>> february 13, 2019, treasure island development board meeting. item 1, call to order. [roll call taken] we do have a quorum. >> president tsen: next item, please. >> item 2, general public comment. allow members of the public to address the treasure island development authority board in the subject matter of the authority board and do not appear on today's agenda. in addition to general public comment, public comment held during each item on the agenda. members of the public may address the board up to three minutes. you will hear a single chime

when there are 30 seconds remaining. prior to making your comments, state your name and the organization you are representing, if any, for the record. >> president tsen: any members of the public like to address the board on items not on the agenda? ok. seeing none, next item. >> item 3, report by treasure island director. >> good morning, directors. this last saturday the treasure island museum held event as we discussed at the meeting last month on the island and i would like to invite walt with the treasure island museum to come up and say a few words on the event and the earlier event that they had the prior weekend. >> thank you, director beck. president, directors. two of you are aware of what a

success it was on saturday because you were there, director richardson gave the opening presentation in the port chicago program and welcomed people to the island, and president tsen was good enough to stop by. supervisor haney came by, congresswoman from the direct was busy with other affairs but sent a really nice letter and the next time you are on the island, take a look at the port chicago exhibit in our gallery because the letter is posted on the wall. the exhibit as i might have mentioned before was a collaboration between the national park service that runs the port chicago naval magazine and the san francisco public library and boy, some of those sailors must have been looking after us because we got the -- park service delivered the content for the exhibit just

before the shutdown and the library was able to fabricate and install it, and back to work, they were able to bring the artifacts, including a piece of metal from one of the exploded ships and installed them last wednesday. we have a very inspiring exhibit on port chicago in the gallery. i just wanted to acknowledge as you know, sometimes it takes an island, and we had a lot of help putting this on, including treasure island cross media international production company and building, too, they helped us with the videoing, and winery s.f. helped us with the reception. and i have given you copies of the program for those of you who didn't come so you can see our other partners and sponsors on that. it was a great event, we got covered on three tv stations,

mentioning treasure island, of course, and we, now we have to sit back and see how, to what extent port chicago can be part of the permanent story at treasure island, a great discovery for us and wonderful event, and thanks. >> president tsen: thank you so much, walt. i did drop by, and linda richardson was our representative at that event and would you like to say a few words about it? it was a great event and so glad you were able to mark black history month and also to collaborate with the san francisco public library, as well as the park service to make a great day. >> yes, thank you, i did mention

during the presentation that our president was there and in addition we had two others. the importance of that port chicago exhibit and event was spectacular. so, on behalf of treasure island development authority, wanted to specially acknowledge mr. veloski and the great work you do for the museum. it was such a well attended event, so the outreach was spectacular. and so where do we go from here? and there is a great need from the public standpoint that what we do here at treasure island, putting this massive development in place, buildings of two islands from scratch, people wanted to know about that, and i did convey that to our president that yes, we hold monthly

meetings and we have subcommittee meetings at this juncture, time to take what we do here and so partnering with the museum and also holding events where we can also invite them and i think this is where we are. so, yes, where do we go from here with port chicago? i think that eventually stated and stakeholders and we know the museum will keep us posted. and again, lastly, you have that island to use, to further your educational, you know, outreach, you know, goals and i know for the record and for the people listening here that this commission does support your work and we continue to do that. so, thank you. >> thank you. mr. beck. >> thank you. also mention the partnership with the library and the 80th

anniversary of the golden gate international exposition. library will also be featuring an exhibit on the exhibition on the sixth floor of the main library entitled "illusion and the magic city," including souvenirs and photograph and things from the collections of the san francisco history center. this past month, and speaking of the weather today, the weather has hit us a little hard on the island over the last month. we have had some standing water due to the limitations of the existing drainage system. also on january 16th, we had a power outage caused by a pole that came down in the weather that day at 9 and the avenue of the palms. on february 7th we had a pair of outages related to a fault in

underground cabling on avenue d in the job core campus, and on february 10th, we had an outage due to a failed transformer on mason court. those last outages were just a couple of hours each. the outage on the 16th, because it required rerouting of overheadlines, was for several hours. the -- for the art piece that we have reviewed the signal, the proposed temporary art piece utilizing bay bridge, will be submitting the bcdc application for that installation within the next month. and looking artist is trying to shoot for installation in mid-september, bending review and permitting. the treasurefest will resume on

the 23rd and 24th. and they now have an entrance fee is $4 if it's purchased online, or $seven at the gate. and they are no longer accepting cash for the admittance fee. so, visitors should plan accordingly. the -- in april, the department of children, youth and family will be hosting a neighborhood pop-up summer resources fair on, at the ship shade on april 6th. it's providing information to families on summer camps, classes, programs and services on the island and in san francisco at large. the project that is planned for parcel cp31, mohcd approved the

predevelopment loan to move forward with design and planning and on monday we filed request mercy housing and affordable housing and sustainable communities grant application with the strategic growth council of the state. the mayor's office has hired a new housing czar to help expedite the review and permitting of programs like ours. judson true has long roots with the city, most recently on legislative staff for david chu in sacramento. in construction, the clipper cove deep tour is waiting the

installation of temp lighting and then traffic will be shifted to clipper cove and off of avenue of the palms. this past month, fencing went up around the brig and related buildings to be demolished to make way for the wastewater treatment plant at the northeast corner of the island, and the demolition permits should be finalized this week so that work can move forward. on yerba buena island, working with the city distribution division of the public utilities commission to finalize the water cutovers so we can take the 1 million gallon tank that was on mccall road off line so it can be demolished and the site grading permit has been issued for the podium building on yerba buena island, so that project should be moving forward shortly with site grading and

excavation. staff made a presentation to the board last week and will bring them back to this body for future updates on the plant, ferry planning process. and i'll be speaking during the regular agenda, but we are also working with city agencies on the review of the subphase application and for upcoming board meetings, reminder for the audience, the april meeting will be held on the island and next week we will have our infrastructure and transportation committee meeting with presentations on pathway design, park maintenance, and event planning. and that concludes my report. >> president tsen: thank you. next item, please. i'm sorry.

questions? >> yes, thank you, mr. director, for the presentation. i think that you mentioned true, his addition is very significant decision by the mayor. i would like to invite us to invite mr. true to appear before tida, so goals and objectives and have the opportunity what we are doing in terms of the treasure island housing. i think it will be extremely very important, he's a capable person and most of us on the commission know him very well and his excellent prior work with the state and assemblyman chu, also going to be helping out on the state level on housing.

>> president tsen: great. good. so, i think next item, please. any comments from the public on this? hearing none, let's go forward. >> item 4, communications from and received by tida. >> president tsen: any questions on communications? yes, sharon. >> thank you. i just wanted to note i don't think i saw mr. hunter cuttings letter he had forwarded to the tida board in the record. can we make sure we add that, and i see an item later on related to some of his concerns, so i'll assume that bob is going to address the issues during that presentation. >> president tsen: thank you. good. ok. any other questions? hearing none, next item, please.

>> item 5, ongoing business by board of directors. >> president tsen: any items that the board would like to address? supervisor haney, we are delighted to see you and have you join us here on this board. in fact -- we are, do we have a, do we have a name? >> we do not have a name. >> president tsen: we'll make sure at the next meeting. >> i'm going to be coming, you'll have to get one. >> president tsen: we'll continue. so, the item is ongoing business by the board. and you have -- >> i would -- sorry, i was actually going to make an announcement for supervisor haney's open house tomorrow, but since you are here, maybe you can share it with the public. >> sure, absolutely. thank you for having me, it's good to see you all and thank you for your service on this

board. i'm very grateful to be elected to be the supervisor of district 6 and hopefully of course to represent treasure island. we are going to be having an open house tomorrow for valentine's day, which is from 4 to 6:30 in our office, which is room 272 here in city hall. and we are also going to be having a town hall on treasure island at ship shape, march 7, at 6:00 p.m. so make sure everybody knows about that, and everybody is invited, residents, businesses and everybody else who would like to attend. >> president tsen: wonderful. on the item at hand, ongoing business by the board of directors, bob, i just wanted to make sure that the next few meetings that we have updates on the environmental remediation that is going on on treasure

island. and i know that the navy is still conducting their investigations and reports and the mediation, that it would be good to have an update. the other thing, if we can get in representatives from either dpsc, the state department of substance control, state agency which regulates the standards for environmental remediation, or the city public health department. i think the board would appreciate hearing directly from those agencies that in fact regulate what is acceptable levels of environmental protection on the island. ok. so -- next item, please.

>> item 6, consent agenda. approving minutes of the december 12, 2018, meeting. r resolution to extend the agreement between the treasure island development and hawk engineers for as needed infrastructure engineering support services for the treasure island yerba buena island development project. >> so moved. >> do i have a second? all those in favor aye, opposed, the ayes have it. next item, please. >> item 7, clipper cove siltation study presentation. >> when the board of supervisors approved a resolution last summer endorsing the footprint of the marina that is accompanying the current saline, they -- there were a number of

resolutions in the clause and clauses in that resolution that, two items that this presentation will address was to look at the impacts of marine development on siltation patterns in the cove and the proposed marina and eelgrass beds in the cove. and then third item that any additional environmental studies be conducted in consultation with the planning department. they have concluded there's no further environmental study necessary at this time, and then a clause calling for financial analysis and for that treasure island enterprise updated the proforma, and submitted to the budget analyst office for review as part of their report to the

board of supervisors. with that, i'll ask d.j. allison to come up and present on the study that a.e. com performed. >> good afternoon, everyone. we were asked by -- we were asked by tida to help evaluate the questions posed by the board of supervisors in their resolution. i'll talk you through the study that we conducted in response to that resolution. so first of all, the quick agenda for what i'm talking through. i'll give a quick background about clipper cove. goals of our study, the methods that we went through, and the conclusions that we ultimately found, and then there will be an opportunity for you to ask questions if you have any. so, clipper cove is body of

water located between yerba buena island and treasure island. it was created in the mid 1930s during the creation of treasure island. source for a lot of the fill material that formed the island. generally speaking, it's a relatively calm water body protected by prevailing winds and waves. it's relatively shallow, between 1 and 5 meters deep. we were not able to locate known dredging since creation and the site of the proposed maria development project, approximately 220 slips, dredging breakwater, and large channel and berthing area. so the study goals were to address in part the board of supervisors resolution. posed with answering two main questions. will the marina project change sedimentation patterns in a way that changes the water depth,

and negative affects to eelgrass beds. i'll talk through how we looked at both of those questions and ultimately what we found. first of all, the first thing we did was look at historic sedimentation patterns in clipper cove to look at whether or not the project may result in changes in clipper cove, we wanted to know what was happening. so we were able to locate historic survey from 1947, 1978, 2009, and 2015, and we were able to compare water depths over those periods of time between the surveys to see what trends were emerging. first thing we found, clipper cove is what we call a depositional environment, it's water shallower. and what you'll see the average sedimentation rates between each of the surveys we were able to look at. between 1947 and 1978, average of 4.3 inches of sediment deposited in the cove every single year. that slowed to average of 2.7

inches between 1978 and 2009, and slowed even further to less than an inch between 2009 and 2015. so, while it is a depositional environment, we think it's slowing down or may have reached equilibrium, and slowing down around 1999, legacy sediment from the gold mining era. this graphic helps convey the same that i was explaining. upper left, from 1947, blue and green colors are deeper water depths and the red and oranges are shallow water. so the bottom left corner, you can see less blues and more oranges. in 2009, we are down to even shallower depths, and 2015, pretty representative of the current state of the cove. so in terms of evaluating

whether or not the project itself would result in changes in sediment, deposition patterns in the cove, conducted a sediment transport model and a model that simulates all the environmental conditions that play on deposition or erosion. so, the model that we use is called the mic 21 sediment model. simulates changes in water levels and velocity due to tides, and based on historic data from the bay. and account for things like settling, sediment deposition and erosion, consultation of sediments, and what you are seeing in the graphic here is the model set-up for the existing conditions. so our goal is evaluate whether the project would result in a change of conditions. so modeled two scenarios. the first was what was sediment

deposition pattern to be without the project, so under the current scenario. l and then what would the deposition patterns be from the proposed project, and consider the dredged access channel and the dredged marina project and other kinds of project features that may have an effect on circulation patterns in the cove. this graphic on the right here shows the model layout for the proposed conditions. you can sort of see the green line on the bottom is the route of the proposed access channel and the enlarged dredge area. the numerals on the graphic relate to comparison points that are explained further in the report, i'll go through a couple of those here. so, this graphic here conveys the results of both the existing conditions model and the proposed project model, and what they show is overall deposition during a five-month window that we modeled. i think what you will probably

take away from this is that the results look very similar to each other, that's because we did not find differences between the settling patterns under the existing conditions and the proposed marina conditions. two plots over five months, location c1, the open water area, and the other is location a, sort of south of the proposed marina development. what you are looking at and each plot, deposition rates over each time, from both the existing and proposed conditions and from what you should be able to see rate of sedimentation is essentially identical between each of the proposed conditions. so, we found no significant differences, at least in sedimentation patterns, between the two conditions either the existing project or the no project scenarios.

so the other big question we tried to answer, what the project's potential effects might be on eelgrass habitat. one value we have, i personally also do environmental management support for the bay bridge project the last four years, and we were able to review that data as well as all the legacy data conducted by the bay bridge program since 1999. a quick intro what is eelgrass. a native marine plant, it's very important in the san francisco bay for fish rearing, food sources. it's considered an essential fish habitat by the national marine fish service, so importance were found. it does occur in very specific kinds of places, so it requires a sandy or muddy bottom, generally found between the mean low, low water line and approximately 1.5 meters below that. and that's because -- and that's

because it's a plant, requires some light to grow, so the fine point where it does not want to be dried out during low tides but if it's too deep it does not get enough sunlight. so, sunlight is an important part of this, and one thing that can affect it is turbidity, something we looked at. and another thing, it does have seasonal growth, so grows a lot during the summer with sunlight, and die back in the winter where there is less sun. overview of eelgrass in clipper cove. as previously mentioned, eelgrass studies have been conducted almost annually since 1999 by caltrans as part of the bay bridge program. my company has done them since 2015, and looking back through all the data, one thing we found is that eelgrass is relatively sparse in clipper cove already, and sort of on the downward decline for the entire time it's been studied by the bay bridge

project, at least. this graphic here shows a combination of frequency of eelgrass over the life of the 1999 and 2014 survey, and what it shows is that most patches of eelgrass shown on the map were not even present more than half of the years that the surveys were even conducted, and we personally have done the surveys 2015, 16, 17 and 18, and during those years, clipper cove has been absent of eelgrass. not totally unexpected. the density fluctuates year over year, and i don't think clipper cove is the great of the of habitats because it's rockefeller center coming counsel from yerba buena island, and shaded by the island, and drops to the depth which is deep. it may get enough sunlight, beyond the rocky substrate, but also not too deep. so one thing we did look at,

typical increases of turbidity might be as a result of the marina project. while the sedimentation patterns in the cove might not change, a general increase en turbidity could result in a decrease in light penetration, which could slow or otherwise affect the growing of the eelgrass during the growing season. we looked at propeller wash analysis, so water craft of sizes expected in the marina. 50 to 80 feet we looked at. and also just for comparison, we modeled what it might look like for the san francisco fire department st. francis, which is essentially a firefighting boat, a firefighting engine on water, so it's at the very far extreme of what you could ever expect possibly to occur in the cove and not typical of the marina, but otherwise could come in. so, we looked at things that

consider the diameter of boat propellers, how deep the boat is in the water and the horse power if they were idling in and out of the marina and the access channel. looked a the three scenarios we thought might be of interest to the study. scenario one, a craft navigating in the channel and then rotating pointed north, so the propeller wash pointed directly at yerba buena island, where the eelgrass grows. not typical condition but it could happen occasionally and the most significant effect on eelgrass, possibly. we also looked at the boat pointed at the shoreline there, and scenario three, the boats travelling in the access channel, the typical scenario we will get here. so what we found in looking at this, i'll talk you through. a sheer stress, the threshold of

which resuspension of sediments can occur. generally pointed in the direction of the boat's travel, so behind, in the direction behind the prop. and then sort of energy exertion would be pretty limited in the direction the boat traveled, so to the left and the right, for star board and port. scenario one, the most risky situation for eelgrass effects, instances where you could have resuspension of sediments but in looking at this, we thought that this was a pretty unlikely scenario to happen very commonly, because we could not imagine scenarios in which a boat would be turning around in the center of the access channel between travelling between the open water and the marina. scenario two could result in localized turbidity in the marina, but likely to not cause damage to the surrounding area,

probably be significant armoring around the edges of the maria. and scenario three, what we found was that we thought there could be small turbidity increases as a result of the boats motoring in and out of the channel, but the increases in turbidity would be directed in line with the channel, rather than out of the channel, and probably would be localized and resettled relatively quickly due to the slow currents in the channel. and generally we thought that the scenarios were not expected to cause significant turbidity changes in the broader cove, only temporary localized changes based on boat use. and as a result, we did not think prop wash would be a significant result in the degradation or sedimentations in the cove. to summarize the conclusions and relate them back, will the marina project change sedimentation to change water

depth, no. transverse model found no significant changes in sedimentation rates between the existing conditions and the proposed conditions, and the areas of settling or erosion were not significant between the two conditions, so overall settling was the same, we did not expect one area to have a lot of deposition or erosion. negative effects to eelgrass beds. our conclusions were no. in part for a couple reasons. first, eelgrass habitat in clipper cove is fairly patchy to begin with, and limited, and often not found every year. and in particular, has not even been present the last four years. and we also found that typical -- what we considered to be typical vessel motoring will not likely cause changes in turbidity in the habitat in general, even if present.

and with that, happy to take any questions. >> president tsen: thank you so much. your report was enlightening for us on an issue we had some concern over. this is an informational item, not an action item. are there questions from the board? so -- yes. >> all right. miss richardson please, first. >> thank you for that in depth presentation. for the record here, i think your conclusions here with records to the deposit sedimentation, that the development of clipper cove is really outside of that development and there will not be -- there's no change in the patterns existing and proposed. i think that's what you were talking about here. just want to qualify that. and the effects to the eelgrass, again your conclusion is that it would not be. how do you define significant

impact and how can we avoid, based on your conclusion, how can we avoid significant impact that you have mentioned there, in the future? >> are you referring to significant impacts to eelgrass or sedimentation patterns? >> sedimentation, i think you already made that, that the eelgrass again, you know, for the eelgrass, right now. you mentioned three scenarios based on those boats and traffic, and the conclusion. so yes, how, and it's well underscored and how do we prevent significant -- >> i think the most direct way to prevent the significant impacts would be to locate the channel outside where the eelgrass grows, already what's happening, it grows in relatively shallow areas and the eelgrass is in deeper section. >> thank you very much. this is very comforting here to hear this analysis. >> supervisor haney.

>> thank you, and thank you for this report and the work that was done with this study. i had a similar question in that it's very positive that this shows that this -- that it's unlikely to have a significant impact and that the impact is based on the study will be negligible. is there additional things, i know that there was part of your answer there was around how to prevent an impact on the eelgrass, but are there certain things that can be done to mitigate the risk or potential risk, even though the study is not showing that there's an expectation that there's going to be significant risk? >> that was not something that we looked at as part of our study, recommendations for mitigating the effects. i'm sure it's something director beck could follow up on if we wanted to. but our study -- our study was

focussed on evaluating what potential effects might be caused by the project and generally speaking we did not think there would be significant effects. >> that's great. i think that the resolution also called for tida to develop a plan to mitigate potential risk, so, maybe that's something additional to follow up on. also, the study has projections that look like they are over five months. is that a normal set of time, and where is that the time period and if, how do you determine if there might be impact at a longer period of time and then who would, i guess, more of a question for tida, who would be responsible for mitigation if there was impacts, more significant impacts over longer periods of time? >> yeah, i can clarify that. so, our study did not project

impacts for five months. when we did, base the model over a five-month period, what we thought sedimentation periods would be for typical five-month period and that was roughly like a june through january scenario. and so what that does is consider historic data in terms of sedimentation in the bay, turbidity, water temperature, circulation, patterns, tides and evaluates what we thought the sedimentation rates would be during that typical five-month period. we chose that because it encompasses both the summer months, and the winter months have a greater influx of sediment because as the rains come you get more sediment washed into the bay and turbidity will go up. we thought the period we selected was a good representation of what the different weather types and patterns and tides would be occurring in the bay over a representative period. so, it's not a projection, the model was based on a simulation of the, of a typical five-month

period in the bay. >> president tsen: ok, good. miss lai, please. >> thank you. this is an interesting topic for us and we have sort of circled around this a couple times already. i did have some follow-up questions similar to the questions that have been already asked. so, first of all, in the turbidity analysis, does it factor in frequency of vessels or just purely based on each vessel coming through the channel? >> it was just based on each vessel coming through the channel, not frequency. >> follow-up question, would cumulative i guess travel through that channel have like a resulting impact on the sedimentation? >> so i believe the findings of our hydraulic folks that looked at thought there would not likely be a cumulative impact because the rate the sediments would resettle is relatively quick. they would not be suspended for

a period of time where you would not have cumulative effects. >> that's very helpful. my thought there was really, you know, in the 2015-2016 time period you have mapped the historic sedimentation, whether it was a low period of the marina using or being used, and perhaps there's reflecting like an inaccurate scenario and whether or not the future of the marina was used more heavily, whether or not the sedimentation would increase. sounds like your answer is no because it settles is quickly of an a boat comes through. >> that was our expectation, yeah. >> and then also wondering similar to supervisor haney, you know, why we are choosing a five-month period, and why we are not studying it as a projection and only studying it as like historical data. >> well, we use historical data

because the model considers a lot of inputs running it scenario, right? so, it uses for example, tide data collected over five months, and turbidity data collected by a station in the bay to model that sort of thing. models waves and weather action. the input is all real data in the bay and what it does is simulate what would happen based on different scenarios. so -- i think it's representative what we think a forward-looking projection would be but we use real in the bay data to model what we think the scenarios would be. >> at the core of all the questions what we really care about is whether or not the marina impact will further impact the cove, and the bofrd has made it clear it's not an out come they would like to see, and the tida resolution reflect that. my next question is, one, you know, whether or not

sedimentation will eventually stop out all together based on the historic pattern you have raised and two, are there any causes or potential changes in the environment that will all of a sudden reverse that decrease and you know, go into this like cycle of increasing sedimentation again? >> so, there are studies that have -- there's been over, you know, recent history, 100 years, 200 years, significant sediment into san francisco bay from the broader central valley region as a result of the mining from the gold rush era and that has been working its way through the system following the gold rush. studies have found the big bulk of that sediment has sort of passed at this point, and natural sedimentation rates entering the bay have slowed down. i think that's why we see the decrease in the sedimentation rates in the cove over time. in terms of looking forward, i

believe tida has conducted a bathymetric survey more recently, and the data was not available to us at the time the analysis was done but we could look and confirm if the t trajection have settled down, and 2009 and 2015, approximately half an inch a year, relatively slow. and we could then extrapolate again 2015 to 2018 estimate as well, if needed. my guess is that it would probably just substantiate a flattening of that deposition rate already. >> thank you. >> a question directed at you directly or director beck, in terms of timing. i did get the letter and email from mr. cutting in late january talking about the timing of the

study, vis-a-vis the signing of the lease agreement. so, where do we stand currently in terms of, you know, listening to your findings, and incorporating those into what i would guess would be the next step whether or not to sign the lease? >> yes, mr. beck. >> the lease is still before the board of supervisors for consideration. it's currently with the budget analyst's office, and so we would not execute -- this board authorized us to move it to the board of supervisors but we would not execute that lease until it was approved by the board of supervisors. and then following the lease execution, the project sponsor still needs to go to bcdc for the permits, permission to construct the proposed improvements. so, that would be -- >> so the findings would go to

bcdc for their next step. >> part of the information provided -- >> got it. thank you. >> thank you. >> president tsen: any other questions? >> yes, a quick question for mr. beck. so, the analysis, there were two parts, environmental which we are looking at the findings today, when can we expect the financial analysis? >> it's the board of supervisors review of the proforma. the proforma is prepared in conjunction with the revised lease. i can distribute it to the board members if you would like. that's being reviewed by the budget analyst's office. >> that would be great. and talking about this now for two years. so, financial analysis if you can, you know, convey, i think that would be very important.

thank you. >> mr. samaha. >> one more statement to say how refreshing to have a member of the board of supervisors with us here today, supervisor haney from this district, i've been on this board for 12 years, and with all due respect to the predecessors of mr. haney, i believe they came one time during my 12 years. so, thank you for being here. >> president tsen: all right. we will open this up to members of the public for any comments or questions. >> thank you. ok. please come up and announce your name. thank you. >> hi, i'm leeana schroeder, deputy general manager for

rubicon landscaping. and question is with the recent fires we have had in the state of california, sedimentation is a problem with, especially with the amount of rainfall we are having this year. there is going to be an increase in erosion in the northern california areas but also any areas that may be affected this summer. and so my question is, was that taken into consideration through this process? >> president tsen: thank you. >> that was not a factor used in our sediment model, no. >> president tsen: thank you. any other comments or questions? >> hi, good afternoon, directors. hunter cutting, coordinator for the save clipper cove coalition. we welcome today's study. it's great to see the

environmental review necessary and long coming has been gone. the study only looks at sedimentation, does not evaluate the impact of dredging. director bob beck determined planning said no other things were required at this time because it is required just that tida staff are suggesting the city sign an 66-year lease first and then evaluate the dredging during the process. we don't support that, we don't think it's proper for the city to be doing. the coalition is encouraged but it provides very little confidence in the study results. one, this transport model appears to have not been validated for use in marina projects and channel construction projects. we don't know if the model is fit for purpose. secondly, appears the data used

to form the model was not collected at clipper cove but other locations around the bay. further, appears only the model for the months august to december, and discussing the rest of the years and the highest rates of sediment transport come with winter and spring flows this does not capture, because of five month. and in particular, with the experiences at the oakland estuary channel across the bay from clipper cove. given all this, we would request tida convene experts to evaluate the study to see what level of confidence we can have in the study. and all that has happened today is an attempt to quantify the risk. don't have a plan to mitigate the risk and we met with tida staff and the office of supervisor kim, discussion of

setting up financing under the community facilities district because as you know, the city of san francisco spends half a million dollars a year to address unanticipated siltation in the san francisco marina. we don't see that mitigation plan here. however, there was another alternative. if the developers and the staff are confident in the city and these results, then they should be willing to then take on the risk and take the responsibility for addressing unanticipated siltation. that risk should not be set on the taxpayers. >> president tsen: thank you, mr. cutting. mr. beck, did you have any response or something you would like to address in writing? >> i don't know if, d.j., if you have any comments on the model validation or data collection. but yeah, in terms of the, as

mr. cutting indicated, the study does indicate that there are not anticipated effects from development of the cove and so in that case, we don't have a plan for mitigating or addressing effects which are not anticipated. the other aspect is the maintenance of the cove at large. developer will be responsible for maintenance of the dredge channel as well as the marina footprint, the leased area of the piers. the balance of the cove to the extent dredging would be needed to maintain the drafts required for the sailing center operations was retained as a tida obligation. a reference the communities facility district, raised in the

conversation with supervisor kim's office as you are aware, the community facilities district is tida's long-term ongoing funding source for the maintenance of parks and open space on the island to the extent that minor dredging was necessary to maintain the five-foot draft required for the sailing center programs. that's something that we could provide for out of the community facility district revenues in addition to maintaining the other parks and open space on the island. >> president tsen: thank you. did you have a comment on the -- >> sure. i will note, so the model input was not from data that was collected within clipper cove. there are no long-term data loggers in clipper cove. the data used to inform general

turbidity estimates was based on the logger located i believe along the port of san francisco somewhere, near the ferry terminal. somewhere in that general region of the port waterfront. we would not expect the turbidity to be significantly different. the bay is a large circulating water body so we thought the data at that logger is well representative of water circulating in the central bay. i will also to note about the five-month scenario, the reason we chose five months, a balance between what's necessary and what's overdoing the work. so, calculating the models requires a computer to run for 24 hours at a time for something like a five-month model, and so we felt like that was a good representation of water circulation patterns in the bay over a significant portion of the year. if we were to run longer, we would likely see, you know, additional data representing what we thought sedimentation patterns would be. but because we focussed on

evaluating what the differences and conditions would be between the current existing no project scenario and the project and because the sedimentation patterns that we saw were essentially identical, we right now don't have any reason to believe that they would deviate at some other point of the year, if you were to look at a typical march or may. thank you. >> president tsen: yes, mr. haney. >> thank you. my question is maybe for you. not to get him up again -- but s s so, has acom done studies like this before, sort of a sense from other -- i mean, particular models that are run with this particular expectations around this development. but there was some comment around what has taken place at

other marinas or what we have seen in other places. is that something that you might look at and is there related to that, is there usually some sort of in a study like this, a peer review or somebody else who might look at it and say you know, we use different sort of ways of looking at or different sort of ways of analyzing this kind of situation as a way to give feedback to your study? >> yes, a couple questions in there. about the -- i'm not sure what the comment with the oakland estuary was. we have done a lot of studies around the bay like this, so i would not say it's atypical of what we do. i don't think there is a peer review panel. internally before we submit something like this to tida, it does go through an independent

verification of the results which were reviewed by one of our senior hydrologists separate. but you know, not a peer review, i guess, outside of acom. >> president tsen: thank you. miss lai. oh, yes. >> i just, to supervisor's question, part of the bcdc process, projects go through a design review board which is a group of technical consultants that are maintained to conduct technical review of analysis, so, as the project sponsor goes through, this and others will go

through a peer review process in the bcdc process. >> i think one of the members of the public had questioned the mic 21 model you are using. do you have any other comments on whether or not there is, like another available method that might be better or worse, and why you came to this conclusion of using this particular method?

and makes a difference in terms of the data, versus like the ferry area is more like man-built? what you would need are light sediments suspended in the bay and carried for a long distance. in order for sediment to be brought in and deposited in the cove, needs to come from outside the cove and carried in the water column. our expectation that data collected in other parts of the central bay are showing the same kinds of lightweight deposits that would be being carried around over great distances in the bay, in order for something

to come in clipper cove, needs to be carried from outside clipper cove, so the same lightweight turbid materials from other parts of the central bay. >> thank you. ok. so i see another member of the public wishes to address. yes, please come up. [please stand by]