECONSTRUCT STATE ROUTE 37 IN THE

NORTH BAY AND UPDATE ON OUR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, AND A BRIEFING ON OUR CURRENT

AND PAST YEAR’S BUDGET. WE EXPECT TO HOLD ALL OF OUR REGULAR

SCHEDULED MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS YEAR, INCLUDING A MEETING ON

A.M. SO, PLEASE KEEP THOSE ON YOUR CALENDAR AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE

AVAILABLE. WE WILL PROBABLY NOT MEET ON JANUARY 4TH OF 2024.

THIS BRINGS US TO THE ALWAYS EXCITING EX PARTE REPORTS F ANY OF YOU HAVE HAD

DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSION MEETINGS ON MATTERS THAT ARE

ADJUDICATORY OR YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO DISCLOSE. YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO

DISCLOSE THOSE IN WRITING. IF YOU HAVE DONE SO, OR FOR OTHER REASONS WISH TO

DO SO VERBALLY, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT BUT AGAIN YOU MUST DO IT IN

WRITING. ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? SEEING NONE.

WE MISSED THAT EXCITEMENT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. TAKE IT AWAY. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR

WASSERMAN. ONE THING WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN AS MANAGERS, LEADERS COLLEAGUES,

PARENTS OR FRIENDS IS THAT SIMPLY SOMETIMES THINGS JUST GO WRONG.

SOMETIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T THOUGHT THROUGH ALL POSSIBLE

RAMIFICATIONS OF AN IDEA. OTHER TIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE OVERPLAY OUR HANDS AND

THINK WE’RE JUST SMARTER THAN THE OTHER GUY OTHER AND TIMES IT’S SOMETHING

TOTALLY DIFFERENT. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THIS DAY IN 1948, PRESIDENT HARRY

TRUMAN WON AN ASTOUNDINGLY SURPRISING REELECTION BID. BUT WHAT WE ALL

REMEMBER ISN’T HOW WE WON IT, BUT THAT AFTER THE ELECTION WAS CALLED, HE WAS

PHOTOGRAPHED HOLDING THE FRONT PAGE OF THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE WITH THE

HEADLINE “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.” OR WHY DID CORNELL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE

ROBERT MORRIS DECIDE ON DECEMBER 2ND, 1988 THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO LET

LOOSE HAS MORRIS WORM FROM MIT COMPUTER NETWORK TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

COSTING PROBABLY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FIX THE UNINTENDED RAMIFICATIONS OF

THE FIRST WORM EVER LET LOOSE ON THE INTERNET.

I BRING THESE EXAMPLES UP BECAUSE OF TODAY’S VERY SHORT AGENDA. WE HAD

PLANNED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA INCLUDING

DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY 37 IN THE NORTH BAY, AND A CONTRACT TO MOVE FORWARD

SAN FRANCISCO’S WATERFRONT PLANNING PROGRAM, BUT NEITHER OF THOSE ISSUES

COULD MOVE FORWARD IN TIME. SO, WE PLEAD FOR YOUR INDULGENCE AND WANT TO

LET YOU KNOW THAT WE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PLAN BETTER THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER

OF THE YEAR AND BEYOND. AND I WANT TO REINFORCE SOMETHING THAT CHAIR

WASSERMAN JUST SAID, WE WILL HAVE COMMISSION MEETINGS TWICE IN NOVEMBER,

AND TWICE IN DECEMBER, AS PLANNED. AND WE NEED YOU AT EACH OF THEM.

DECEMBER WILL BRING A CONTENTIOUS PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN A VOTE TWO

WEEKS LATER. I WANT TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT

I HAVE MADE A DECISION TO REQUIRE OUR STAFF TO WORK IN THE OFFICE TWO DAYS

PER WEEK STARTING IN JANUARY, AN INCREASE FROM THE CURRENT ONE DAY PER

WEEK. ONE OF THOSE TWO DAYS WILL BE ON THURSDAYS EACH WEEK WHEN OUR ENTIRE

STAFF WILL COME INTO IS THE OFFICE TO MAXIMIZE INTERDIVISION WORK AND ALIGN

WITH COMMISSION MEETING DAYS. TIM COOK CALLS THIS AN ANCHOR DAY.

WHILE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET WORK COMPLETED AND WELL WHILE WORKING

REMOTELY I BELIEVE WE CAN PRODUCTIVITY GAINS IF WE WORK PHYSICALLY ONE CHA

DAY PER WEEK. NOT INCREASING BCDC COLLABORATIVE CULTURE EXPANDING

ABILITY TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER _ FORMALLY AS WELL AS INFORMALLY AND

CAPITALIZING ON SOCIAL ASPECTS OF ALL IN FAVOR LEAD TO A PRODUCTIVE AND

INSIGHTFUL STAFF. THE STATE’S CURRENT SYSTEM FAVORS ENABLING OUR STAFF TO

COME INTO THE OFFICE TWO DAYS PER WEEK AND I HAVE NO PLANS TO INCREASE THAT

ANY FURTHER. OF COURSE, WE SHALL REMAIN AS FLEXIBLE AS WE ALWAYS HAVE

BEEN REGARDING ATTENDING FAMILY AND CARE — OR OTHER PARTS OF THE BAY

AREA, I RECOGNIZE THIS MAY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND RECRUIT STAFF

BUT I BELIEVE THE ADVANTAGES FAR OUTWEIGH RISKS INVOLVED I’M HAPPY TO

DISCUSS THIS WITH ANY OF YOU AS COMMISSIONERS JUST AS I’M DOING WITH

STAFF THIS WEEK AND NEXT. GIVEN THE COMMISSION AND COASTAL

CONSERVANCY HAVE STARTED BRINGING BACK STAFF TWO DAYS PER WEEK I DO NOT

ANTICIPATE OUR BARGAINING UNITS WILL OPPOSE THE CHANGE. HAPPY TO REPORT WE

HOSTED OVER 180 PARTICIPANTS IN BCDC FIRST BAY ADAPT REGIONAL SHORELINE

ADAPTATION PLAN GUIDANCE WORKSHOP. THAT A MOUTHFUL TO BE SURE AND I WANT

TO LET YOU KNOW IT WAS REMARKABLY ACTIVE VIRTUAL WORKSHOP LOTS OF

DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BAY SB272 DEFINITION OF REGIONAL PLANS

EVERYTHING STAFF BRIEFED YOU ON TWO WEEKS AGO. TERRIBLY EXCITING. NOW

FOR DISAPPOINTING NEWS FOR OUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND MAYBE FOR

YOU. STARTING IN JANUARY, STATE LAW WILL AGAIN REQUIRE COMMISSIONERS WHO

ARE NOT PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET DURING OUR FULL COMMISSION MEETINGS TO

PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH THE ADDRESSES FROM WHICH THEY WILL BE PARTICIPATING

VIRTUALLY. AND OUR REMOTE PARTICIPANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO SO IN A

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND NOTICED PHYSICAL SPACE.

WHILE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ENACT THAT ESTABLISHES THE BAGLEY-KEENE ACT

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION — ONLY IF MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT

HERE AT METRO CENTER. STAFF CANNOT ENSURE THAT A MAJORITY OF

COMMISSIONERS WILL BE PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET FOR ANY GIVEN MEETING AND

WE WILL NOT RUN THE RISK OF NOT HAVING A QUORUM AS FOR THE COMMISSION’S

ADVISORY BODIES WE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH LOCATIONS OF ADVISORY BODY

REMOTELY SO LONG AS ONE STAFF MEMBER IS PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET AT THE

MEETING THAT ISN’T AN EASY BAR TO CLEAR. THAT COMPLETES HIGH REPORT

CHAIR HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. _

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR?

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: LARRY, I’M GLAD TO

HEAR YOU ARE REQUIRING PEOPLE TO COME IN TWICE A WEEK.

THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

THAT I AM ON THE BOARDS OF, AND EXECUTIVES SEEM TO BE KIND OF COMING

BACK TO THAT PLACE. HOWEVER, I’M QUITE AWARE OF IT, THAT IT’S REALLY

COMFORTABLE FOR THOSE IN MY GENERATION. BUT THE YOUNGER GENERATION, I HAVE

HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM WHO INSIST PRODUCTIVITY. _ I WOULD ASK YOU TO

SHARE WITH US IN 3 TO 6 MONTHS HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND I HAVE

EXPERIENCED SOME PEOPLE WHO SAY, YAY, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE OFFICE.

>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: GREAT QUESTION YES WE WILL. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT, IF WE

FIGURE IT OUT, WE’LL TELL YOU. THIS HAS BEEN REALLY, FROM AN

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR PERSPECTIVE, FROM A LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVE, THIS

HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING — AND I MEAN THAT NOT IN AN OBFUSCATE

WAY BUT AN INTERESTING PROCESS FOR ME.

I AM, I’LL TELL YOU ALL, I NOW CARRY A MEDICARE CARD AS OF THIS YEAR WHICH

HAS AFFECTED ME GREATLY IN A LOT OF WAYS. BUT THE POINT IS THAT I GREW UP

PROFESSIONALLY IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF 40 OR

MAYBE UNDER 30 HAVE NOT. AND THAT’S COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAD A

PANDEMIC IN WHICH EVERYBODY CHANGED THE WAY THEY BEHAVE IN TERMS OF HOW WE

WORKED. AND SO, I THINK THAT THE REALLY INTERESTING POINT ABOUT THIS IS

THAT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT MY WIFE AND I HAVE WITH OUR FRIENDS WHO ARE ALSO IN

THE WORKING WORLD ON SATURDAY NIGHTS OR AT DINNER PARTIES OR WHATEVER, IT

REVOLVES AROUND THIS. WE’RE ALL INTERESTED IN HOW WE WORK NOW.

AND I HAVE BEEN REALLY GRATIFIED THAT A NUMBER OF OUR STAFF WHO ARE YOUNGER,

LESS VETERAN THAN WE ARE, BY FAR, ARE EAGER TO COME BACK INTO THE OFFICE A

COUPLE OF DAYS A WEEK AND A COUPLE HAVE GONE SO FAR AS TO SAY I REALLY WANT TO

MEET EVERYBODY. BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T MET EVERYBODY. AND SO BECAUSE WE

HIRED A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A RELATIVE WAY, OVER THE PANDEMIC, AND

OVER THE PAST YEAR. AND SO THE THURSDAY ANCHOR DAY I THINK IS GOING

TO BE REALLY, REALLY PERSONALITY. AND I DO THINK, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IT

IN THE DAYS THAT I’M IN THE OFFICE THREE DAYS A WEEK, THAT WHEN PEOPLE

ARE SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER, THEY TALK WITH EACH OTHER, AND THEY WILL

RUN INTO EACH OTHER, AND I HAVE SEEN INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS THAT, YOU KNOW,

WOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE, HAD THEY NOT BEEN IN THE OFFICE, AND THEY’RE

LEARNING THINGS FROM THEIR COLLEAGUES.

I’M LEARNING FROM THEM. SO, I THINK IT’S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT TO DO

THIS. IT’S ONLY TWO DAYS A WEEK, COMPARED TO FIVE DAYS PRE-PANDEMIC,

AND WE WILL GIVE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY —

WELL, MAXIMUM IS THE WRONG WORD — WE’LL GIVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY ON

THAT SECOND IS DAY. WE’LL LET THE MANAGERS CHOOSE WHEN THAT’S GOING TO

BE AND THEY WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT’S BEST FOR THEIR TEAMS. SO THERE WILL BE

FLEXIBILITY THAT WAY TOO. SO WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED.

YOU KNOW, PRODUCTIVITY IS NOT MEASURED AT P PG&E? IT’S NOT MEASURED BY

WIDGETS AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE, IT’S NOT AS IF YOU CAN QUANTIFY —

WE’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER — OR INCREASE A

SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PERMITS THAT WE ISSUE BECAUSE WE’RE HERE. THAT’S NOT

THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS. BUT PRODUCTIVITY CAN WELL BE MEASURED BY

INCREASING CULTURE, BY INCREASING SOCIAL ASPECTS AT WORK AND THE LIKE.

SO, I THINK BY DOING THIS WE WILL INCREASE OUR GENERAL PRODUCTIVITY.

THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. >>SPEAKER: I’LL ALSO POINT OUT MY

EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM OTHERS THAT — THAT THOSE WHO SUFFER

GREATLY FROM REMOTE WORK ARE THE YOUNGEST STAFF MEMBERS WHO ENDS UP NOT

HAVING ANY KIND OF REGULAR MENTORING THAT HAPPENS JUST KIND OF ELBOW TO

ELBOW WITH PEOPLE. AND I WOULD SUGGEST MR. CHAIRMAN WE CONSIDER POSSIBLY

HAVING ANCHOR MEETINGS. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

WE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER GIOIA? WHO DISAPPEARED.

COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH. WE’LL COME

BACK TO COMMISSIONER GIOIA. >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE BEEN BACK NOW, AT

MY ORGANIZATION 2, 2 DAYS A WEEK, BUT THE TREND IS TOWARD THREE. AND WE’RE

CLEARLY A BETTER TEAM AND WE’RE EFFECTIVE WHEN WE’RE TOGETHER AND

HAVING THOSE KIND OF INTERACTIONS. AND I THINK WHAT YOU’RE PROBABLY GOING TO

SEE IS A TREND IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

IT’S TWO DAYS A WEEK NOW, BUT TRENDING TOWARD THREE, AND PROBABLY FOUR DAYS

OVER THE NEXT MAYBE TWO YEARS. IT’S NEGOTIATION, IT’S A CULTURAL SHIFT.

WITH US, AS WELL, AND MY YOUNGER WORKERS. BUT AFTER A SPUTTERING

ATTEMPT TO DO THIS IN 2022, I THINK YOU’RE SEEING MORE OF A CONSENSUS IN

PRIVATE INDUSTRY THAT WE’RE BETTER TOGETHER AND, SORT OF, ACTUAL

STANDARDS BEING ENFORCED BY COMPANIES TO ENSURE — I’M NOT SUGGESTING THIS

FOR THE COMMISSION, BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE’S SALARIES, THEIR VALUATION OR

EMPLOYMENT WILL DEPEND ON ACTUALLY BEING IN OVER TIME. SO, I THINK WHAT

YOU’RE DOING NOW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION WE’RE SEEING IN THE PRIVATE

SECTOR. AND IT’S A TRANSITION, BUT I THINK OVER PROBABLY THE NEXT TWO

YEARS, MAYBE THREE, PROBABLY WE’LL ALL BE BACK 3 TO 4 DAYS.

>>SPEAKER: CAN I RESPOND TO THAT FOR A SECOND? BECAUSE I WANT TO EDUCATE THE

COMMISSION ABOUT SOMETHING WITH CAL HR AND THE WAY WE WORK WITH THE STATE.

YOU KNOW THIS. I MENTIONED IN MY REPORT, THERE IS

THIS SPLIT WITHIN THE STATE IN TERMS OF HOW THE STATE LOOKS AT TWO DAYS VERSUS

THREE DAYS. WHAT THE STATE DID WHEN PEOPLE WERE

COMING BACK, WHEN STATE WORKERS WERE COMING BACK WAS PROVIDE A STIPEND, AND

THIS’S THE AMOUNT OF THAT STIPEND DEPENDS UPON WHETHER YOU ARE EITHER

OFFICE CENTRIC OR REMOTE CENTRIC. AND YOU’RE OFFICE CENTRIC IF YOU ARE LESS

THAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE, AND YOU’RE REMOTE CENTRIC IF

YOU ARE MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. WE DON’T HAVE TIME

AND A HALF AT BCDC THAT BASICALLY MEANS TWO VERSUS THREE. I FIGURED, AND I

THINK THIS IS RIGHT, AND I THINK THIS IS FAIR _ I DON’T WANT TO GET IN FRONT

OF THE STATE F THE STATE DECIDES TO CHANGE THE 2/3 SPLIT INTO SOMETHING

ELSE IF THE NEXT GOVERNOR DECIDES TO DO THAT, I DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT.

BUT AT THIS POINT SINCE EVERYBODY AT BCDC IS REMOTE CENTRIC WITH EXCEPTION

OF ME BECAUSE I COME IN THREE DAYS A WEEK AND EVERYONE ELSE IS COPYING IN

TWO DAYS A WEEK I’M NOT GOING TO GO PAST TWO DAYS THAT’S HOW THE STIPEND

WORKS WITHIN CAL RHR AND IT’S A 2/3 SPLIT. YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE COMING IN

CERTAIN DAYS. >>SPEAKER: YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT

LARRY IT DEPENDS ON THE BUSINESS NEEDS AND EVERY DISTRICT IS DIFFERENT

DEPENDING ON NEEDS. OUR CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE FOLKS HAVE BEEN IN FIVE

DAYS A WEEK THEY NEED TO BE. OTHER DIVISIONS WE’RE ASKING THEM TO COME

INTO THE OFFICE MINIMUM OF TWO DAYS. THIS IS A DISTRICT FOUR OR BAY AREA

DIRECTION. WE SEE DEFINITELY THERE IS A NEED WITH A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE

COMING INTO THE ORGANIZATION WITHOUT ANY PRIOR EXPERIENCE. WE WANT TO BE

ABLE TO DO SOME TEAM BUILDING, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO GET TO KNOW

THEIR TEAMMATES, AND ASK QUESTIONS FACE-TO-FACE. THERE IS A LOT OF VALUE

IN HAVING PEOPLE INTERACT FACE-TO-FACE. SO THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SO

FAR. AND WE’RE GOING TO BE REEVALUATING EVERY SIX MONTHS OR SO TO

SEE IF WE’RE ON POINT OR NOT. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: I JUST WANT TO SAY WHEN

WE GET INTO JANUARY AND THE REGIONAL CENTERS I’M WILLING TO HAVE MY OFFICE

BE A REGIONAL LOCATION, JUST LIKE WE CURRENTLY ARE FOR THE AIR DISTRICT AND

THE SAN 47ING BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY. SO WE GET OTHER BOARD

MEMBERS IN THE AIR DISTRICT COMING TO MY OFFICE.

BECAUSE WE ARE HAVE STAFF THAT CAN RUN THIS WHETHER I’M HERE OR NOT, BUT I

WILL USUALLY BE HERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT

THERE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE DOING WHAT THE AIR DISTRICT IS DOING AND,

YOU KNOW, AND WORKING WITH CURRENT MEMBERS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH

AGENCIES WHERE THEY HAVE PUBLIC OFFICES. AND I SEE MY FRIEND COUNCIL

MEMBER ZEPEDA HERE, CESAR CAN COME UP TO MY OFFICE OR WE CAN TAKE THE FERRY

TO SAN FRANCISCO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE WILL TAKE YOU UP ON THAT I’M SURE.

MY COMMENT IS IT’S PARALLEL IN PART TO THE COMMENT ABOUT EMPLOYEES COMING IN,

AND THAT’S ABOUT OUR MEETING IN-PERSON, VERSUS THESE HYBRID MEETINGS.

ONE, THERE IS JUST AS MUCH UNCERTAINTY AND EXPERIMENTATION GOING ON IN THAT

AS THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO SERVE ON OTHER REGIONAL

BOARDS KNOW. I THINK, IN PARTICULAR, THEY HAVE NOT — THEY, THE LEGISLATURE

— HAVE NOT LOOKED VERY CLOSELY AT THE DIFFERENCES FOR REGIONAL BOARDS SUCH

AS OURS. BECAUSE, AS MUCH AS I THINK HAVING

PEOPLE HERE IN THE ROOM MAKES A DIFFERENCE, TO WIT OUR SOCIAL HOUR

AFTER THIS MEETING, THERE ARE ALSO OTHER FACTORS.

RANGING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL TO, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, EFFICIENCY, WHEN YOU HAVE

GOT PEOPLE COMING IN FROM ALL OVER THE BAY AREA.

AND MY HOPE IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL CONTINUE REVIEWING THIS AND,

PERHAPS, COME TO SOME BETTER SOLUTIONS THAN THE LEGISLATION THAT WILL TAKE

EFFECT IN 2024, IT APPEARS, AT LEAST TO ME.

OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS. OH, PAT?

>>SPEAKER: I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THE CONCEPT ANCHOR MEETINGS AND I

PRESUME THAT’S A MEETING THAT WE EXPECT EVERYBODY TO SHOW UP TO IN-PERSON.

AND HAVING SERVED ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE

OBSERVED THAT IF YOU HAVE AN ANCHOR MEETING EVERY QUARTER OR EVERY SIX

MONTHS, YOU CAN DO YOUR WORK PRETTY WELL OVER THE PHONE OR BY ZOOM. THOSE

ANCHOR MEETINGS ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY SHOULD BE AGENDAIZED WELL IN ADVANCE

SO WE CAN PLAN FOR THE TRANSPORTATION TIME. AND, OF COURSE, THEY SHOULD

INCLUDE A SOCIAL HOUR. [LAUGHTER]

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS WHERE, FOR THE

SECOND TIME IN A ROW, ARE STILL MODERATELY NEW STAFF MEMBER HARRIET

ROSS GETS OFF EASY. ITEM EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SAN FRANCISCO

BAY SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE, BAY PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 119.

THE COMMISSION WILL NOW HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT PLAN TO UPDATE

THE FINDINGS, TELLSES, AND MAP DESIGNATIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN. WE

HAVE NOT SCHEDULED A VOTE ON THIS ITEM TODAY TO ENSURE THAT COMMISSION STAFF

AND MEMBERS CAN ANALYZE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INCLUDE THE FINAL DRAFT PROPOSAL.

ANY IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATE CHANGES.

BEFORE WE HEAR THE STAFF REPORT FROM PRINCIPLE WATERFRONT PLANNER CORY

MANN, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE VICE CHAIR EISEN WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE SEAPORT

PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE CONTEXT IF SHE DESIRES.

>>V. CHAIR, REBECCA EISEN: SHE DOES DESIRE. I WAS GRATEFUL CHAIR

WASSERMAN IS ASKING ME TO SPEAK IT GAVE ME TIME TO TAKE A TRIP DOWN MEMORY

LANE IN THE PAST FEW DAYS. IT WAS BACK IN JANUARY 2019 WHEN THE COMMISSION

WAS ASKED TO CONSIDER TWO BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS. ONE IS THIS ONE TO REVISE

THE SEAPORT PLAN, AND THE SECOND ONE WAS TO REMOVE HOWARD TERMINAL FROM THE

PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION THAT COVERED IT. FOR REASONS OUR CHAIR

KNOWS VERY WELL, WE CHOSE TO ADDRESS THE HOWARD TERMINAL AMENDMENT FIRST.

AND DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CONTENTIOUS HEARINGS?

[LAUGHTER] SO IT WAS — THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD

ISSUE A TRIGGER WARNING BEFORE I MENTIONED HOWARD TERMINAL. BUT

LOOKING BACK ON IT, IT FEELS SOMETIMES IT WAS AN EXERCISE, IT PROLONGED

EXERCISE IN IF YOU TILLITY BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER WE

REACHED OUR CONCLUSION IN JUNE 2022. IN CONNECTION WITH THIS BAY PLAN

AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE SEAPORT PLAN IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT WE LEARNED A LOT

DURING THAT PROCESS. WE LEARNED A LOT THAT TURNS OUT TO BE VERY HELPFUL IN

WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE DOING NEXT. FOR EXAMPLE, WE LEARNED ABOUT THE SPECK,

THE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE EXPERTISE WE HAVE THERE _ AND

HOW IMPORTANT THEY PLAY A ROLE IN ADVISING THIS COMMISSION. I HOPE

THERE IS SOMETHING SPAC MEMBERS HERE TODAY. WE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE

PORTS. A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE PORTS AND DIFFICULTIES IN PLANNING AND

MAKING SURE THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THIS HUGE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE BAY

AREA. WE LEARNED MORE THAN I EVER THOUGHT I WOULD KNOW ABOUT CARGO

FORECAST, AND HOW DIFFICULT LONG-TERM PLANNING IS. AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS

TO UPDATE THESE LONG-TERM PLANS REGULARLY SO THAT WHEN WE DO GET

CALLED ON TO MAKE DECISIONS, WE HAVE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN REALLY USE AND

RELY UPON. AND THE OTHER THING I THOUGHT WAS

REALLY IMPORTANT IN THAT PROCESS IS WE LEARNED, OR RELEARNED HOW IMPORTANT IT

IS WHEN WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS TO INVOLVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITIES,

AND THE EQUITY COMMUNITIES IN THE PROCESS.

AND I WAS REALLY HAPPY WHEN I SAW THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS

AGO, I GUESS IT IS NOW, JESSICA. IT WAS CLEAR THAT OUR STAFF HAS TAKEN

EVERY ONE OF THOSE LESSONS TO HEART AND HAS INCORPORATED THEM IN THE DRAFT

SEAPORT PLAN THAT WE’RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IN A SECOND, AND IN THE PROCESS

OF CREATING THAT DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN. SO, IT WAS NOT ALL FOR NOT. IN FACT,

I THINK IT ACTUALLY PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN WHAT WE’RE GOING TO

BE DOING NEXT. THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LEARN

FROM HISTORY. I WOULD NOW ASK CORY MAN TO PRESENT

THE SEAPORT PLAN DRAFT. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN.

THANK YOU VICE CHAIR EISEN. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

I’LL GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN WITH THE PRESENTATION.

AND I’LL ASSUME THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE THE PRESENTATION OKAY?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE’RE GOOD.

>>CORY MANN: WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. I AM EXCITED TO GIVE YOU A

PRESENTATION ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT PLAN.

THE SEAPORT PLAN WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1982, AND AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN

UNDERTAKING A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE PLAN.

IN ADVANCE OF TODAY’S MEETING, STAFF CIRCULATED A NEW DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN

ALONG WITH A STAFF REPORT, A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS WELL AS

AN ADDENDUM TO THE CARGO FORECAST AND I BELIEVE CAT IS GOING TO ADD A LINK TO

THE ZOOM DOCUMENTS SO YOU CAN REFER TO THEM. THIS IS A PRESENTATION OF 30

MINUTES BUT I’M GOING TO TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

APOLOGIES IF THIS IS ON THE LONGER SIDE BUT THERE IS A LOT TO COVER TODAY AND

WE’LL HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION.

HERE IS A PREVIEW OF WHAT I’LL BE TALKING THROUGH. FIRST GOING THROUGH

BASIC BACKGROUND ABOUT THE SEAPORT PLAN LIKE THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN AND HOW

BCDC HAS BEEN USING IT IN THE PAST AND HOW WE’RE WORKING TO UPDATE.

AND THEN I’LL GET TO THE DRAFT PLAN ITSELF. I’LL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE POLICIES OF THE PLAN. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO GO

INTO DEPTH OF EVERY POLICY IN THE PRESENTATION I’LL DISCUSS THE LEVEL OF

TOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGE IN THE DRAFT BUT MORE THAN HAPPY TO

ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY POLICY INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT.

AFTER THAT I’LL SHARE — I’LL TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I’LL

SHARE MORE ABOUT PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART TWO OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AND

THAT’S THE MAPPED BOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS IN BCDC’S

JURISDICTION AND SOME RELATED POLICIES. AND THEN FINALLY I WILL OUTLINE NEXT

STEPS. SO, FIRST JUST SOME BACKGROUND ABOUT

THE HISTORICAL AND, LIKE, LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN. MOST

SIMPLY YOU CAN THINK OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AS A SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE

SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. SO THE BAY PLAN HAS A SECTION OF FINDINGS AND

POLICIES SPECIFIC TO THE PORTS. AND THOSE FINDINGS STATE, I’LL PARAPHRASE,

THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CENTRAL AGENCY TO COORDINATE THE PLANNING AND

DEVELOPMENT OF BAY AREA SEAPORT TERMINALS, THERE IS A RISK OF

UNNECESSARY BAY FILL. THEN IT GOES ON TO STATE THAT A

SEAPORT PLAN IS BASICALLY THEREFORE NEEDED TO COORDINATE THE PORT

DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE RISK FILL.

IN THE 1980s ACTUALLY LATE 1970S BCDC BEGAN TO WORK WITH THE PORTS AS WELL

AS THE SEAPORT PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND I’LL TALK MORE ABOUT

THE COMMITTEE IN THIS PRESENTATION, TO CREATE THE FIRST SEAPORT PLAN, IT WAS

PUBLISHED IN 1982. THE EXISTED PLANNING WAS ACTUALLY

PUBLISHED IN 1996. AND AS YOU WILL LEARN DURING THIS PRESENTATION IT TOOK

A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR MARINE TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT, KIND OF

ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS, BUT AGAIN WITH THAT GOAL OF MINIMIZING BAY

FILL. OF COURSE, A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE

1996 AND BECAUSE MANY OF THE PLAN’S POLICIES ARE OUTDATED, THE COMMISSION

DECIDED THERE WAS A NEED TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE AND THAT’S WHAT

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO, SOME FAMILIAR

THINGS HERE. BUT THAT’STHAT’S CONTEXT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN I WANT TO EXPLAIN

HOW IT WORKS AND HOW IT FITS INTO BCDC’S AUTHORITY. AS YOU KNOW

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT ENABLES THE PETITION TO ENABLE WATERWAY FOR ORIENTED USES

ONE OF THOSE IS FOR PORTS THESE ARE CALLED PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS.

WITHIN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ONLY USES ARE BASICALLY FOR PORT PURPOSES

OR TEMPORARY OTHER USES. AND THE INTENT OF THIS DESIGNATION IS

THAT BY RESERVING SPECIFIC AREAS FOR MARITIME CARGO AS A REGION WE CAN MAKE

SURE THOSE AREAS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PORT USE THEREBY MINIMIZING AMOUNT OF BAY

FILL THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR FUTURE PORT DEVELOPMENT. SEAPORT PLAN

DESIGNATES THESE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ACROSS THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS.

AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE THAT INCLUDES THE PORTS OF BENECIA,

OAKLAND, SAN FRANCISCO, RICHMOND, AND REDWOOD CITY.

THERE ARE ALSO TWO RESERVE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WERE NEVER

DEVELOPED. THAT’S SELBY AND THE CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND I’LL

TALK MORE ABOUT THOSE AND APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES TO THESE AREAS.

AS YOU MIGHT RECALL FROM PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS THE FINDINGS AND

POLICIES IN THE PLAN ARE UNDERPINNED BY A REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST THAT HELPS

US UNDERSTAND CARGO GROWTH AND CAPACITY ACROSS THE BAY AREA.

SO THE PREVIOUS CARGO FORECAST EXPIRED IN 2020 THAT WAS ANOTHER IMPETUS FOR

UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER SOME OF THIS,

BUT BCDC WORKED WITH A PRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP A NEW CARGO

FORECAST WITH THE PORTS PROVIDING SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR CARGO

ACTIVITIES OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS IN 2019 AND 2020.

THE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS APPROVED BY THE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY

COMMITTEE IN MAY OF 2020 AND IT’S A 30 YEAR FORECAST. SO IT UNSETS IN 2050

NOW. WE HAVE CIRCULATED AN ADDENDUM WITH THE CARGO FORECAST WITH MATERIALS

THAT REFLECTS INFORMATION CONCERNING DURING THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 2019.

YOU MIGHT RECALL IT FORECASTS THREE TYPES OF CARGO THAT MOVE THROUGH THE

BAY AREA PORTS CONTAINER CARGO, ROLL ON, ROLL OFF, ROLL ROW VEHICLE CARGO,

AND THE THIRD IS DRIVE OFF CARGO, AND THAT AFFECTS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.

IN ADDITION TO DEMAND AND GROWTH FORECAST IT HAS HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF

CAPACITY WITHIN BCDC EXISTING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS DESCRIBES WHERE

THERE IS ROOM FOR EXPANSION AT THE EXISTING MARINE TERMINALS IN SAN

FRANCISCO BAY WITHIN BCDCEE JURISDICTION.

SO FOR BCDC STAFF, THE CARGO FORECAST IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL PROVIDING DATA TO

EVALUATE PORTS BASED ON POLICIES AND THE FORECAST ANTICIPATES GROWTH ACROSS

ALL THREE TYPES OF CARGO TYPES THROUGH 2050 WHICH REQUIRES AS A REGION TO

PLAN CAREFULLY FOR THE FUTURE. SO, BCDC HAS A SEAPORT PLANNING

ADVISORY COMMITTEE, OR SPAC. AND THE SPAC OVERSAW DEVELOPMENT OF

THE ORIGINAL SEAPORT PLAN IN 1982, AND ALL OF ITS CONSEQUENTLY UPDATES,

INCLUDING THIS ONE. SPAC IS AS AN ADVISORY BODY TO THE

COMMISSION AND PROVIDES STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON SEAPORT RELATED MATTERS.

SPAC IS COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS, BCDC

COMMISSIONERS, MTC AND ABAG, THE SAN FRANCISCO MARINA EXCHANGE CALTRANS AND

SAVE THE BAY. AS PART OF THE UPDATE WE’RE PROPOSING REVISIONS TO THE

COMPOSITION OF THE SPAC AND I’LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

COMMISSIONER REBECCA EISEN IS CHAIRING THE SPAC AND COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS

STEPPED IN AS VICE CHAIR I WANT TO THANK THEM BOTH FOR PROVIDING FEEDBACK

ON THE DRAFT PLAN. COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS TAKEN IN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

PROVIDING VALUABLE EDITS AND SUGGESTIONS. AT THIS POINT IF THERE

ARE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S PROBABLY BECAUSE I MANAGED TO

REINTRODUCE THEM AFTER COMMISSIONER EISEN FIXED THEM. _ WITH THAT GENERAL

OVERVIEW IN MIND I’LL RECAP MAJOR REASONS FOR UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN

NOW. WE NEEDED TO UPDATE THE REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST. WE NEEDED TO REMOVE

OUTDATED INFORMATION AND UPDATE THE PLAN’S FINDINGS AND POLICIES. WE

WANTED TO INTRODUCE SOME NEW TOPIC AREAS ESPECIALLY ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND

ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT PLAN WITH

CHANGES TO THE BAY PLAN THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

WE WANTED TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FROM THE PORTS TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF

THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. MOST OF THAT’S TO REFLECT ON THE GROUND

CHANGES TO CARGO ACTIVITY THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE SEAPORT PLAN WAS

LAST UPDATED. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST WE WANTED TO GENERAL REALIGN THE

SEAPORT PLAN TO BETTER REFLECT THE SCOPE OF BCDC’S AUTHORITY AND TO

ENCOURAGE MORE REGIONAL COORDINATION. THOSE TRANSLATED TO GOALS FOR OUR WORK

ON THE PLAN. FIRST WE WANT TO HAVE POLICIES IN THE PLAN THAT PROVIDE

CLEAR AND STREAMLINED GUIDANCE FOR PORTS ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE

FOR BCDC WHEN THEY HAVE A PROJECT OR WHEN THEY WANT TO REQUEST A CHANGE FOR

PORT PRIORITY USE BONDRIES TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING AND PLANS FOR

THE PORTS AND ALSO TO GIVE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO BCDC STAFF WHEN THEY

EVALUATE THOSE PROPOSALS. WE WANT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR HOW PORTS

DEVELOPMENT WHILE MINIMIZING BAY FILL AND MAKE SURE WE’RE RETAINING IT

CAPACITY FOR OUR PORT SYSTEM. WE WANT POLICIES THAT ARE MORE FIRMLY

ROOTED IN BCDC’S AUTHORITY TO MINIMIZE BAY FILL PROMOTE WATER ORIENT THE USES

AND MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESSES TO THE BAY. AND WE WANT TO SEAPORT PLAN THAT

IS CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND WITH POLICIES THAT ARE GOING STAY

UP-TO-DATE AS SPECIFIC PROJECTS COME AND GO.

ALTHOUGH IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PLAN TO BE TIMELESS THOSE ARE IDEAS WE TRIED

TO KEEP IN MISUNDERSTOOD WHEN REMOVING OUTDATED POLICIES AND DRAFTING NEW

ONES. TAKEN TOGETHER THE PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE AND STREAM PERMITTING FOR

PORT PROJECTS BY MAKING THE PLAN EASIER TO READ AND USE. AND WE BELIEVE THE

DRAFT PLAN ACHIEVES THAT VISION. SO NEXT I’LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT

THE TIMELINE, WHICH HAS BEEN PROLONGED AND THIS IS A RELATIVELY CONDENSED

VERSION. BUT AS YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THE

COMMISSION VOTED TO INITIATE A BAY PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN

IN 2019. BCDC STAFF THEN BEGAN TO WORK WITH A

PRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP THE CARGO FORECAST, AGAIN WITH THE GUIDANCE OF

INDIVIDUAL PORTS, AS WELL AS THE SPAC, AND THE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS

PUBLISHED IN MAY OF 2020. AFTER THAT STAFF BEGAN TO WORK WITH

THE PORTS ON SPECIFIC REQUESTS THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTING TO MODIFY THE

BOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. I’LL SHOW YOU THE MAP IN A FEW

MINUTES. THAT PROCESS WAS ONGOING IN 2021 BUT AS MENTIONED EARLIER, WE HAD

TO PAUSE WORK ON THE BAY PLAN WHILE CONSIDERING BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 219

BECAUSE THAT HAD A LEGISLATIVE TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH T WE WERE ABLE TO

REMOVE WORK ON THE SEAPORT PLAN LAST FALL AND WE BEGAN BY REACHING OUT TO

PORT AND PORT STAFF REMOVING MAP CHANGES AND WERE ABLE TO START

DRAFTING NEW FINDINGS AND POLICIES FOR THE PLAN OF THE WE FIRST CIRCULATED

THE PUBLIC DRAFT OF THE NEW SEAPORT PLAN THIS JULY — SDPSH HELD A PUBLIC

MEETING OF THE SPAC TO REVIEW THE DRAFT. SPAC VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO

APPROVE THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN IN THAT MEETING WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT BCDC

STAFF WOULD BE INCORPORATING REVISIONS AND FEEDBACK THAT CAME UP BOTH BEFORE

AND AT THAT MEETING. SO, WE DID EXACTLY THAT. WE

INCORPORATED SOME CHIANGS TO THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE PLAN, BASED ON INPUT FROM

SPAC MEMBERS, FROM THE PORTS, AND FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WHO PROVIDED PUBLIC

COMMENTS. AND THERE IS A SECTION IN TODAY’S STAFF REPORT THAT DESCRIBES

EXACTLY WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE. WE HAVE SENT THE REVISED DRAFT SEAPORT

PLAN TO YOU AT THEN OF SEPTEMBER AND THAT BRINGS US TO THE PRESENT. SO

AFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING, WE’LL UNDERTAKE A FINAL ROUND OF REVISIONS

TO THE PLAN AS NEEDED AND THEN CIRCULATE A FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION

THAT DESCRIBES LAST NEW CHANGES RAINING A COPY OF THE DRAFT PLAN. LASTLY

WE’LL HOLD ONE MORE PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A VOTE ON THE

NEW SEAPORT PLAN. IT’S BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL PROCESS WE HAVE HAD FIVE

PUBLIC MEETINGS OF OUR SEAPORT PLAN MEETING BRIEFINGS TO STAKEHOLDERS AND

INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH PORT AND PORT STAFF TOO BUT ALL HAS SUBSTANTIALLY

IMPROVED THE DRAFT PLAN AND WE’RE EXCITED TO SHARE IT WITH YOU TODAY.

BEFORE I GET INTO CONTENT OF THE NEW DRAFT PLAN I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO

DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE SEPARATE AMENDMENT. AS YOU MAY RECALL THE

COMMISSION VOTED TO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA FROM THE HOWARD

TERMINAL SITE AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IN JUNE OF 2022. AT THE REQUEST OF THE

OAKLAND ATHLETICS ALONG WITH THE CITY OF OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAKLAND.

HOWEVER, HOWARD TERMINAL REMAINS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS OF ASSEMBLY

BILL 1191. SO, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A RELEVANT PROVISION OF THIS BILL, AND

SORRY FOR THE SMALL TEXT BUT I WILL READ IT. IT STATES IF THE PORT AND

OAKLAND ATHLETICS HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT BY JANUARY 1ST,

2025, THAT ALLOWS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OAKLAND SPORTS AND MIXED USE

PROJECT THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY

REINSTATED ON THE HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DELETED

PURSUANT TO BCDC’S SEAPORT PLAN AND BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS.

SO, AGAIN, THE REMOVAL OF THAT DESIGNATION FROM HOWARD TERMINAL WAS A

SEPARATE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSED SEAPORT PLAN THE

COMMISSION ACTED ON LAST SUMMER SO BCDC STAFF DOESN’T TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO

THE CURRENT STATUS OF HOWARD TERMINAL AS PART OF THE GENERAL UPDATE TO THE

SEAPORT PLAN. HOWEVER SHOULD AN AGREEMENT NOT BE REACHED REGARDING THE

PORT AND BETWEEN THE PORT AND OAKLAND ATHLETICS BY JANUARY 1ST, 2025, AT

THAT TIME, BCDC STAFF WILL REVERT THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BACK TO HOWARD

TERMINAL PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL.

THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WAS CIRCULATED BACK IN JULY

DIDN’T INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL AND SOME OF THE SEAPORT PLANS TABLES THAT

CONCERNED SOME STAKEHOLDERS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HOWARD TERMINAL MAY GO BACK

TO PRIORITY USE. DUE TO COMMENTS STAFF REVISED THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN THAT WE

SENT TO YOU TODAY TO INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL IN THE RELEVANT TABLE OF THE

PLAN, THAT LISTS OUT MARINE TERM NAT EXPANSION SITES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY,

WITH A FOOTNOTE TO DESCRIBE ITS UNIQUE STATUS.

I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BCDC STAFF HAVE INTENTIONALLY USED A LIGHT TOUCH HERE

IN THE UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN REGARDING HOWARD TERMINAL IN A PROCESS

TO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE PLAN IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION MUST

REVERT TO PORT PRIORITY USE ON JANUARY 25, ’20.

WE’RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SIMPLE AND EASY TO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO PORT

PRIORITY USE NOT TRYING TO CREATE BARRIERS IN REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL.

SORRY THAT’S A LOT. BUT THAT’S AN

OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND TIMELINE TO DATE. SO NOW I’M GOING TO SHIFT TO

CONTENT AND PREVIEW PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN. YOU

KNOW, THIS UPDATE IT’S TECHNICALLY A REVISION TO THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN

BUT WE’RE REVAMPING THE ENTIRE PLAN. IT’S GOING TO BE A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW

OF TOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED FROM THE 1996 PLAN TO THE NEW

DRAFT. BUT AGAIN HAPPY TO GO INTO DEPTH ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR POLICIES

AFTER THE PRESENTATION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

SO, FIRST, AS I MENTIONED, THE ENTIRETY OF THE SEAPORT PLAN HAS BEEN REWRITTEN

INTRODUCTION TO THE 1996 PLAN IF YOU LOOK AT IT IT’S REALLY TECHNICAL AND

WE TRIED TO SCALE THAT BACK IN THE NEW DRAFT PLAN TO IMPROVE THE PLAN’S

GENERAL READABILITY AND CLARITY. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S A

REGULATORY DOCUMENT AND MANY PEOPLE WHO ACCESS IT ARE LIKELY TO BE PORT STAFF

OR OTHER BCDC APPLICANTS. WE WANTED TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO

MAKE SURE THAT ANYONE WHO PICKS THIS UP CAN LEARN ABOUT BCDC, UNDERSTAND BCDC

ROLE AS IT RELATES TO THE PORTS, AND LEARN SOME BASIC INFORMATIONS ABOUT

THE FIVE PORTS AND WHY THEY’RE VITAL TO THE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ECONOMY. SO

THE INTRODUCTION WITH SOME MAJOR GOALS OF THE PLAN AND IT EXPLAINS BCDC

AUTHORITY. IT TALKS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PLAN AND HOW IT WAS UPDATED

THEN THERE ARE NICE SUMMARIES OF EACH OF THE FIVE PORTS AND THEIR

ACTIVITIES. THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PORTS THEMSELVES WHICH

WAS REALLY NICE OF THEM. AND THEN THERE IS A HIGH-LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE

2050 CARGO FORECAST. THEN WE GET TO THE ACTUAL POLICY TOPIC

AREAS. IN EACH OF THESE TOPIC AREAS THERE ARE NUMEROUS FINDINGS AND

POLICIES. I’LL GO INTO EACH TOPIC AREA IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. AS AN

OVERVIEW YOU SEE THERE ARE FOUR NEW TOPIC AREAS. ONE IS ON THE SEAPORT

PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ITSELF AND THEN CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

AND SOCIAL EQUITY AND REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN

UPDATES. WE ARE ALSO RETAINING A COUPLE OF

TOPIC AREAS AND RECITATION THEM IN THE NEW PLAN. ONE OF THOSE IS ON

PRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND THE OTHER ARE THE

POLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. AND THEN FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO

REMOVE TWO TOPIC AREAS, NOT BECAUSE THE ISSUES THEMSELVES ARE UNIMPORTANT, BUT

JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY BECOME OUTDATED AND REDUNDANT WITH

OTHER REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORTS OR OTHER EFFORTS THAT BCDC HAS

UNDERTAKEN. BUT WE ACTUALLY RETAIN STILL A COUPLE OF POLICIES

PARTICULARLY RELATED TO GROUND TRANSPORTATION. BUT HAVE BROUGHT THEM

OVER TO THE NEW SECTION ABOUT REGIONAL COORDINATION.

THAT’S A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE TOPIC AREAS.

SO, THE FIRST NEW TOPIC AREA, IT’S SPECIFIC TO THE SPAC ITSELF. THE SPAC

WAS ESTABLISHED, ORIGINALLY, THROUGH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, AN MOU,

BETWEEN BCDC IN 1978, THE SEAPORT PLAN NICKS INCONSISTENCIES PLAN DOESN’T

HAVE FINDINGS OR POLICIES THAT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE WHAT THE PURPOSE

AND ROLE OF THE SPAC. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THIS

TO BE SPELLED OUT IN THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF. WE ADDED FINDINGS AND

POLICIES TO IDENTIFY COMPOSITION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SPAC.

PREPSED CHANGES TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE SPAC. I KNOW THIS SLIDE IS A BIT

HARD TO READ YOU ABOUT BASICALLY WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE A COUPLE OF

DEFUNCT POSITIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS AN APPOINTMENT FOR SOMEONE

FROMENSENAL TERMINALS WHICH DOESN’T EXIST ANYMORE.

WE’RE PROPOSING TO REBALANCE BCDC AND MTC AND ABAG APPOINTMENTS, AND WE’RE

SUGGESTING TO ADD TWO NEW MEMBERS FROM COMMUNITY-BASED AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS AND ONE FROM A MARITIME INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDER.

WE HOPE THESE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE GOING TO STRENGTHEN THE SPAC’S ROLE AS

AN EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP TO THE COMMISSION. BUT I ALSO WANT TO

EMPHASIZE, AND THIS IS ALSO DESCRIBED IN A FINDING ABOUT THE SPAC THAT THE

PURPOSE OF THE SPAC IS TO PROVIDE BASICALLY EXPERT TECHNICAL ADVICE TO

THE COMMISSION. THE SPAC PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME STAKEHOLDERS TO

ADVISE THE COMMISSION ON PORT RELATED TOPICS, BUT CONSULTATION WITH THE SPAC

IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT OF PORT COMMUNITIES IN

DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES. Y IS EMPHASIS OF THE COMMITTEE IS ON

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE. NEXT ABOUT POLICIES OF THE FORECAST WE

HAVE WRITTEN FINDINGS THAT SUMMARIZE CONCLUSIONINGS OF THE CARGO FORECAST.

THERE ARE TWO POLICIES IN THIS TOPIC AREAS.

FIRST DESCRIBES HOW THE FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED AND THE SECOND DESCRIBES

HOW THE SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD IMPLEMENT AND RELY ON THE FORECAST.

SO THOSE POLICIES IN PART STATE THAT THE CARGO FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED

AT LEAST ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS BUT THERE ARE ALSO ALLOWANCES FOR UPDATES

BASICALLY BASED ON THE COMMISSION’S DISCRETION.

NEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT THE POLICIES FOR THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. SO THESE

ARE THE BULK OF POLICIES THAT WOULD BE RELIED ON WHEN A PORT OR ENTITY NEEDS

A PERMIT FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION.

WE’RE PROPOSING TO SIMPLIFY FOUR TOPIC AREAS FROM THE 1996 PLAN BY COMBINING

THEM INTO A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED, PRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY

USE TOPIC. THE 1996 PLAN HAD SOME OUTDATED CARGO SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT

WERE BASICALLY WANTING TO REMOVE IN A SINGLE TOPIC AREA THAT’S ALIGN WITH

BCDC’S SCOPE MISSION AND AUTHORITY. _ THIS TOPIC AREA HAS A RANGE EVER

POLICIES. MOST RELATE TO DEVELOPMENT OR ALLOWABLE USES IN PORT PRIORITY USE

AREAS. I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ALL THIS INCLUDES POLICY FOR ADDING OR

REMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS, FILL, USING TERMINALS TOPICS LIKE INTERIM

USES, PUBLIC ACCESS, FERRIES AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THESE POLICIES

AGAIN. YOU KNOW, IN THIS SECTION, STAFF BASICALLY SOUGHT TO IMPROVE THE

CLARITY OF THE FINDINGS AND, ESPECIALLY, THE DEFINITIONS OF

DIFFERENT TERMS. THERE IS ALSO A GENERAL FOCUS ON THE PROCESS AND

STANDARDS THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD APPLY TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

SO, COMBINED, WE HOPE THESE CHANGES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO

PORTS, AS WELL AS FOR BCDC STAFF TO USE TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS. BASICALLY,

LIKE, HERE IS THE INFORMATION TO PROVIDE IN AN APPLICATION, AND HERE IS

WHAT THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO SHOW TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SEAPORT PLAN.

SO TRYING TO REMOVE ANY AMBIGUITY AND HOPE TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING.

WE’RE HOPES PROPOSING A NEW TOPIC ON ADDING CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH IS NOT

ADDRESSED IN THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN THE INTENT IS TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT

PLAN WITH POLICIES. THIS IS BRIEF RECOGNIZING THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF IS

UNLIKELY TO BE A DRIVING FORCE FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE BAY AREA,

RATHER FINDINGS AND POLICIES ARE INTENDED TO BRIDGE AND REFERENCE OUT

TO EXISTING AND PLANNED EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE. SO THEY’RE

NOT NECESSARILY NEW REQUIREMENTS BUT INSTEAD THEY REFLECT REQUIREMENTS THAT

ARE ALREADY LAID OUT IN THE BAY PLAN POLICIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

SO, THERE ARE FOUR NEW FINDINGS THERE THAT SUMMARIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF

PORTS, GENERAL VULNERABILITIES, BCDC LED ADAPTATION EFFORTS AND THE ROLE OF

THE PORTS IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE. AND THERE ARE THREE NEW POLICIES THAT YOU

CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE, THEY SPEAK TO THE NEED TO INCLUDE PORTS AS CRITICAL

STAKEHOLDERS IN ADAPTATION PLANNING EFFORTS.

NEED TO INCORPORATE SEA LEVEL RISE CONSIDERATIONS INTO ANY FUTURE UPDATES

TO THE SEAPORT PLAN OR THE CARGO FORECAST. AND NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE

ROLE OF THE PORTS IN DISASTER RESPONSE.

SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT MANY OF THE PORTS ARE UNDERGOING THEIR OWN SEA LEVEL

RISE PLANNING PROCESSES THOSE ARE RAMMED RAPIDLY EVOLVING AT DIFFERENT

STAGES. BAY ADAPT IS GOING TO IMPACT HOW LOCAL PORTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLAN

FOR RISE IN SEA LEVEL. NOW THAT IS. B 272 HAS PASSED THAT’S GOING TO BE A

PRIMARY FOCUS FOR BCDC WORK. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PORTS ARE INFORMED AS

PART OF THE PROCESS AND WE WANT POLICIES TO ACT AS A BRIDGE TO PROVIDE

GUIDANCE WHILE WE SEE HOW THE LANDS SCAPE EVOLVES OVER THE NEXT FEW

YEARS. WE HAVE INTRODUCED A NEW TOPIC AREA ON

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY. THIS IS, AGAIN, TO ALIGN THE

BAY PLAN POLICIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY THAT WERE

ADOPTED IN 2019. SO, AS YOU KNOW, THE BAY PLAN REQUIRES

EQUITABLE, CULTURALLY RELEVANT COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT TO

BE CONDUCTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROJECT APPLICANTS TO MEANINGFULLY

INVOLVE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED COMMUNITIES FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE IN

UNDERREPRESENTED, VULNERABLE, OR IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. SO THOSE

POLICIES ALSO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL DISPROPORTIONATE

IMPACTS OF PROJECTS AND TAKE MEASURES THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND

PERMITTING PROCESSES TO REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ANY DISPROPORTIONATE

ADVERSE PROJECT IMPACTS. SO, THOSE REQUIREMENTS, OF COURSE,

ALSO APPLY TO ANY ACTIVITIES IN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. IN THE

SEAPORT PLAN, WE HAVE INTRODUCED THREE NEW FINDINGS THAT DESCRIBE GENERAL

PORT RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS, EFFORTS TO REDUCE

ENVIRONMENTSAL BURDENS AND ROLE AND AUTHORITY THAT BCDC OTHER AND AGENCIES

AND MUNICIPALITIES HAVE IN REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS.

WE HAVE INTRODUCED 33 NEW POLICIES HERE — FIRST ONE INTRODUCES PLANS AND

POLICIES, PROJECTS REDUCE AIR MUSICIANS, REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND

SEAPORT PLAN UPDATES AND STREAMLINE PROJECTS FOR SOAR POWER IMPROVEMENTS

OR INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS THAT COULD BE IMPROVED IN THE PORT PRIORITY

USE AREAS. AND THIRD SPEAKS TO REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND FUTURE PLAN

UPDATES. _ IMPORTANTLY, THERE ARE OTHER POLICIES IN THE DRAFT SEAPORT

PLAN THAT HAVE EJ RELATED REQUIREMENTS, BUT SOMETIMES THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE

WOVEN INTO THE APPROPRIATE RELEVANT POLICIES THEMSELVES.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE POLICY FOR ADDING OR REMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WILL

NOW HAVE A REQUIREMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE BAY PLAN FOR APPLICANTS TO

UNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT IN CONSISTENCY WITH EJ AND SOCIAL EQUITY

POLICIES. AS I MENTIONED, WE’RE PROPOSING TO

REMOVE DREDGING AND NAVIGATION FINDINGS AND POLICIES FROM THE EXISTING SEAPORT

PLAN. BOTH POLICIES WERE WRITTEN PRIOR TO

THE COMPLETION OF THE BAY AREA LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OR LTMS

FOR DREDGING BACK IN 2001. SO THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE AND THE

BAY PLAN ALREADY CONTAINS POLICIES ON DREDGING. SO WE LOOKED AT THIS AND

DIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY COVERED BY THE BAY PLAN, LTMS

OR OTHER EXISTING EFFORTS SO WE’RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT SECTION FROM THE

SEAPORT PLAN TO REMOVE REDUNDANCY. THIS DOESN’T AFFECT PLANS FOR DREDGING

PROJECTS THIS IS CLEAN UP OF OUTDATED INFORMATION.

AND FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO DELETE A TOPIC AREA THAT INCLUDES SOME GROUND

TRANSPORTATION POLICIES THAT SPOKE MORE DIRECTLY TO MTC’S PRIOR ROLE IN THE

SEAPORT PLAN. INSTEAD WE HAVE DEVELOPED A NEW TOPIC

AREA CALLED REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN SEEP UPDATES TO

BETTER REFLECT BCDC ROLE IN JURISDICTION. SO THE FIRST TWO

POLICIES IN HERE WERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE GROUND TRANSPORTATION TOPIC AREA OF

THE PLAN AND WE BROUGHT THEM INTO THE PLAN WITH MINOR REVISIONS. FIRST

SPEAKS TO THE NEED TO PRESERVE _ ACCESS TO MARINE TERMINALS AND SECOND FOCUS

IS ON MITIGATION RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC.

POLICY THREE HERE IS NEW. IT ENCOURAGES BCDC AND MTC TO COORDINATE

REGARDING MAP CHANGES WHEN EITHER BCDC UPDATES THE SEAPORT PLAN OR MTC

UPDATES PLANNED BAY AREA. SO, BASICALLY BCDC AND MTC WANT TO MAKE

SURE THAT WE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO ALIGN OUR REGIONAL THINKING AND REDUCE

ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS IN THESE KIND OF DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES.

AND FINALLY POLICY FOUR HERE SETS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR UPDATING THE

SEAPORT PLAN AND ENCOURAGES FUTURE UPDATES WE DO TO BE SYNCHRONIZED WITH

TIMING OF MTC’S SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN AND/OR PLANNED BAY

AREA UPDATES WHEN POSSIBLE. NEXT TIME WE GO TO UPDATE THE CEQA PLAN WE HOPE

TO PLAN AND COORDINATE THE TIMING OF THAT WITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK.

SO, THAT’S AN OVERVIEW OF ALL OF THE POLICY CHANGES TO THE PLAN.

BEFORE I TALK ABOUT PART TWO OF THE PLAN, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS THE MAPS OF

THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND SOME POLICIES RELATED TO SOMETHING CALLED

MARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS, I THOUGHT I SHOULD PAUSE HERE, JUST TO ANSWER IF

THERE ARE ANY BRIEF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ABOUT

JUST WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED SO FAR. SO, I’LL BRIEFLY STOP SHARING MY SCREEN SO

I CAN SEE YOU ALL. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS THUS FAR?

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>SPEAKER: YOU HAD SAID THAT THE

CARGO FORECAST IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE PLAN. AND MY MEMORY, FROM OUR

PREVIOUS HEARINGS WAS THAT THERE WAS REALLY UNAVOIDABLE UNCERTAINTY IN THE

CARGO FORECAST. LIKE, I REMEMBER PARTICULARLY PROJECTIONS OF ROLO CARGO

WERE SOMETHING LIKE TESLA WOULD MAKE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WAS THE FORECAST

PROVES INACCURATE? AND WAS THERE A PREVIOUS FORECAST THAT WE WERE ABLE TO

LOOK AT AND SEE HOW ACCURATE THE PROJECTIONS WERE?

>>CORY MANN: GREAT QUESTION. THANKS. I THINK THAT’S RIGHT.

THERE IS INHERENT UNCERTAINTY TO FORECASTING. IT’S DEFINITELY REALLY

CHALLENGING AND ESPECIALLY DOING SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO THE BAY AREA

REGION. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT

IN MIND IN OUR DECISION-MAKING. WE REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT WHEN MAKING

NEW POLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. SO, ONE OF THE POLICIES CALLS

FOR THE COMMISSION IN THE SPAC IN COORDINATION WITH THE PORTS TO TRY TO

MONITOR THE REGION’S CARGO VOLUMES, MARINE TERMINAL USES AND SHIP CALLS AS

NEEDED. AND, ALSO, TO KEEP AN EYE ON EMERGING

TRENDS THAT COULD IMPACT THE REGION’S CARGO CAPACITY. FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE,

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ZERO-EMISSIONS TRUCK CHARGING, OFFSHORE WIND HAS COME UP,

AND TRYING TO KIND OF CONTINUOUSLY COLLECT AND ASSESS THAT DATA.

WE ALSO ADDED A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE SEAPORT PLAN FOR FIRST THE

COMMISSION TO REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATES TO THE CARGO FORECAST IF

GROWTH IS SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATING FROM EXPECTED TRENDS OR IF, YOU KNOW, A

PARTICULAR CHANGE, LIKE ADDING OR REMOVING A PORT PRIORITY USE AREA

COULD IMPACT A REGION’S CAPACITY FOR CARGO GROWTH.

THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION IN THERE, THERE IS ANOTHER POLICY WE

ADDED IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE CARGO FORECAST. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER IT

HAS DIFFERENT GROWTH SCENARIOS AND HAS A MODERATE GROWTH SCENARIO WHICH WAS

DEVELOPED BASICALLY AS THE BASELINE FORECAST, AND SO WE HAVE PUT A POLICY

IN THERE SAYING SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD GENERALLY RELIES ON THE

BASELINE FORECAST BUT THE COMMISSION CAN ALWAYS CONSIDER NEW INFORMATION ON

CARGO GROWTH, YOU KNOW, IF IT’S DEVIATING FROM THAT TREND IN ORDER TO

SUPPLEMENT THE CARGO FORECAST. AND WE ALSO SAID WHEN POSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE

UPDATED PRIOR TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE. THOSE ARE THINGS WE TRIED TO THINK

ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS AND MITIGATE FOR THAT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER THEN

COMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THIS WAS REALLY

VERY, VERY FASCINATING. AND I WANT TO MAKE MAINLY A FEW

COMMENTS AND I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS TO. ONE COMMENT IS THIS IS A SEAPORT PLAN

BUT IS REALLY A CARGO — A SEAPORT PLAN RELATED TO CARGO. SEAPORTS DO OTHER

THINGS IN OUR WORLD BESIDES JUST FOR CARGO, THEY’RE USED FOR RECREATION,

AND THEY’RE — YOU KNOW, PUBLIC ACCESS, THERE IS OTHERS THINGS THAT WE USE OUR

SEAPORTS FOR. AND WIND POWER WAS MENTIONED AS LOCATIONS AT SEAPORTS

BECAUSE IT’S OFTEN WINDY AT THE EDGES OF WATER BODIES. ANOTHER THING I WANT

TO MENTION IN THE LARGE VIEW TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, WE HAVE TALKED

ABOUT HOW TO PROTECT THE SEAPORTS. BUT ANOTHER THING I THINK WE WANT TO TALK

ABOUT IN A SENSE IS HOW DO THE SEAPORTS PROTECT US. BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK

ABOUT THE ENERGY THAT’S INVOLVED IN MOVING CARGO, IT’S MUCH, MUCH MORE

EFFICIENT TO MOVE IT BY BARGE THAN IT IS BY AIRPLANE. AND PARTICULARLY FROM

GHG EMISSIONS. NOW THAT, IT DEPENDS A LOT ON HOW THE SHIPS ARE, YOU KNOW,

ARE POWERED, BUT THERE IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT TO BE IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY.

SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE THINK OF

CONTRIBUTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPROVEMENTS, THIS ISN’T SO MUCH OF AN

ADAPTATION THING, IT’S A MITIGATION, A HUGE MITIGATION, ALLOWING THIS CARGO

INDUSTRY TO PERSIST AND PROSPER IN OUR AREA IS JUST A LONG-TERM BIG

MITIGATION. SO, I WANTED TO MENTION THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT JUST

THESE STRUCTURES, THESE SEAPORTS THEMSELVES, THEY ARE SEA LEVEL RISE

INFRASTRUCTURE. I MEAN, THEY DO FUNCTION THAT WAY. THE ROADS INSIDE

THEM OFTEN FUNCTIONS AS LEVIES FOR FLOODING. WE DON’T USUALLY THINK

ABOUT IT THAT WAY BUT IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE BAY AREA, IT’S REALLY CLEAR

_ THAT OUR ROADS ARE, SORT OF, A — THE ULTIMATE LEVEES. AND THEN ANOTHER

THING I WANTED TO MENTION THAT IS, SORT OF, THE OPPOSITE IS FROM AN ENDANGERED

SPECIES PROTECTION POINT OF VIEW. CARGO SHIPS HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD ACTOR

OVER TIME IN BRINGING IN INVEGAS INVASIVE SPECIES IN THEIR HULLS. HOW

WE OPERATE SEAPORTS CAN BE PROTECTIVE OF, YOU KNOW, OF THE NATURAL — OUR

NATURAL BIODIVERSITY. NOW, I PRESUME THAT NOAA FISHERIES IS TAKING CARE OF

THAT. WE’RE NOT TAKING CARE OF THAT. I WANT TO MENTION IT AS ANOTHER

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT’S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, THAT WE SHOULD — YOU KNOW,

I THINK WE SHOULD JUST BE KEEPING IN MIND IN THE BIG PICTURE.

AND THEN I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I, JUST AS A QUESTION, THAT THE —

THIS IS SILENT ON DREDGING. AND THAT’S BECAUSE, OF COURSE, OF THE LTMS, SINCE

2001, AND IT’S ALSO BECAUSE OF THE POLICY WORK THAT WE’RE DOING IN THE

SEDIMENT, WORKING GROUP, RIGHT NOW, TO PRODUCE NEW POLICIES FOR THE BAY PLAN.

SO, THAT IS BEING DEALT IN A DETAILED MANNER SOMEWHERE ELSE.

I WANTED TO CONFIRM, EVERYBODY, YEAH, THAT’S THE CASE. OKAY.

THEN MY OTHER QUESTION, MORE DETAILED, IS ABOUT POLICY FIVE.

POLICY FIVE IS, CORY, IS BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE TERMINALS.

AND WHEN I READ POLICY FIVE, GRANTED IT DOES HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SEEMS SIMILAR

TO THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT, BUT IT ALSO SEEMS VERY RESTRICTIVE ALL AVAILABLE

BERTHS WILL HAVE BEEN USED, ALL REASONABLE INVESTMENTS, NO OTHER

FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES. I MEAN, DOES THAT GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE

MAY NEED IN THE FUTURE? >>SPEAKER: DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER

THAT? >>CORY MANN: I CAN START.

THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. THERE ARE TWO RELATED POLICIES NEXT TO EAR OTHER

THERE, THERE IS THE BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE POLICY, AND BAY FILL TO DEVELOP

EXISTING MARINE TERMINAL SITES. POLICY FIVE THERE, BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE

TERMINALS IS BASICALLY — THAT POLICY IS ORIENTED TOWARD IF A

BRAND-NEW MARINE TERMINAL WAS TO BE PROPOSED. WHERE ONE DOESN’T CURRENTLY

EXIST SO THAT’S THE KIND OF PROJECT WHERE YOU WOULD BE CONTEMPLATING

LARGER VOLUMES OF BAY FILL THAN A SITE THAT’S BEING REDEVELOPED.

AND, SO THAT’S WHY THE STANDARD THERE IS HIGH.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ERIK.

>>SPEAKER: I CAN SAY IT ECHOES THE MAC TEAR PET RICK REQUIREMENTS. WE’RE

TALKING ABOUT BAY FILL FOR PORT USE. MCATEER-PETRIS ACT HAS TO DO WITH

EXCEEDING THE FILL, WATER USE WATER FILL NECESSARY AND NO ALTERNATIVE

LOCATION. WHEN WE’RE DOING WITH PRIORITY USE AREAS IN MARINE TERMINALS

THAT COULD EXIST OUTSIDE OF THOSE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WE WANT TO BE

THINKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS THAT’S WHY WE’RE USE THE PRIORITY USE

AREAS FOR INFILL FOR SOME PLACE THAT ALREADY HAS A LOCATION. _ THAT’S WHY

WE DRAFTED IT THAT WAY. THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS COULD BE ADDED TO

OR CHANGED BASED ON REGIONAL NEEDS OVER TIME. SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD

RECOMMEND IN THAT CASE BUT YOU NEVER KNOW.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

SORRY. A LITTLE BIT OF A CATERING ISSUE FOR THE SOCIAL HOUR.

COMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU FOR THE

PRESENTATION. ONE COMMENT, ON THE BCDC APPOINTMENTS TO THE SPAC, ONE OF THEM

SAYS COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATION,

APPOINTED BY BCDC. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN JUST ADD

TO THAT DESCRIPTION, A CBO, OR EJ ORGANIZATION FROM A COMMUNITY IMPACTED

BY THE — BY ONE OF THE PORTS. WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE IS, LET’S SAY

SOMEONE APPLIES THAT’S NEAR THE PORT OF OAKLAND, VERSUS SOMEONE WHO MAY COME

FROM AN EJ COMMUNITY THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR A PORT. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE

IF WEEKEND ADD THAT DESCRIPTOR THAT IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THOSE

ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY A PORT. CAN WE DO THAT?

>>ERIK BUEHMANN: YEAH. THANK YOU FOR

THAT RECOMMENDATION. >>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMISSION?

WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO WELCOME COMMENTS

FROM ANY MEMBERS — >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE PART TWO?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M SORRY. CORY. YOU HAVE PART TWO.

>>CORY MANN: SORRY. IT’S A LONG PRESENTATION.

[LAUGHTER] NO PROBLEM. I’LL DO PART TWO NOW.

PART TWO IS SHORTER, TOO. OKAY. I’LL ASSUME EVERYONE CAN SEE MY

SLIDES AGAIN. THANKS FOR THOSE QUESTIONS. NEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT, THIS

IS BOTH PART TWO OF THE PRESENTATION, AND PART TOFT SEAPORT PLAN. THIS PART

OF THE SEAPORT PLAN IS CALLED THE MARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS.

AND WE’RE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES IN TERMS OF HOW WE APPROACH THIS IN THE

NEW DRAFT PLAN. AND THEN FINALLY I’LL REVIEW THE MAPS OF THE PORT PRIORITY

USE AREAS THEMSELVES AND CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL PORTS.

ANOTHER RELATIVELY HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW BUT OF COURSE I’M HAPPY TO TAKE

QUESTIONS AGAIN ON ANYTHING SPECIFIC. FIRST I’LL TALK ABOUT THE MARINE

TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS WHICH ARE PART OF THE 1996 SEAPORT PLAN. THIS IS A BIT

IN THE WEEDS BUT A BIG COMPONENT ABOUT HOW THE 1996 PLAN WORKS. I WANTED TO

MAKE SURE TO DESCRIBE HOW THIS IS CHANGING. SO, I MENTIONED AT THE

BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES

TO THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. AND IN THE EXISTING PLAN, IT BASICALLY

ALLOCATES PROJECTED CARGO VOLUMES TO EVERY MARINE TERMINAL IN BCDC

JURISDICTION. SO I HAVE INCLUDED AN EXAMPLE TABLE

FROM THE PORT OF OAKLAND UP ON THIS SLIDE, BUT IT WORKS THE SAME FOR ANY

OF THE PORTS. AND THIS TABLE BASICALLY ASSIGNS OUT

CARGO VOLUMES AND CARGO TYPES TO EACH OF THE BOARDS BASED ON THE CARGO

FORECAST PROJECTIONS. THEN THERE’S A POLICY THAT ACCOMPANIES EACH TABLE

THAT SAYS EACH OF THE MARINE TERMINALS SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING CARGO BY

2020. AT THE TIME WE COULD ACCURATELY PROJECT CARGO VOLUME AND ASSIGN TO THE

PORTS AND ANTICIPATE WHERE BAY FILL WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED TO MEET THE

REGION’S NEEDS. BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IN PRACTICE, ALLOCATING

SPECIFIC CARGO TYPES AND PROJECTED VOLUMES TO INDIVIDUAL TERMINALS IS

VERY DIFFICULT FOR A FEW DIFFERENT REASONS. YOU KNOW, FIRST, AND THIS

KIND OF ALREADY CAME UP, BUT UNLESS THE CARGO FORECAST AND THE MARINE TERMINAL

DESIGNATIONS ARE UPDATED VERY FREQUENTLY. THIS INFORMATION IS GOING

TO BE OUTDATED BY THE TIME A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR PERMIT ARISES. AND INDEED

THESE TABLES HAVEN’T BEEN UPDATED IN QUITE SOMETIME.

SECOND, AS I WAS GETTING TO, THIS APPROACH MAKES ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHERE

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND BAY FILL MIGHT OCCUR AND THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE ALSO

UNLIKELY TO BE ACCURATE AS CONDITIONS AND AS TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER THINGS

CHANGE. SO THE PROPOSAL FROM STAFF IS BASICALLY TO REMOVE THOSE TERMINAL

DESIGNATIONS TO SIMPLIFY THE SEAPORT PLAN, PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT MORE

FLEXIBILITY FOR THE PORTS, BUT WE DON’T THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE LOSING

ANYTHING BY MAKING THIS CHANGE. WE ALREADY HAVE POLICIES IN THE SEAPORT

PLAN TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION’S DECISION-MAKING ABOUT PERMITS OR ABOUT

PROJECTS THAT MIGHT BE REQUESTED BY THE PORTS. AND WE HAVE WORKED TO MAKE

THESE POLICIES MORE ROBUST AND MORE CLEAR IN THE UPDATE. AND OF COURSE,

WE CAN STILL RELY ON INFORMATION FROM THE CARGO FORECAST TO MAKE DECISIONS.

BUT BY NOT HAVING ALL OF THESE TABLES IN THE PLAN IT’S GOING TO SIMPLIFY THE

SEE PORT PLAN HOW IT READS MAKE IT MORE APPROACHABLE TO UNDERSTAND. SO THAT

IS OUR SUGGESTED CHANGE FOR THAT. AND SO FINALLY I’LL GET TO THE ACTUAL

MAPS THEMSELVES. BEGINNING IN 2021, BCDC RECEIVED

REQUESTS TO MODIFY THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BOUNDARIES FROM THE PORT OF

REDWOOD CITY, THE PORT OF RICHMOND, THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, AS WELL AS THE

CITY OF OAKLAND. BCDC ALSO RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS REQUESTING TO REMOVE

CELLY STATUS AS A RESERVE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA.

SO, WHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL, AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER, THE ONLY ALLOWABLE

USES IN PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ARE FOR CARGO OR OTHER RELATED USES.

SO, ADDING THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BASICALLY PROTECTS A SITE

FOR PORT USES. CONVERSELY, HOWEVER, REMOVING PORT

PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION FROM A SITE, IT DOESN’T ACTUALLY PREVENT PORTS FROM

USING THAT AREA FOR CARGO PURPOSES. THEY CAN CERTAINLY STILL DO THAT, BUT

IT DOES FREE THE SITE UP TO POTENTIALLY BE USED FOR NON-PORT USE.

SO, THAT’S THE KIND OF, LIKE, WHY IT MATTERS. AND, SO, AT ITS MARCH 2021

MEETING, THE SPAC RECEIVED A PRESENTATION BY BCDC STAFF SUMMARIZING

STAFF’S ANALYSIS OF THESE CHANGES. AS YOU MAY RECALL, DELETIONS OF PORT

PRIORITY USE AREAS, MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH BCDC’S POLICIES FOR REMOVING PORT

PRIORITY USE AREAS, GENERAL POLICY FOUR IN THE EXISTING PLAN, AND IT STATES

THAT DELETION SHOULD NOT RETRACT FROM THE ABILITY TO MEET THE GROWTH IN

CARGO. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT ANALYSIS, STAFF ALSO SUMMARIZED

INFORMATION ON SOME OTHER RELEVANT TOPICS, INCLUDING PORT PLANNING AND

OPERATIONS, LAND USE CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY, PUBLIC ACCESS, SEA

LEVEL RISE, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND BAY FILL TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL

CONTEXT FOR THE SPAC IN MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION ON THE PORT’S REQUESTS.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THESE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES HAVE ALSO BEEN ANALYZED IN THE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT WE DISTRIBUTED IN SEPTEMBER. AND THE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUDES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT

IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

THE CARGO FORECAST DIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY OF THE AREAS BEING REQUESTED FOR

REMOVAL FROM PORT PRIORITY USE AS BEING FEASIBLE SITES FOR CARGO HANDLING.

AND THUS STAFF HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THOSE REQUESTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE

SEAPORT PLAN POLICY. IN EFFECT, IT MEANS THESE REMOVALS

WERE ACCOUNTED FOR ALREADY IN THE CARGO FORECAST SINCE THESE WEREN’T ACTIVE

SITES AND MAKING THESE CHANGES WON’T IMPACT WHAT THE CARGO FORECAST SAYS.

STAFF ALSO ASKED THE PORTS TO

UNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE

COMMUNITIES, COMMENSURATE WITH THE NATURE OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY

REQUESTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES. SOME PORTS HAD ALREADY TAKEN

UNDER, LIKE, AN OUTREACH RELATED TO THEIR OWN PROCESSES OR THEIR OWN

REQUIREMENTS, THEIR OWN MEETINGS, THEIR OWN BOARDS AND SOME UNDERTOOK OUTREACH

TO BCDC REQUEST THAT IS SUMMARIZED IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT NEITHER THE PORTS

NOR BCDC STAFF IDENTIFIED ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED MAP

CHANGES. AND, FINALLY, THE SPAC VOTED IN FAVOR

OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES, BOTH AT ITS MARCH 2021 MEETING, AND THEN THEN THIS

JULY WHEN APPROVING THE DRAFT PLAN. I’LL RUN THROUGH EACH OF THE FOUR

REQUESTS. FIRST THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY IS PLANNING A FUTURE EXPANSION OF

A WHARF TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW OMNI TERMINAL THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE DRIVE

OFF OR RAIL CARGOS TO ENSURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE THE

PORT IS ADDING 1.3 ACRES TO THE WHARF, OR TO AN AREA SOUTH OF WHARF FIVE TO

THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION. AND STAFF ANALYZED THAT REQUEST IN

2021 AND RECOMMENDED AND STILL RECOMMEND APPROVING IT.

THE CITY OF RICHMOND HAS REQUESTED REMOVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA

FROM THE ENGRAVING DOCKS AS WELL AS THE BUILDING SOUTH OF THE MARINE TERMINAL

DUE TO HISTORIC STATUS AS WELL AS A SITE AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF

HARBOR WAY SOUTH ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

THOSE DOC DOCKS ARE PART OF THE ROSY THE RIVETER NATIONAL PARK AND THE SITE

IS ADJACENT TO THE PARKING LAT TO THE FERRY TERMINAL, OFFERS PUBLIC ACCESS

AND A FISHING PEER AND CONNECTS TO THE BAY TRAIL THOSE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS

BEING VIABLE FOR CONTINUED CARGO USE AND STAFF RECOMMENDED AND CONTINUED TO

RECOMMEND APPROVING THAT REQUEST. A FEW DIFFERENT CHANGES FOR THE PORT

OF SAN FRANCISCO. PEER 48 UP THE NORTH THERE, AND A RELATED AREA WERE

ACTUALLY ALREADY REMOVED FROM PORT PRIORITY USE IN 2016. PER AN ASSEMBLY

BILL THAT FOUND THAT THE PIER IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE EMBARCADERO

HISTORIC DISTRICT AND NO LONGER VIABLE FOR CARGO OPERATIONS. SO IN THAT CASE

WE’RE UPDATING THE MAPS. THE PORT REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE

PORT AT PIER 50 NO LONGER VIABLE FOR BULK OPERATIONS BUT THE PORT IS

RESERVING FOR MARITIME PURPOSES SUCH AS PORT MAINTENANCE. PORT 70 REQUESTED

TO REMOVE SIX ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT INCLUDES A PIER THAT WAS

PHYSICALLY REMOVED AS WELL AS AN AREA THAT ENCOMPASSES PARKING.

FINALLY THE PORT REQUESTED TO REMOVE ABOUT TEN ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE

FROM PIER 94 DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A WETLAND AS WELL AS 15 ACRES FROM

UPLAND SITES, BASICALLY DUE TO THEIR SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER ELEVATION

RELATIVE TO THE MARINE TERMINAL. THEY ALSO REQUESTED TO ADD TEN ACRES

BETWEEN PIERS 92 AND 94 TO REFLECT WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY CURRENTLY DRY

BULK OPERATIONS BUT TO MAKE SURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE.

THIS WAS ANALYZED IN 2021 AND STAFF

FOUND NONE OF THOSE SITES REQUESTED FOR APPROVAL IDENTIFIED AS SITES FOR CARGO

HANDLING AND CONTINUED TO HANDLING REQUESTS. _ FINALLY 20 TOUR BCDC HAD

REQUEST TO SPOP PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT’S FOR ANCILLARY USE, SPAPD AN

ADDITIONAL 1.2 ACRINGS OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT REQUESTS STEMS BACK TO

AN EARLY 2000s AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PORT THAT THEY BOTH MADE

TO PROVIDE TRUCK PARKING WHEN THE OAKLAND ARMY BASE WAS REDEVELOPED. SO

THE SITE THE CITY WANTS TO REDESIGNATE FOR PORT PRIORS USE HAS BETTER

LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY TO SUPPORT THE AREAS FOR MARITIME SERVICES THAN

THE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AREA. BOTH AREAS PROPOSING TO BE ADDED OR REMOVED

ARE INLAND FROM THE MARINE TERMINALS NEITHER SITE WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE

CARGO FORECAST FOR HANDLING BOTH SITES ARE WELL OUTSIDE BCDC PERMITTING

JURISDICTION. IF BCDC SEES APPROVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE SWAP HERE ONE

WAY OR THE OTHER IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE CITY OF OAKLAND’S ABLE FOR TRUCK

PARKING. BECAUSE USES OF THE SITE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PORT PRIORITY USE

DESIGNATION THAN THE CURRENT ONE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVING THAT REQUEST.

FINALLY, SO I MENTIONED THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN 96 PLAN DESIGNATED TWO

PORT PRIORITY USE SITES CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND SELBY. CONCORD

RESERVE AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY A NAVY MILITARY BASE CALLED CONCORD NAVAL

WEAPONS STATION. IN 2005 THE NAVY TRANSFERRED PART OF

THE BASE TO THE ARMY, AND IT’S NOW OCCUPIED BY THE MILITARY OCEAN CONCORD

MOTCO. AND THEN THE SELBY SITE ON THE RIGHT

THERE IT WAS ANOTHER RESERVE AREA, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THE SITE OF A SMELTING

OPERATION THAT PRODUCED SWAG AS A WASTE PRODUCT AND _ DEPOSITED ON THE SITE

THAT SITE IS UNDERGOING REMEDIATION FOR EXTENSIVE HEAVY METAL CONTAMINATION.

BCDC RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS IN THE AREA

NEAR SELBY REQUESTING WE MOVEMENT THAT SITE FOR PORT PRIORITY USE. STAFF

LOOKED AT BOTH OF THESE SITES BOTH DESIGNATED FOR PORT PRIORITY USE IN

1982 AS POSSIBLE RESERVE SITES THAT THE REGION COULD POTENTIALLY ACTIVATE AND

DEVELOP IF NEEDED FOR CARGO HANDLING BUT NO PLANS TO DEVELOP EITHER SITE

FOR PORT USE HAVE EMERGED IN THE 40 YEARS SINCE. STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING

TO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORS USE STINGS FROM BOTH SITES. TIMELINE OF

FEASIBILITY OF REDEVELOPING EITHER FOR CARGO USE IS UNCLEAR. OF COURSE,

EITHER SITE COULD BE ADDED BACK INTO PORT USE INTO THE FUTURE BUT AT THIS

POINT WE’RE RECOMMENDING TO THE COMMISSION ESPECIALLY TO OCCUR AS TO

THE PROCESS IN THE FUTURE IF IT ENDS UP WARRANTED. _ THOSE ARE THE LAST OF

THE PORT PRIORITY USE BOUNDARIES. FINALLY TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT’S

HAPPENING HERE AFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING STAFF WILL WORK TO REVISE THE

DRAFT PLAN IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER FEEDBACK OR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

AFTER THAT WE’LL RELEASE A FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN ALONG WITH THE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND SOME OTHER INFORMATION

THAT MAKES UP THE FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION.

TENTATIVELY THOSE ITEMS MIGHT BE MAILED ON NOVEMBER 10TH OF THE FINALLY THERE

WILL BE ANOTHER COMMISSION MEETING TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO ADOPT THE NEW

SEAPORT PLAN WE’LL VOTE AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 16TH

DEPENDING ON REQUESTED REVISIONS. I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY THANKING EVERYONE

WHO HAS CONTRIBUTED THEIR TIME ON GETTING TO THIS POINT. THIS WAS A

CHALLENGING PROJECT. THERE WERE DELAYS. AND SO I REALLY

WANT TO THANK THE FIVE BAY AREA BOARDS AND THEIR STAFF FOR WORK STICKING WITH

BCDC ON THIS PROJECT, PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND COMMENT ALONG THE WAY, AS WELL AS

SEAPORT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND STAFF WANT TO EXTEND

GRATITUDE TO OUR FORMER COMMISSIONER TO JIM McGRATH FOR SUPPORT DURING EARLIER

PHASES OF THIS PROJECT AND WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE LATE COMMISSIONER ANNE

HALSTED WHO CHAIRED WHEN THIS WAS LAUNCHED AND THIS WOULDN’T HAVE

HAPPENED WITHOUT HER LEADERSHIP. THAT’S IT FOR ME AND I’M HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS, BUT WE’RE ACTUALLY, ONCE AGAIN, GOING TO OPEN

THE HEARING. UNLESS THERE IS A THIRD PART?

AND I WOULD LIKE TO START BY OFFERING ANY MEMBERS OF THE SPAC OR ANY PORT

REPRESENTATIVES, IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS.

ANYBODY OUT THERE IN PUBLIC LAND, REYLINA?

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ALL RIGHT. THEN, I THINK WE WILL GO —

>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES. THAT’S WHAT I WAS GOING TO. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD.

>>SPEAKER: I HAD ONE COMMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ONE

QUESTION, IN THE DOCUMENTS WE GOT IT STATED THERE WASN’T ANY EVIDENCE

BEFORE BCDC OF FAILED PROPOSAL IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPOSED SEAPORT

PLAN UPDATE. AND I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT’S STILL THE CASE F STAFF CAN

CONFIRM THAT? >>SPEAKER: I CAN PROBABLY FIELD THAT

QUESTION. MICHAEL AMES STAFF ATTORNEY FILLING IN FOR GREG SCHARFF TODAY.

DISCUSSION OF SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE POA

DESIGNATIONS IS RELATED TO A CONCEPT IN CEQA, BASICALLY EVALUATING THE

INDIRECT EFFECTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, IS

BEFORE YOU TODAY, UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO, OBVIOUSLY THOSE PROJECTS

ARE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT, THE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE. BUT THERE HAS TO

BE CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE, SORT OF, THESE INDIRECT

EFFECTS, VIS-A-VIS, THOSE PROJECTS AS A RESULT OF WHEN WE’RE DOING TODAY. AND

BASED ON OUR WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT, YOU KNOW, THE EVALUATION WAS BASICALLY

THAT THOSE PROJECTS, WHILE, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE GENERAL DISCUSSION OR

IDEAS FLOATING OUT IN THE ETHER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY’RE

NOT THE KEY TERM OF ART IS THEY’RE NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF

WHAT WE’RE DOING. YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE SOME IMPETUS TO PURSUE THOSE

PROJECTS BUT IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING THAT THOSE PROJECTS WILL

BE REALIZED OR THE LEAD AGENCIES WILL BE PURSUING THOSE PROJECTS. THAT’S

WHERE THAT STATEMENT COMES FROM. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. I WILL NOW GO TO THE SPEAKERS IN THE

ROOM AND NOW WE’LL START ON THE APPROPRIATE ITEM WITH SUNG LEE.

>>SPEAKER: BEFORE YOU MAKE MY REMARKIS JUST WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE

COMMISSION AND STAFF FOR THIS WONDERFUL REPORT.

SOMEBODY FROM THE TRADE COMMUNITY. IF I COULD GIVE YOU IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK,

VERY GOOD JOB, LOOKS AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. SO, MY NAME IS SUNG LEE.

I AM THE PRESIDENT OF CB, ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE AN

INTERNATIONAL TRADE PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTING CLIENTS BEFORE YOU.

OUR CLIENT COMPRISES OF IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SUCH

AS RETAILERS, FARMERS AND MANUFACTURES. IT IS OUR POSITION TO SUPPORT STAFF

AMENDED BPA 1-19 TO INCLUDE STIPULATION THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT

EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AS, PORT AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY

1ST, 2025 THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BE AUTOMATICALLY

REINSTATED FOR MARITIME AT HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY. I AM ALSO VICE

CHAIR OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL A PRIVATE INDUSTRY ADVISORY

BOARD FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A POSITION OF EXPERT COUNSEL ADVISORY

BOARD THAT BCDC SUPPORT MARITIME BUSINESS AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS, MANDATE CLEAN TRUCKS, CLEAN

PORT OPERATIONS, AND ALSO CLEAN CONTAINER SHIPS CALLING THE PORT OF

OAKLAND. AND TO THAT END, PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL HAS

PROVIDE HAS PROVIDED UPGRADES TO THE COMMUNITY. THE GOALS SET BEFORE US WE

ASK BCDC TO CONTINUE TO AND GIVE THE ADMINISTERED —

DEMONSTRATED WITH THIS REPORT THAT YOU ALL, THE GOALS OF THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT, STATE GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES TO PROMOTE, EXPORT AND TRADE WITH OUR

TRADE PARTNERS ALLIES OVERSEAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: EVY WANG.

>>SPEAKER: THIS BUTTON. OKAY. I HAVE PRESSED THE BUTTON. MY NAME IS

EVY WONG. I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE CUSTOM [INDISCERNIBLE] ASSOCIATION OF

CALIFORNIA, A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER WAS SUNG LEE. I WANT TO COMMEND CORY MANN

AND THE SUPPORT PLANNING STAFF. WHAT AN OUTSTANDING REPORT. AND I

UNDERLINED REWRITTEN FOR READABILITY AND CLARITY, THAT IS SUPER. THANK YOU

SO MUCH. SO, I — WE ARE USERS AND SUPPORTERS

OF THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND RELATED MARITIME SERVICES. WE CONTINUE TO

SHOW UP BECAUSE AS SEAPORT STAKEHOLDERS WHO CARE DEEPLY FOR OUR HOME PORTS

FUTURE, I WANT TO EXPRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEAPORT PLAN TO

INCLUDE STATEMENTS THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE

PORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1ST, 2024, THAT THE PORT

PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL BE REINSTATED BACK TO HOWARD TERMINAL

PROPERTY. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT ANY PROPOSAL FOR THE HOWARD TERMINAL

PROPERTIES, OR ANY OTHER PORT ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES, THAT IT MIGHT BE

CONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR CONTRARY TO MARITIME SERVICES THAT THEY UNDER

GO THOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR THE

OPPORTUNITY, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, WE’RE GRATEFUL BCDC FOR ITS CONTINUED

THOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS FOR STATE LANDS IN RELATION TO MARITIME

SERVICES. AT AND ADJACENT PORT LANDS WHICH IS

REALLY IMPORTANT. LET’S KEEP THE BUSINESS AT THE PORT, LET’S GROW

CENTRIC AND SUSTAINABLE INTO THE FUTURE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL OF

THE WORK THAT IS DONE FOR OUR PUBLIC USE AND MARITIME AT THE PORT OF OAK.

THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. NEXT IS BILL DOW WHO WILL

BE FOLLOWED BY BILL DOW. >>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS

BILL TAO, LOCAL SIX RETIRED MEMBER OF OUR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT

COUNCIL. OAKLAND IS A WORKING PORT. NOT, YOU

KNOW, IT — IT’S TOO — PARDON ME FOR A SECOND. I’M WATCHING

THIS CLOCK. IT INTIMIDATES ME. BUT ANYWAY, OAKLAND, I’M HERE HERE TO URGE

YOU TO REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION, TO PUT PORT DESIGNATION BACK ON HOWARD

TERMINAL. WHEN YOU REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION, YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG

INFORMATION TO THE MARITIME INDUSTRY, YOU SAY YOU’RE NOT INTERESTED IN PORTS

ANYMORE. PORT OF OAKLAND IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR US IN THE AREA, FOR

WORKING — IT’S A WORKING CLASS PORT. AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. AND

BY REMOVING THE PORT DESIGNATION YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG MESSAGE. PUT IT

BACK ON, SEND OUT THE MESSAGE THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

THANK YOU. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU, SIR. MELVIN MCKAY FOLLOWED BY SUZANNE

RANSON >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

LONG TIME COMING. YOU KNOW? LIKE BILL SAID, WE SENT THE WRONG MESSAGE OUT TO

A LOT OF OUR SHIPPERS AND LABOR. WHEN WE STARTED THIS, WE HIRED OVER A

THOUSAND PEOPLE TO WORK IN THESE PORTS WE LOST A LOT OF COMMODITY HERE. I

HEARD SOMETHING DISTURBING WE USED TO BE 3 AND 4 IN THE WORLD NOW WE’RE

NUMBER TEN TO GEORGIA. WE NEED TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE THIS

STARTED. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING. THANK

YOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU, SIR. SUZANNE RANSON FOLLOWED BY MIKE JACOB.

>>SPEAKER: IS THERE A BUTTON TO PUSH

HERE? IT’S ON. HELLO I’M SUSAN SSA TERMINAL THE LARGEST PORT TENANT WITH

PORT OF OAK AND WE’RE ON THE INNER HARBOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY LISTENING TO COMMENTS REGARDING

IMPORTANCE EVER UPDATING EPA 1-19 TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT

PLAN TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT, AND A

THIRD TIME WE’RE GOING TO SAY THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED

BETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1, 2025 THAT THE PORT

PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REINSTATED AT THE

HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS REQUESTED TO SPAC AT OUR LAST MEETING. WE LOOK

FORWARD TO BEING AT THE TABLE AND SUPPORTING THE PORT OF OAKLAND ON

IDEAS FOR USAGE OF HOWARD TERMINAL THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO GROWING THE

ECONOMY, A WIN-WIN FOR THE PORT, ESTATE, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, AND

MARITIME STAKEHOLDERS. AS THE AS HAVE MADE THEIR INTENTIONS CLEAR AFTER

PUTTING EVERYONE THROUGH THE RINGER, WE ENCOURAGE BCDC TO ACCEPT SPAC’S

RECOMMENDATION AND SEVEN. AMENDMENT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT

PLAN. IT REALLY IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

LAST TWO COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER, I PERSONALLY INVITE YOU TO

SSA TERMINAL TO SHOW YOU THE GREAT STRIDES WE HAVE MADE, ENVIRONMENTALLY,

WE HAVE INVESTED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO ENVIRONMENTAL —

EXCUSE ME — CLEAN UP IN TANDEM WITH THE PORT OF OAKLAND.

EVERYBODY ON THIS COMMISSION CAN COME TO SSA TERMINAL, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE

IMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE AND YOU REALLY NEED TO COME AND SEE WHAT

THE TERMINALS ARE DOING. FOR YOU I’M LEAVING MY CARD PLEASE FEEL FREE TO

GIVE MY E-MAIL AND PHONE NUMBER TO EVERYBODY HERE.

LASTLY AS YOU KNOW PART OF HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED FOR

THE TOURNEY BASIN WHICH IS SO FAR MOVING FORWARD WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT

THAT. THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS A HUGE CHEER LEADER FOR THAT, THANK YOU.

PLEASE COME SEE ME AT THE TERMINAL. _

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MIKE JACOB.

>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSERMAN, MIKE JACOB WE REPRESENT

OCEAN CARRIERS, ALL OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PORTS INCLUDING PORT OF

OAKLAND. WE DID SUBMIT EXTENSIVE COMMENTS TO SPAC AT THE JULY MEETING

BUT IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING WE SUBMITTED COMMENTS THAT ARE PRETTY EXTENSIVE AT

MOST OF THE SPAC MEETINGS GOING BACK OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. IT WAS A

LONG PROCESS. I’M GLAD THE STAFF RECOGNIZED THE EFFORTS OF BOTH THE

FORMER CHAIRS IN THIS PROCESS. IT TOOK A LOT LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN

DUE TO SOME DISTRACTIONS BUT THE PRODUCT IN FRONT OF YOU IS NOT ONLY

SOUND IN TERMS OF THE FACTS, BASED ON A VERY ROBUST, AND WE THINK WELL DONE

CARGO FORECAST IN EXERCISE, BUT THE STAFF THEN WAS ABLE TO SYNTHESIZE

THOSE IN IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR CURRENT PLAN. WE SUBMITTED A LOT OF COMMENTS.

AND THOSE COMMENTS REALLY DID RANGE

FROM SMALL SCALE, NIT-PICKY ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO HOW INDIVIDUAL POLICIES

WOULD BE ADDRESSED VERSUS OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED OVER THE SCOPE IN

THE LAST FOUR YEARS WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKET SPACE INCLUDING NEW OFFSHORE

DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS,

ADDITIONAL PRESSURES ON DEDICATION OF PORT PROPERTY, FOR THINGS SUCH AS

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PORT TRUCKS. THOSE ARE NEW DEVELOPMENTS,

NEW PRESSURES ON PROPERTY THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. THEY DO EXIST NOW. SO,

THE PROCESS THAT WAS SET UP IN PROPOSING THIS PLAN, TAKE THOSE INTO

ACCOUNT, PROVIDE A PATHWAY NOT JUST FOR THE COMMISSION, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC AND

FOR PORTS TO MAINTAIN OUR IMPORTANT PLACE IN THE FABRIC OF THE BAY, WHICH

IS OUR WATER DEPENDENT USES FOR INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES THAT CANNOT BE

REPLICATED. WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE DO ANYWHERE ELSE, EXCEPT IN THE AREAS

THAT YOU DESIGNATE. THOSE ARE NOT GETTING BIGGER, AND WE

DO NOT ANTICIPATE THEY WILL BE GETTING BIGGER OVER TIME SO WE HAVE TO USE

WHAT WE HAVE MORE EFFICIENTLY E EFFECTIVELY AND MOVE MORE PRODUCT AS

THE ECONOMY GROWS AS WE ADD MORE PEOPLE BUT ALSO ADDING DEMANDS ON THE SYSTEM

INCLUDING ENERGY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WE APPRECIATE THE WORK. WE

APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US ON MAKING THIS A BETTER PLAN MOVING

FORWARD, AND, OF COURSE, I DON’T THINK IT SHOULD GO UNRECOGNIZED THAT YOU ARE

STILL HEARING FROM STAKEHOLDERS BECAUSE WE’RE HERE AND WE CARE ABOUT THIS

PROCESS AND OUR PORT INVESTMENTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH ONE

PARCEL. [LAUGHTER]

IN ONE PORT. THANK YOU. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: JOHN COLEMAN.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN COMMISSIONERS. I USUALLY DON’T SPEAK

AT MEETINGS NOR TWICE. I WANT TO THANK BCDC ON THIS PROCESS. I HEARD THE

INITIAL PRESENTATION AT A SPAC MEETING. I REACHED OUT TO LARRY GOLDZBAND, AND

CORY AND ERIK MADE A PRESENTATION WHO OUR MEMBERS AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE

THAT OUR MEMBERS ARE AWARE OF WHAT YOU’RE DOING SO WE WOULDN’T HAVE THE

ISSUE WE HAD A DECADE AGO WITH THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS AND WE DID NOT HAVE

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM OUR MEMBERS ON THIS, AND I THINK THAT’S KUDOS TO THE

HARD WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR STAFF AND SPAC HAVE DONE IN PRAYING TO EMBRACE

DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT EXIST OUT THERE.

AND SINCE I HAVE TWO MINUTES AND 14 SECONDS LEFT, THE PORTS PLAY A

CRITICAL ROLE TO THE ECONOMY NOT ONLY OF OUR REGION, OUR STATE, AND OUR

NATION. THE AMOUNT OF GOODS THAT GO IN AND OUT OF OUR PORTS DRIVE THE ECONOMY

TO A VERY LARGE EXTENT OF CALIFORNIA, THE TAX REVENUE AS GENERATED BY THE

PORTS IS HUGE FOR OUR ECONOMY. AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR STATE AND FEDERAL

MONEY COMING IN, WE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO CLEAN THE PORTS UP AS THEY NEEDED TO

BE CLEANED UP IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. AND DREDGING GOES ALONG

WITH THAT. IF WE DON’T DREDGE WE’RE NOT GOING TO GET THE BIG SHIPS IN FF

WE DON’T GET THE BIG SHIPS IN THEY’RE GOING TO GO ELSEWHERE AND THAT DOESN’T

HELP US BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS THAT ARE HIGH PAYING

UNION JOBS THAT BENEFIT ACTIVITIES AT THE PORT AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT

ALL THE PORTS IN THE REGION ARE BENEFITTING, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE

THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF PORTS IN OUR REGION. AND I

BELIEVE THAT THIS SEAPORT PLAN ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES. AND, AGAIN,

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. KRISTINE ZINTMAN. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. KRISTINE

ZORTMAN, I AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE PORT. THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT PROCESS

FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE _ AS MR. COLEMAN MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, PORTS ON AN

ECONOMIC ENGINE FOR THIS REGION, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

THERE ARE 11 MUNICIPAL PORTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE PORTS

THAT ARE IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION, FOUR OF THOSE PORTS, ONE IS PRIVATE, BUT

FOUR OF THOSE PORTS ARE IN YOUR JURISDICTION, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT

THROUGH THIS PROCESS I HAVE TRULY APPRECIATE THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH.

I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULTY THERE SOMETIMES, BUT I

THINK THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH, IN PARTICULAR, I WANT TO DEFINITELY

RECOGNIZE CORY AND ERIK, BECAUSE — AND OTHER BCDC STAFF, IN REACHING OUT TO

MEMBERS OF THE SPAC, IN REACHING OUT TO PORT STAFF, AND OTHERS TO MAKE SURE

THAT WHAT WAS COMING INTO THIS PLAN IS TRULY A PLAN THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL

BE PROUD OF, AND WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF THE COLLABORATION AND THE COOPERATION

THAT EXISTS. AND SO WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU.

ANY SPEAKERS REMOTELY? >>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC

COMMENT. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?

>>SPEAKER: I FIRST WANT TO THANK

EVERYBODY WHO TOOK THE TIME TO COME HERE AND TELL US HOW GREAT WE ARE.

THAT’S REALLY — THAT’S ALWAYS NICE TO HEAR.

BUT OF COURSE COMMISSIONERS LIKE ME HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

THAT’S RESPONSIBILITY OF STAFF AND ALL OF YOU WORKING TOGETHER AND I’M JUST

REALLY, REALLY PLEASED TO HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WHILE I’M SURE THERE

WERE DISAGREEMENTS, THAT EVERYBODY FEELS HEARD, RESPECTED AND

COLLABORATED WITH, AND THAT THAT’S GOING TO SERVE AS GOING FORWARD. SO

THAT’S REALLY WONDERFUL. CORY, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO SEA

LEVEL RISE AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DIFFERENT — ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN

VULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE AMONG OUR PORTS?

AND I KNOW JUST ENOUGH TO BE DANGEROUS ABOUT THIS, THAT I WAS SURPRISED AT

ONE POINT TO LEARN THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS ACTUALLY LESS VULNERABLE

THAN I EXPECTED BECAUSE [INDISCERNIBLE]

WERE RISEN _ YOU CAN RESPOND TO THAT?

>>CORY MANN. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I’LL SEE IF STAFF WANT TO

JUMP IN, OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AMONG PORTS IN TERMS OF

VULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE. I THINK THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK FOR

US TO DO AT BCDC IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB272 AND OUR

PLANNING PROCESSES AS IT RELATES TO PORTS. TO BE HONEST WE DIDN’T

UNDERTAKE REALLY IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND MAKING

THE POLICIES FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN THOSE POLICIES ARE A BRIDGE TOWARDS EFFORTS

THAT WE’RE WORKING ON NOW. I’M NOT SURE IF I HAVE ANY PARTICULARLY GOOD

INSIGHTS OTHER THAN TO SAY RECOGNIZE THAT THAT’S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

>>ERIK BUEHMANN: CAN I JUST ADD, THERE WASN’T A BIG, SORT OF, RESILIENCE OR

RISK ASSESSMENT TAKEN TO THE PORTS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. THE PROCESS WAS

DRIVEN BY THE THE CARGO FORECAST BEING, SORT OF, OUTDATED. THE PREVIOUS CARGO

FORECAST THAT GOVERNED THE PLAN AND TO DO A NEW CARGO FORECAST AND UPDATE THE

POLICIES. WE ACKNOWLEDGED WHILE WORKING THROUGH IT THAT THE PLANNING

LANDSCAPE ESPECIALLY WITH SEA LEVEL RISE IS SHIFTING A LOT.

OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SB272, BAY ADAPT, AND ALSO THE STATE LEGISLATION THAT

REQUIRES THE PORTS TO INDIVIDUALLY GO THROUGH A RISK ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

FOR SEA LEVEL RISE. AND THAT WAS, SORT OF, ONGOING AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE

DOING THIS PROCESS. SO WE THINK IT’S VERY LIKELY ESPECIALLY WITH SB272 AND

SOME OF THE SUBREGIONAL PLANS THAT WILL BE CREATED THROUGH BAY ADAPT, THAT

WE’LL BE LOOKING AT THIS IN MORE DETAIL IN TERMS OF RESILIENCE TO THE PORTS.

>>SPEAKER: I WAS GOING ASK YOU TO GO

TO JESSICA. >>SPEAKER: I WANT GOING ADD ON

SPECIFICS TO THE PORTS THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION THERE WAS A LAW THAT STATE

LANDS COMMISSION REQUIRED EACH OF THE PORTS TO PREPARE A SEA LEVEL RISE

ADAPTATION PLAN. IN ADDITION OUR BAY AREA REPORT LOOKED ACROSS THE REGION

OF THE PORTS WHAT WE FOUND IS AT THE LOWER LEVELS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IT’S

TRUE THERE IS NOT IMMEDIATE RISKS TO PORT OPERATIONS THAT YOU MAY EXPECT

BUT AS YOU LOOK OUT TO THE HIGHER NUMBERS OF COURSE THESE ARE AREAS ON

WATER GOING TO BE INUNDATED WITH CONNECTIONS AND BEHIND PORTS SEA LEVEL

RISE IS IMPORTANT AND PORTS CAN’T RETREAT _ WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO

FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THOSE FUNCTIONAL IT’S NOT OVER TOPPING AT THE TERMINALS

IT’S WATER COMING IN FROM OTHER WAYS.

>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: . >>SPEAKER: I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE

PORTS ARE PLACES WHERE THERE ARE NEIGHBORING LOWER LANDS THAT MIGHT

HAVE VULNERABILITY ALTERS AND I ASSUME THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR ANALYSIS OF

EQUITY IN THE PLAN. _. >>SPEAKER: YES, THANK YOU. YOU KNOW,

I — SO, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THIS DECISION TO RENAME, TAKE AWAY THAT

SECTION THAT WAS ON GROUNDS TRANSPORTATION AND RENAME IT TO

REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATES. I WAS ASKING

MYSELF WHAT BOTHERED ME ABOUT IT AND PART OF IT IS, YOU KNOW, JUST THINKING

ABOUT WHAT BCDC’S ROLE, WHICH IS — I MEAN IT’S KIND OF FOCUSED ON THE 100

FOOT BAN AND BAY FILL, AND I GET THAT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE

CARGO FORECAST, YOU’RE KIND OF LOOKING AT IT, THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY MOSTLY

FROM THE WATER SIDE. BUT I DON’T SEE AS MUCH ANALYSIS, YOU KNOW, FROM THE

LAND SIDE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THE — AND I KNOW THERE IS MANY OTHER

AGENCIES INVOLVED IN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIFICATION, AND

THAT’S GREAT. BUT THERE IS NOT A LOT ABOUT THE MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS AND

DO WE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR, YOU KNOW, ALL THE STAGING THAT NEEDS TO TAKE

PLACE THERE, BUT, SO, I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW MUCH THOUGHT HAS GONE

INTO THE LAND SIDE PLANNING FOR THE 100 FOOT BAN FOR THE PORTS. BAND FOR THE

WORDS. _. >>CORY MANN: THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT

QUESTION. THERE ARE ORIGINS TO THE SEAPORT PLAN AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE

WITH THE UPDATE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

OF COURSE, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF SHIFTS, ESPECIALLY THE FIRST SEAPORT

PLAN WAS PUBLISHED BUT IN LAST VERSIONS, IN TERMS OF REGIONAL

PLANNING IN HOW DIFFERENT AGENCIES ARE COORDINATING ON THAT KIND OF WORK.

EARLIER VERSIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN WERE DEVELOPED AS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT

ORIGINALLY BETWEEN BCDC AND MTC. SO THAT A SEAPORT PLAN CONSTITUTED

MARITIME MANAGEMENT PLAN AND USED BY TO MAKE PROJECT FUNDING DECISIONS

SENTENCE THEN MTC HAS SHIFTED ITS FOCUS AND HAS PUBLISHED SAN FRANCISCO BAY

GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN WHICH IS THE PLAN THAT SPEAKS MOST TO THE QUESTIONS

YOU’RE RAISING PLANNED BAY AREA. AND SO THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF HAS NOT

BEEN AN EFFECTIVE DRIVER OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE, OF COURSE, WORK WITH MTC ON UPDATING THE PLAN, BUT THE KIND

OF THE SCOPE OF THE UPDATE HAS BEEN MORE FOCUSED ON BCDC’S SPECIFIC KIND

OF LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY PLAN.

SO THOSE EFFORTS HAVE CHANGED. BUT THAT’S ALSO WHY WE INCLUDED A POLICY

IN THAT SECTION ON REGIONAL COORDINATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY

TO TIME THE TIMING OF FUTURE UPDATES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN TO SYNCHRONIZE THAT

WITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH MTC STAFF ABOUT THAT. WE

THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO WORK TOGETHER AND MIGHT HELP US TO LEVERAGE

SUPPORT FOR THINGS LIKE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THAT KIND OF

THING. SO THAT’S SOME OF THE THINK THAT’S GONE INTO THAT.

>>SPEAKER: SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT BCDC WILL BE A BIG PARTNER OR PARTICIPANT

IN THE GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN? >>CORE M: I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE SO.

YEAH. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHER

COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS?

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>>SPEAKER: SO MOVED. >>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER MOVED. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD SECONDS.

IF THERE IS NO OPPOSITION, AND SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, AS

WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THIS TODAY, BUT WE DO LOOK

FORWARD TO IT COMING BACK TO US WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMMENTS AND

QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND RAISED.

WITH THAT, AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THAT BOTH ITEMS 9 AND 10 ARE

POSTPONED, WE COME TO ADJOURNMENT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN

REMINDING EVERYONE, PLEASE, TO ADJOURN TO THE TEM TEMESCAL ROOM FOR SOCIAL

TIME. MOTION TO ADJOURN? COMMISSIONER

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Instagram
Reddit
Tiktok

Copyright Liveaboards United!