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
