San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, California 94105 tel 415 352 3600 fax 888 348 5190 State of California | Gavin Newsom – Governor | [email protected] | www.bcdc.ca.gov

October 19, 2020

TO: Seaport Planning Advisory Committee

FROM: Linda Scourtis, Port and Oil Spill Prevention and Response Manager (415/352- 3644; [email protected]) Katharine Pan, Waterfront Planner (415/352-3650; [email protected])

SUBJECT: San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan: Preliminary Alternatives (For Committee consideration on October 29, 2020)

Staff Summary The purpose of the October 29, 2020, Seaport Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC) meeting is for the SPAC to select a series of Alternatives, different combinations of port priority use designations, to be evaluated as part of the Alternatives Analysis phase of the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan (Seaport Plan) update process. As part of the Alternatives Analysis, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) staff will assess the potential effects of each Alternative under a range of topic areas. Staff will present a set of Preliminary Alternatives, which the SPAC may choose to select, alter, or augment as needed. Staff requests that the SPAC also provide clear direction on the depth and kind of information to include in the evaluation, including any additional topic areas, sources of information, perspectives, etc. that the SPAC will require to make an informed recommendation on the Seaport Plan update. The resulting evaluation will be used by the SPAC to compare the potential port priority use designation changes and recommend a preferred set of designations to include in the draft Seaport Plan update and staff recommendations that will be presented to the Commission. This staff report includes information to inform the SPAC’s discussion, including background on the Seaport Plan’s authority, jurisdiction, and scope; descriptions of the Preliminary Alternatives for the SPAC’s consideration; a list of potential topics for evaluation; an introduction to potential new policy approaches to consider for the updated plan; a description of upcoming milestones for the planning process; and a list of discussion questions, including the following: 1. What are the Alternatives, or components of the Alternatives, BCDC staff should evaluate as part of the Alternatives Analysis? Should there be any alterations to the Preliminary Alternatives or additional Alternatives? 2. Are there other topics staff should assess as part of the Alternatives evaluation that would help the SPAC make its recommendation on a Preferred Plan to the Commission? Is there any particular direction for staff on information sources or types of information the SPAC would like to see as part of the evaluation?

Page 2 October 19, 2020

3. Are there any initial thoughts on potential policy approaches for sea level rise, ground transportation, environmental justice, or general seaport planning that staff should explore and expand upon for the next SPAC meeting? Are there other topic areas or approaches you would suggest? Do you have insights on how well a potential approach might work or what implementation might look like? 4. Do you have comments or suggestions on community outreach around the Seaport Plan, or ideas of forums or contacts staff should consider?

Staff Report I. Introduction The SPAC is meeting to begin its consideration of potential land use and policy Alternatives for the Seaport Plan update. At this meeting, the SPAC will review mapping for a series of preliminary land use Alternatives prepared by BCDC staff and approve a set of three to four Alternatives for staff to analyze in detail. The SPAC will also discuss potential policy approaches for the Seaport Plan, including sea level rise, ground transportation, environmental justice, and seaport planning, and provide staff with direction on strategies to pursue or explore. II. Background A. Seaport Planning Advisory Committee The SPAC consists of representatives from BCDC, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC/ABAG), the Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region, the five Bay Area ports described in the Seaport Plan, the California Department of Transportation, and Save the Bay. The SPAC considers amendments to the Seaport Plan and provides recommendations to BCDC and its staff based on technical expertise, background reports, and public comment. B. The Bay Plan and the Seaport Plan Section 66602 of the McAteer-Petris Act (Title 7.2 of the California Government Code) declares seaports to be among certain water-oriented land uses along the Bay shoreline that are essential to the public welfare of the Bay Area, and requires the San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) to provide for adequate and suitable locations for these uses to minimize the future need to use Bay fill to create new sites for these uses. Thus, the Bay Plan designates areas for various water-oriented priority land uses within its shoreline band jurisdiction (areas that are 100 feet landward of the Bay), including sites designated for port priority use. Future development proposed in priority use areas must be consistent with policies in the Bay Plan related to those areas. Boundaries for the priority use areas are established by the Commission in Resolution 16. The Seaport Plan is an extension of the Bay Plan that governs port planning and development, per Bay Plan Port Policy 1. According to this policy, the Seaport Plan provides for the expansion and/or redevelopment of port facilities at Benicia, Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond, and San

Page 3 October 19, 2020

Francisco, as well as the development of new port facilities at Selby;1 further deepening of shipping channels to accommodate expected growth in ship size and improved terminal productivity; the maintenance of up-to-date cargo forecasts and existing cargo handling capability estimates to guide the permitting of terminals; and the development of port facilities with the least potential adverse environmental impacts while still providing for reasonable terminal development. BCDC uses the Seaport Plan in making port-related decisions on permit applications, consistency determinations, and related matters. C. Port Priority Use Areas Consistent with the Bay Plan, the Seaport Plan designates areas determined necessary for future port development as port priority use areas to reserve them for cargo handling or related uses. Port priority use areas are reserved for regional maritime port use and include within their premises marine terminals and directly related ancillary activities such as container freight stations, transit sheds and other temporary storage, ship repairing, support transportation uses including trucking and railroad yards, freight forwarders, government offices related to port activity, chandlers and marine services. Within port priority use areas, sites for marine terminals are identified and are reserved specifically for cargo handling operations. Using a cargo forecast, the Seaport Plan assigns a cargo type and amount that each existing and future marine terminal should be able to accommodate over the planning horizon. D. Seaport Plan Update On January 17, 2019, BCDC voted to initiate two Bay Plan amendments to update the Seaport Plan. Bay Plan Amendment (BPA) No. 1-19 is a general update of the Seaport Plan to revise the plan’s cargo forecasts and related policies, ensure consistency with updated Bay Plan policies, and update mapping and port priority use designations to reflect changes in port planning and operations. BPA No. 2-19 specifically addresses a request by the Oakland Athletics to remove the port priority use designation from Howard Terminal at the Port of Oakland to allow for the development of a baseball stadium and mixed-used district on and adjacent to the site. Ultimately, the SPAC will consider both amendments and provide its recommendations to the Commission. Any revisions to the Seaport Plan’s port priority use designations will require parallel revisions to the Bay Plan priority use maps and Resolution 16 to ensure consistency. The general update process is shown in Figure 1.

1 Note that the Seaport Plan also includes provisions for the Concord Naval Weapons Reservation, which is not named in Bay Plan Policy 1.

Page 4 October 19, 2020

Figure 1: Seaport Plan Update Process

As part of the Background Studies phase of the update, BCDC worked with consultants at the Tioga Group and Hackett Associates to prepare an updated regional forecast of oceangoing cargo and terminal capacity through 2050. The SPAC voted to accept the 2019-2050 Bay Area Seaport Forecast (Cargo Forecast) for the purpose of informing long-term regionwide policy and planning in the Seaport Plan update at its May 11, 2020, meeting. The final Cargo Forecast can be viewed on the BCDC website at https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/seaport/2019-2050-Bay-Area- Seaport-Forecast.pdf. The process is currently in the Alternatives phase, which will lead to the draft Seaport Plan, environmental assessments of the BPAs and, finally, public hearings. Upcoming milestones are described in further detail in the Next Steps section of this staff report. III. Alternatives Analysis The Alternatives Analysis will allow the SPAC to compare the potential effects of multiple land use and policy scenarios to inform its recommendations to staff and the Commission on the draft Seaport Plan update. Each Alternative will consist of proposed port priority use designation changes as well as any broad policy approaches the SPAC directs staff to evaluate. Staff has prepared the following three Preliminary Alternatives for the SPAC to consider; the SPAC may choose to confirm these three Preliminary Alternatives, make alterations to the Preliminary Alternatives, or request additional Alternatives for evaluation. The Preliminary Alternatives are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2 and are described in the sections below. Alternatives will be defined in further detail in collaboration with the ports and the Oakland Athletics during the evaluation. Table 1: Preliminary Alternatives Acreage Summary Port Priority 2012 Seaport Plan Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary Use Areas (No Project) Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Net Change Net Change Benicia 282 310 28 310 28 Oakland 1,627 1,627 0 1,570 -57 Redwood City 95 97 2 97 2 Richmond 438 434 -4 434 -4 San Francisco 284 248 -36 248 -36 Selby 76 76 0 76 0 Concord 1,601 1,601 0 1,601 0 Total 4,404 4,393 -10 4,336 -67

Page 5 October 19, 2020

Table 2: Preliminary Alternatives Characteristics Summary 2012 Seaport Plan (No Project) Preliminary Alternative 1 Preliminary Alternative 2 Includes all policies and • Benicia: Add Yuba site (28 • All proposed changes from designations in the existing acres) Preliminary Alternative 1 Seaport Plan with no changes. • Redwood City: Add up to • Oakland: Remove Howard 1.7 acres at Wharf 5 Terminal (57 acres) • Richmond: - Remove historic building and graving docks (4 acres) - Replace container designations with dry bulk and/or Ro-ro • San Francisco: - Remove Pier 48 - Reduce Pier 50 to 14- acre site and remove break bulk designation - Reduce Pier 70 to 11- acre site - Remove Pier 94N - Remove 15 acres from Pier 90-96 upland of Amador Street - Add 11 acres to Pier 90- 96 along shoreline • Selby: Consider whether to retain Selby in the Seaport Plan

Page 6 October 19, 2020

A. Preliminary Land Use Alternatives 1. 2012 Seaport Plan (No Project Alternative) The No Project Alternative reflects the existing 2012 Seaport Plan’s port priority use and terminal designations without any changes. The No Project Alternative allows the SPAC to consider the potential effect of the current Seaport Plan over the planning horizon if no changes were made. Note that figures for this section show the 2012 Seaport Plan’s port priority use area boundaries but include updated labels for terminals and other features. Benicia The Benicia port priority use area covers 282 acres,2 consisting of an area to the west of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge referred to as the Benicia Waterfront and an area to the east of the bridge referred to as Benicia Industries. The Benicia Waterfront includes a marine terminal with three active berths designated for neo-bulk3 and dry bulk cargoes. The Benicia Industries area includes storage area and is also designated as a water-related industry priority use area in the Bay Plan. The port priority use area is owned by AMPORTS, the private company that operates the Port of Benicia. Surrounding land uses include wetlands along the eastern shoreline, refinery and industrial uses on the northern uplands, and residential uses and downtown Benicia to the west. The current Benicia port priority use area is shown in Figure 2. Terminal designations are shown in Table 3. Note that this table may no longer reflect current acreage measurements or number of berths. Table 3: Benicia Terminal Designations (2012 Seaport Plan) Terminal Designation Terminal Cargo Effective No. Expected Total Acres Type of Berths Throughput Throughput Capability* Berths 1-3 Active 200 Neo-bulk 2.5 374,000 935,000 25 Dry bulk 0.5 600,000 300,000 Totals 225 3.0 *Denotes optimal annual throughput capability, in metric tons

2 Acreages given in this section were calculated using GIS (geographic information system) software based on mapped boundaries as depicted and may differ from acreages provided in other sources. 3 Neo-bulk is the cargo category that includes roll-on/roll-off (Ro-ro) cargo such as vehicles.

Page 7 October 19, 2020

Oakland The Oakland port priority use area covers 1,627 acres, including six marine terminals, 25 designated berths, and railway connections at the Port of Oakland, the Union Pacific railyard, and the privately-owned Schnitzer Steel recycling facility. All Port of Oakland terminals are currently designated for container cargo, and Schnitzer Steel is designated for dry bulk cargo. Of the six terminals at Oakland, four are currently handling routine vessel operations and two are being used for ancillary businesses; a portion of one of the two ancillary use terminals is being considered for non-containerized cargo operations. The Port of Oakland notes that only 18 of its berths are considered functional due to the size of container vessels calling at Oakland. Surrounding land uses include the Bay Bridge and Gateway Development Area (formerly part of the Oakland Army Base) to the north, the neighborhood of West Oakland to the east, and Jack London Square also to the east. The current Oakland port priority use area is shown in Figure 3. Terminal designations are shown in Table 4. Note that this table may no longer reflect current acreage measurements or number of berths. Table 4: Oakland Terminal Designations (2012 Seaport Plan) Terminal Designation Terminal Cargo Effective Expected Total Acres Type No. of Throughput Throughput Berths Capability* Outer Harbor Active 295 Container 5 1,446,975 7,234,875 Terminal Area (assumes 29 acres of fill) Seventh Street Active 205 Container 5 1,005,525 5,027,625 Harbor Terminal Area Middle Harbor Terminal Area FISCO Future (under 330 Container 5 1,618,650 8,093,250 construction)

APL Active 121 Container 2 1,483,763 2,967,525 Inner Harbor Active 49 Container 2 600,863 1,201,725 Area Schnitzer Steel Active 60 Dry Bulk 2 1,037,000 2,074,000 Totals 1,060 21 N/A Container 1,000 19 24,525,000 Dry Bulk 60 2 2,074,000 *Denotes optimal annual throughput capability, in metric tons

Page 8 October 19, 2020

Redwood City The Redwood City port priority use area covers 95 acres (a portion of which is owned by CEMEX Aggregates), including three deep water berths with five active wharves in the Port of Redwood City maritime wharf area and a proposed future ferry terminal adjacent to and north of wharves 1 and 2. The Seaport Plan designates the Port of Redwood City’s marine terminals for a mix of dry bulk, neo-bulk, and liquid bulk cargo types, and a future terminal designated at the CEMEX site is designated for dry bulk. Surrounding land uses include the Bair Island State Marine Park to the west, an office park and Cargill salt ponds to the east, and light industrial uses to the south. The current Redwood City port priority use area is shown in Figure 4. Terminal designations are shown in Table 5. Note that this table may no longer reflect current acreage measurements or number of berths. Table 5: Redwood City Terminal Designations (2012 Seaport Plan) Terminal Designation Terminal Cargo Type Effective Expected Total Acres No. of Throughput Throughput Berths Capability* Wharves 1-2 Active 6 Dry Bulk 1.0 1,293,000 1,293,000 Wharf 3 Active 5 Neo Bulk 0.6 853,000 511,800 5 Dry Bulk 0.4 1,293,000 517,200 Wharf 4 Active 6 Liquid Bulk 1.0 90,000 90,000 Wharf 5 Active 15 Liquid Bulk 0.6 90,000 54,000 Break Bulk 0.4 128,000 51,200 Ideal Cement Future 10 Dry Bulk 1.0 1,293,000 1,293,000 Totals Break Bulk 47 5.0 51,200 Neo-Bulk 5 0.5 511,800 Dry Bulk 5 0.6 3,103,200 Liquid Bulk 16 2.4 144,000 21 1.6 *Denotes optimal annual throughput capability, in metric tons

Richmond The Richmond port priority use area covers 438 acres and includes three terminals owned and leased by the Port of Richmond as well as 10 privately owned and operated terminals. The Seaport Plan provides for two Port of Richmond terminals and five private terminals designated for container, neo-bulk, liquid bulk, or dry bulk cargo. Surrounding land uses include open space, residences, and a marina to the west, the Chevron refinery to the northwest, residences across the 580 freeway to the north, the Richmond Ferry Terminal and the Rosie the Riveter National Historic Park to the east. The current Richmond port priority use area is shown in Figure 5. Terminal designations are shown in Table 6. Note that this table may no longer reflect current acreage measurements or number of berths.

Page 9 October 19, 2020

Table 6: Richmond Terminal Designations (2012 Seaport Plan) Terminal Designation Terminal Cargo Effective Expected Total Acres Type No. of Throughput Throughput Berths Capability* Terminal 2-3 Future 80 Container 2.0 209,000 418,000 Includes area NW and Neo-Bulk 2.0 286,000 572,000 S of Terminals 2 and 3 Terminals 5-6-7 Future 140 Container 3.0 760,000 2,280,000 Assumes 33 acres of fill and near-dock intermodal rail facilities ARCO Terminal Future 20 Container 0.5 209,000 104,500 Neo-Bulk 0.5 286,000 143,000 Kinder-Morgan Active 12 Liquid 1.0 148,000 148,000 Bulk Santa Fe NW Future 13 Dry Bulk 1.0 1,037,000 1,037,000 National Gypsum Active 22 Dry Bulk 1.0 1,037,000 1,037,000 Levin-Richmond Active 25 1.0b 1,037,000 103,7000

Totals Containera 190 5.5 2,802,500 Neo-Bulk 50 2.5 715,000 Dry Bulk 60 3.0 3,111,000 Liquid Bulk 12 1.0 148,000 *Denotes optimal annual throughput capability, in metric tons a. Includes combined container/neo-bulk terminal acreage. b. Although the Levin-Richmond Terminal has three berths, the effective capacity is equal to one berth.

San Francisco The San Francisco port priority use area covers 284 acres across three areas along the city’s southern waterfront, covering Piers 48 and 50 at Mission Rock, 70 at China Basin, and 80 through 96 at Islais Creek. The Seaport Plan designates three container terminals at the Port of San Francisco, including a future terminal at Pier 94N that assumes 10 acres of fill. Three terminals are designated for a combination of dry bulk, liquid bulk, break bulk, and neo-bulk. Land uses surrounding Piers 48 and 50 include high density residential buildings, medical campuses, and the Chase Center arena. Pier 70 is located near the Dogpatch neighborhood of San Francisco and the proposed Potrero Power Station mixed-use development. Pier 80-96 constitute the Port of San Francisco’s Maritime Eco-Industrial Center and are surrounded by Heron’s Head Park and various industrial and light industrial uses, with the Bayview neighborhood located nearby. The current San Francisco port priority use area is shown in Figure 6. Terminal designations are shown in Table 7. Note that this table may no longer reflect current acreage measurements or number of berths.

Page 10 October 19, 2020

Table 7: San Francisco Terminal Designations (2012 Seaport Plan) Terminal Designation Terminal Cargo Type Effective Expected Total Acres No. of Throughput Throughput Berths Capability* Pier 94-96 Active 80 Container 3 749,000 2,247,000 Pier 94N Future 40 Container 1 749,000 749,000 Assumes 10 acres of fill Pier 80 Inactive 65 Container 2 749,000 1,498,000

Pier 90-92 Inactive 12 Dry Bulk 1 1,219,000 1,219,000 Active 13 Liquid Bulk 1 118,000 118,000 Pier 70 Ship Repair 16 - - - - Pier 50 Inactive 24 Break Bulk 4 78,000 312,000 Pier 48 Inactive 9 Neo-Bulk 2 103,000 206,000 Totals Container 185 6 4,494,000 Break-Bulk 24 4 312,000 Neo-Bulk 9 2 206,000 Dry Bulk 12 1 1,219,000 Liquid Bulk 13 1 118,000 *Denotes optimal annual throughput capability, in metric tons

Selby The Selby port priority use area does not cover any active port or terminals but reserves a 76- acre site in Contra Costa County for a potential future marine terminal. This site is also designated in the Seaport Plan as a water-related industry priority use area. The Seaport Plan designates this future terminal as a five-berth liquid bulk terminal. Most of the port priority use area is held in trust by the State Lands Commission, though a small portion is owned by C.S. Land, an affiliate of Phillips 66 Company. The State Lands Commission also leases its portion of the site to C.S. Land authorizing the company to hold the Commission’s portion of the site in an “undeveloped state.” The site is listed on the State of California’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, or Cortese List, and is undergoing remediation. The Selby port priority use area was previously the site of a smelting operation (the American Smelting and Refining Company, ASARCO) that produced slag as a waste product and deposited on the site. In 1977, Wickland Oil Company purchased the smelter with the intention of developing a coal terminal; however, studies conducted in the early 1980s determined that the slag was hazardous and required remediation. The site was leveled and covered with an asphalt cap in 1992, when the initial cleanup measures where completed. However, studies conducted in the early 2000s found the presence of toxic metals in the slag that were affecting the Bay. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is overseeing the ongoing clean-up process, for which the State Lands Commission, C.S. Land, and ASARCO are responsible parties. Given the hazardous nature of the site, future development opportunities in the port priority use area may be limited.

Page 11 October 19, 2020

Surrounding land uses include some residential uses and the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery. The current Selby port priority use area is shown in Figure 7. Terminal designations are shown in Table 8. Table 8: Selby Terminal Designations (2012 Seaport Plan) Terminal Designation Terminal Cargo Effective No. Expected Total Acres Type of Berths Throughput Throughput Capability* Berths 1-5 Future 60 Liquid 5 118,000 590,000 Bulk Totals 60 5 590,000 *Denotes optimal annual throughput capability, in metric tons Concord Naval Weapons Reservation (Concord) The Concord port priority use area covers 1,601 acres currently occupied by a portion of the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) and used for the shipping of munitions. The Seaport Plan reserves this site “to be considered for bulk cargo marine terminal development if the Navy ceases its munitions operations” there. It should be noted that the Navy transferred the MOTCO property to the Army in 2005, which oversees the site’s current operations. Surrounding land uses include the larger MOTCO property, wetlands along the Suisun Bay shoreline, and an industrial use and residential communities to the east. The current Concord port priority use area is shown in Figure 8. There are no terminal designations in place for Concord.

Figure 2: Benicia Port Priority Use Area (2012 Seaport Plan) Figure 3: Oakland Port Priority Use Area (2012 Seaport Plan) Figure 4: Redwood City Port Priority Use Area (2012 Seaport Plan) Figure 5: Richmond Port Priority Use Area (2012 Seaport Plan) Figure 6: San Francisco Port Priority Use Area (2012 Seaport Plan) Figure 7: Selby Port Priority Use Area (2012 Seaport Plan) Figure 8: Concord Port Priority Use Area (2012 Seaport Plan) Page 19 October 19, 2020

2. Alternative 1: BPA 1-19 Revisions Preliminary Alternative 1 includes a series of proposed map revisions to accommodate changes in planning and operations at three of the Bay Area ports. If made, these revisions would be part of BPA 1-19. Benicia AMPORTS has identified four parcels totaling 28 acres adjacent to the western boundary of the existing port priority use area, also known as the “Yuba site,” to be designated as port priority use. The site had previously been designated for port priority use but was removed from the port priority use area in 2003 as part of BPA 2-02 when the port operator and the City of Benicia were considering other development scenarios for the site. At the time, it was determined that removing the parcels would not affect regional throughput for Ro-ro cargo. AMPORTS has stated that its property demands for Ro-ro cargo have risen significantly since that time and are now seeking to redesignate the site to facilitate its inclusion in the port’s cargo activities. The proposed change area for the Port of Benicia is shown in Figure 9. Redwood City The Port of Redwood City is planning an expansion of Wharf 5 to accommodate a new Omni- Terminal that could accommodate break-bulk and neo-bulk cargoes, as described in the Port of Redwood City 2020 Vision Plan. The expansion would include land to the south of Wharf 5 that is not currently designated as port priority use. the Port of Redwood City is requesting that the port priority use area be extended to include the expansion area. The Port of Redwood City is studying two different development scenarios – one in which the expansion of the port priority use area would be 1.2 acres and another where it would be 1.7 acres. Preliminary Alternative 1 would allow for the evaluation of a 1.2- to 1.7-acre addition to the port priority use area. The proposed change of up to 1.7 acres is shown in Figure 10. Richmond The Port of Richmond has requested that the port priority use designation be removed from the graving docks and a building south of the Point Potrero Marine Terminal due to their historic status. The graving docks are part of the National Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historical Park. Policy 6 in the 2012 Seaport Plan calls for 15 acres of fill in the graving docks, which is inconsistent with the City of Richmond’s desire to preserve the site. This change would result in the removal of approximately four acres from the port priority use designation and the revision of policies that call for the development of a future 3-berth container terminal in and adjacent to that area. Additionally, the Port of Richmond is no longer considered a feasible location for container cargo due to limited backland, as noted in the Cargo Forecast. Based on findings in the Cargo Forecast, any terminals at Richmond would be better designated for Dry Bulk and/or Neo-Bulk/Ro-ro. The proposed change is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 9: Benicia Preliminary Alternative 1 Change Area Figure 10: Redwood City Preliminary Alternative 1 Change Area Figure 11: Richmond Preliminary Alternative 1 Change Area Page 23 October 19, 2020

San Francisco The Port of San Francisco has requested the following designation changes that would result in an approximately 36-acre reduction of the port priority use area as depicted in Figure 12. • Piers 48 and 50. Pier 48 and seawall lot 337 should be removed from the port priority use area per Assembly Bill (AB) 2797 (Chiu, 2016), which found that the pier is a contributor to the Embarcadero Historic District and that the pier is no longer viable for break bulk cargo operations, and deemed the site to be free of the port priority use designation as of January 1, 2017. At Pier 50, the Port of San Francisco has requested that the break bulk cargo terminal designation be removed and that the port priority use area be reduced to 14 acres on the eastern portion of the pier. While the pier continues to be an operational deep- water berth, the Port of San Francisco finds that it is no longer viable for break bulk and suggest it be reserved for maritime purposes (berthing and operations) and port maintenance facilities rather than cargo. • Pier 70. At Pier 70, the Port of San Francisco proposes the removal of a two-acre parking lot from the port priority use area as well as the removal of 10 historic buildings that are contributors to the Union Iron Works Historic District to facilitate the repair and rehabilitation of the historic structures, which would not financially feasible or suitable for maritime purposes. These buildings are marked as #38, #103, #107, #108, #109, #111, #120, and #121 in Figure 13. Removal of the parking lot and historic buildings would leave an 11-acre port priority use area at Pier 70. • Pier 80-96. The Port of San Francisco proposes the removal of three sites from the port priority use area at Pier 80-96. The 2012 Seaport Plan includes a policy to create a container berth with an assumed 10 acres of fill at Pier 94N; however, the Port of San Francisco has requested that this site be removed due to the presence of emergent wetland. The Port of San Francisco has also requested the removal of two sites upland of Amador Street due to their significantly higher elevation relative to the bulk cargo terminals. Additionally, the Port of San Francisco has requested that a 10.6-acre area be added to the port priority use area between Pier 92 and Pier 94 to reflect current dry bulk operations. The Port of San Francisco has also proposed that the terminals be redesignated for different cargo types as described in Table 9. As noted in the Cargo Forecast, San Francisco no longer handles container cargo, which has consolidated at the Port of Oakland, and is unlikely to be attractive to container shipping lines in the future. Note that while the Port of San Francisco is seeking a change in designation at Pier 90-92 to Dry Bulk, it also seeks an option to utilize Pier 90 and Pier 96S for a maritime industrial business instead should the financial requirements to improve the on-site facilities not be supported by dry bulk operations.

Figure 12: San Francisco Preliminary Alternative 1 Change Area Figure 13: Location of Historic Buildings to Be Removed from San Francisco Port Priority Use Page 26 October 19, 2020

Table 9: Port of San Francisco Proposed Terminal Designation Changes Terminal 2012 Seaport Plan Proposed Designation Designation Pier 80 Container Neo-bulk Pier 90-92 Dry and Liquid Bulk Dry Bulk1 Pier 94-96 Container Dry Bulk or Neo-Bulk 1. Port seeks a provision to allow Pier 90 to be used for maritime industrial business instead of a dry bulk terminal.

Selby During the Seaport Plan update process, BCDC has received public comment from community members of Rodeo and Crockett in the vicinity of the Selby port priority use area requesting that the port priority use designation be removed from the site (see Attachment A). The commenters are concerned about the potential environmental, health, and economic impacts a possible future port operation would have on the surrounding community. The commenters have also previously expressed concern that the liquid bulk designation on the future Selby terminals could allow petroleum-related uses on the site, particularly potential expansion of inbound crude oil shipping at the adjacent Phillips 66 refinery. Petroleum is not included in the liquid bulk terminal designation (it is covered under water-related industry), although other liquids such as vegetable oils or chemicals would be. Selby has been designated for port priority use since 1982, when the original Seaport Plan added a port priority use designation to the previously existing water-related industry priority use designation due to the site’s deep-water access. The current terminal designation for Selby was established in 1996, when the Seaport Plan found that the flat geography and access to rail and freeways would be conducive to the development of a five-berth bulk terminal. Given the needs highlighted in the cargo forecast at the time, the Seaport Plan designated the site for liquid bulk but acknowledged that it could be developed for other bulk cargo. The Cargo Forecast completed for the Seaport Plan update does not include projections for Selby in the inventory of usable terminal land due to the uncertainties surrounding the mitigation and cleanup plan and the range of permissible uses. The Cargo Forecast does include an appendix that describes the history and ongoing cleanup of the site. As stated in the Cargo Forecast, the draft cleanup approach anticipates that the Selby site would eventually be suitable for selected industrial use, but that while rail and highway access from the site is good, vessel access may be limited because nearby waters are shallow and dredging may not be feasible due to the presence of contaminated sediments. Thus, use for neo-bulk or dry bulk cargo may or may not eventually be feasible depending on final cleanup methods and resulting conditions. Use for liquid bulk would depend on vessel access and the ability of the site to support storage tanks or transfer facilities. Given these uncertainties, staff does not recommend retaining the terminal designations for the Selby site as part of the Seaport Plan update. Moreover, staff would like the SPAC to consider whether the port priority use designation should remain on Selby for this update. Although no agency or landowner associated with Selby has requested a designation change,

Page 27 October 19, 2020 the Commission has the ability to propose designation changes based on the suitability of the site for long-term regional port planning. Thus, staff suggests evaluating the potential removal of the Selby port priority use designation to support a discussion of whether this site should remain in port priority use in the updated Seaport Plan. 3. Alternative 2: BPA 1-19 and BPA 2-19 Revisions Preliminary Alternative 2 includes all of the revisions proposed in Preliminary Alternative 1, as well as the removal of Howard Terminal from the Port of Oakland port priority use area as part of BPA 2-19 (Figure 14). The Oakland Athletics have proposed the removal of the port priority use designation from an approximately 57-acre area that includes Howard Terminal and properties owned by Vistra and Pacific Gas & Electric. The 2012 Seaport Plan designates Howard Terminal as a two-berth Container terminal. The terminal was last used as a cargo terminal by Matson, which terminated its lease at Howard Terminal in 2014. Since 2014, Howard Terminal has been used for a mix of ancillary uses, including longshore worker training, truck parking and staging, container and chassis storage, cargo transloading, layberthing, and tugboat docking. Additionally, the Port of Oakland and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are currently studying the feasibility of widening the Inner Harbor Turning Basin, which would involve a portion of Howard Terminal, to accommodate the increasing sizes of container ships calling at the port. The purpose of the revision would be to facilitate the Oakland Athletics’ proposal to develop a Major League baseball stadium on the waterfront, along with mixed-use development, supporting infrastructure, and public access. By adopting this designation change, the Commission would not be approving the proposed development, which must also receive project approvals from the City of Oakland, the State Lands Commission, DTSC, and the Port of Oakland, as well as the approval of a major permit from BCDC. Per AB 1191 (Bonta, 2019), BCDC must determine within 140 days following the certification by the City of a project-level environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed stadium development whether the project site is no longer required for port priority use and may be removed from the port priority use area. Additionally, AB 1191 provides that if the Oakland Athletics have not entered into a binding agreement by January 1, 2025 that allows for the construction of the proposed development, then the port priority use designation shall be automatically reinstated on the site. The City of Oakland is currently completing work on the Draft EIR for the proposed stadium development and is anticipating publication in early 2021.

Figure 14: Howard Terminal Preliminary Alternative 2 Change Area Page 29 October 19, 2020

B. Topics for Evaluation The SPAC’s next deliberation, anticipated to take place at its next meeting, will be on the land use designations and policy approaches to direct staff to include in the updated Seaport Plan for the Commission’s consideration. In order to ensure that the SPAC has adequate information to complete its discussion and make a recommendation, staff will prepare a high-level evaluation comparing the performance of each Alternative across a number of topics. Staff recommends that the evaluation include the following topics. • Cargo throughput. Compare each Alternative in terms of the findings of the Cargo Forecast, estimating how proposed land use designations could affect capacity for different cargo types and whether this could result in a surplus or shortfall in capacity under the each of the Cargo Forecast’s demand scenarios. Per SPAC direction from its May 11, 2020, meeting, staff will not consider the capacity of areas outside of the Seaport Plan’s jurisdiction for this evaluation. • Port planning and operations. Consider ways in which proposed land use designations could directly or indirectly affect operations at the ports, and how each Alternative fits into the ports’ planning and long-term strategies. • Land use consistency. Describe how proposed designations are consistent or inconsistent with land use designations and zoning of local jurisdictions. • Land use compatibility. Describe surrounding land uses and whether there may be any potential land use conflicts related to the proposed designations. • Bay fill. Consider whether proposed designations would have a direct impact on the amount of Bay fill required in the future. • Public access. Describe how proposed designations may affect public access to the Bay. • Environmental justice. Consider any potential effects the proposed designations would have on environmental justice concerns in near-port communities, such as public health and quality of life concerns. • Climate change and sea level rise. Consider the effect proposed designations may have on port and community exposure to climate change-related hazards. The SPAC may request additional topics be evaluated and/or provide specific direction on the manner in which the topics are analyzed, including data or other information. Note that CEQA- equivalent programmatic environmental assessments will be conducted for both BPA 1-19 and BPA 2-19 prior to the Commission hearings on the amendments. The environmental assessments will take place following the drafting of the updated Seaport Plan and will not be available as part of the Alternatives Analysis.

Page 30 October 19, 2020

IV. Policy Considerations In addition to any potential revisions to the port priority use area boundaries, the Seaport Plan update will also include revisions to general and port-specific policies. At this time, the SPAC can give direction on broad policy approaches and strategies that staff will explore and further refine as the project continues. This section introduces the policy areas included in the Seaport Plan as well as some generalized approaches to policy updates. The SPAC may consider these and provide additional suggestions or direction for further research. The SPAC may also request that various policy approaches be evaluated as part of the Alternatives Analysis. A. Policy Scope of Seaport Plan The Seaport Plan includes the following five goals: 1. Ensure the continuation of the San Francisco Bay port system as a major world port and contributor to the economic vitality of the San Francisco Bay region; 2. Maintain or improve the environmental quality of San Francisco Bay and its environs; 3. Provide for the efficient use of finite physical and fiscal resources consumed in developing and operating marine terminals through the year 2020; 4. Provide for integrated and improved surface transportation facilities between San Francisco Bay ports and terminals and other regional transportation systems; and 5. Reserve sufficient shoreline areas to accommodate future growth in maritime cargo, thereby minimizing the need for new Bay fill for port development. To accomplish these goals, the plan includes findings and policies in the following sections: • Cargo Forecast. This section includes brief findings on a cargo forecast (currently through the year 2020) for container, break bulk, neo-bulk, dry bulk, and liquid bulk cargoes. The policies link port improvements in the Bay Area to the forecast, seeking to ensure that the cargo needs reflected in the cargo can be met. • Port Priority Use Areas. The findings in this section establish the rationale for reserving areas for port priority use and state BCDC’s expectations for the development of port priority use areas. The policies in this section further define the conditions for developing port priority use areas, including allowable and interim uses. • Marine Terminals. This section includes requirements for marine terminals, tying the development of the terminals to the Seaport Plan’s cargo forecast and stating conditions under which Bay fill for terminals may or may not be approved. • Container Terminals. The findings describe trends in container shipping and the policies establish some general development standards for container terminal development, as well as allowable uses for terminals designated for container cargo. • Bulk Terminals. The findings describe trends in bulk cargo, and current policies set monitoring requirements for cargo, state conditions under which terminals designated

Page 31 October 19, 2020

for one use can serve a different use, and set backland acreage requirements for various types of bulk cargo. • Dredging and Navigation. This section includes findings and policies that recognize the need to ensure that navigation channels in the Bay are sufficiently deep, wide, and maintained to accommodate shipping vessels. • Ground Transportation. The Ground Transportation section includes findings and policies related to rail and truck transport and promoting the efficient transport of cargo to and from the ports on rail and roadway networks. • Designations. Part II of the Seaport Plan contains policies for the port priority use areas at each of the Bay Area ports, as well as Selby and Concord, which are not active ports but are held in reserve as port priority use areas. All sections include an inventory of existing terminals and policies establishing expected future throughput capacity of existing and planned terminals based on the cargo forecast. Each of these sections will be reviewed and revised as part of the Seaport Plan update. B. Sea Level Rise Strategy In 2011, BCDC adopted Climate Change findings and policies into the Bay Plan, recognizing the various ways climate change and related rises in sea level could affect the communities in BCDC’s jurisdiction. The policies establish a basis for evaluating projects based on their resiliency to projected rises in sea level as well as a framework for coordinating a regional adaptation strategy. The 2012 Seaport Plan does not address the potential for sea level rise to affect long-term port planning and operations. The Seaport Plan update is an opportunity to recognize this emergent issue and support actions to ensure the resiliency of the Bay Area’s port system. BCDC’s Adapting to Rising Tides (ART) program published Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Area: Regional Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Study in March 2020.4 This effort included a vulnerability analysis of the ports in terms of their role in the Bay Area transportation network. In general, the study found that due to the size and specialized role of each port, there is little redundancy within the port system; a disruption at any one of the ports could have significant negative impacts on the region’s economy. While many seaport facilities may not be directly exposed to near-term flood hazards, the on- and off-site facilities and services on which the ports rely—including utilities, pipelines, and transportation systems—can be damaged by temporary or permanent flooding as sea levels rise. In addition, infrastructure located under

4 Adapting to Rising Tides 2020. Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Area: Regional Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Study. BCDC and MTC/ABAG, San Francisco CA. Online: http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/project/art-bay-area/.

Page 32 October 19, 2020 wharves could be vulnerable to damage from increased tidal and wave energy connected to sea level rise. The study examined the exposure of each seaport to flooding impacts measured in area as well as the consequence of flooding impacts measured in dollar value of imports and exports. Figure 15, excerpted from the study, shows the percentage of port area affected by flooding at each of the five Bay Area ports. Figure 15: Highest Percent of Seaport Area Flooded by Seaport for Seaport Plan Ports

Notes: Darker colors reflect greater consequences from flooding. Source: Excerpted from Figure 2-44 of Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Area: Regional Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Study (BCDC, 2020). This figure has been modified to show only ports in the Seaport Plan. The study found that the ports of Benicia, Richmond, Oakland, and San Francisco ranked in the top five ports for highest consequences at one or more TWL in terms of impacts to dollar value of exports and imports, along with the Port of Martinez, which is not included in the Seaport Plan. Figure 16 is excerpted from the study and shows the dollar value of imports and exports impacted by flooding at different TWLs. Note that the Port of Redwood City was not a part of the original figure because it did not rank in the top five of the ports included in the study, which covered a number of ports not in the Seaport Plan’s jurisdiction.

Page 33 October 19, 2020

Figure 16: Highest Dollar Value of Exports and Imports Impacted by Flooding by Seaport for Seaport Plan Ports

Notes: Seaports with highest impacts by flooding at ten TWLs as measured by impacts to dollar value of exports and imports in millions. “Highest” impacts refer to seaports ranking in the top five for highest consequences at one or more TWL. Darker colors reflect greater consequences. Source: Excerpted from Figure 2-44 of Adapting to Rising Tides Bay Area: Regional Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Study (BCDC, 2020). This figure has been modified to show only ports in the Seaport Plan. Regionally, impacts to seaport operations worsen between 48” and 52” TWL and between 52” and 66” TWL. These are both largely driven by increases in flooding at the Port of Oakland and Port of San Francisco. Significant outliers of high impacts to seaports include the dramatic consequence of flooding at the Port of Oakland, which is the main contributor for the most significant threshold change among the seaports. Snapshots of the five ports at 66” TWL are provided in Figure 17; images were taken from BCDC’s Bay Area Flood Explorer tool.5 Aspects of port operations that may contribute to vulnerability include the reliance on networked transportation, including rail and highway transportation, that are at risk of flooding throughout the region, reliance on utilities and shore power that may be vulnerable to disruption on flooding, the siting of some port facilities on historic Bay fill, and complex and varied systems of authority that govern decision-making processes at each port that may present challenges to multi-jurisdictional collaboration. Additionally, ports play a role in providing emergency services and shoreline protection to upland communities and are therefore key elements of the resiliency of the region as a whole.6

5Access the Bay Area Flood Explorer at https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/explorer. 6 Adapting to Rising Tides 2020.

Page 34 October 19, 2020

Figure 17: Bay Area Ports at 66” TWL

Benicia Oakland

Redwood City Richmond

Depth of Flooding

San Francisco Source: Bay Area Flood Explorer, 2019. Each of the Bay Area ports has a unique set of challenges related to rising sea levels due to factors such as geography, site features, operating methods, local planning efforts, available resources, etc. Thus, every port has a different approach to sea level rise adaptation, ranging from proactively undertaking detailed studies assessing risks to different port assets with partner agencies to inform adaptation projects, to waiting for future development proposals to negotiate infrastructure improvements. Additionally, in accordance with AB 691 (Muratsuchi, 2019), the ports of Benicia, Oakland, and San Francisco, as local trustees of granted public trust lands, were required to submit sea level rise adaptation assessments to the State Lands Commission in 2019. In general, adaptation efforts at the ports are in the early stages.

Page 35 October 19, 2020

Interviews with port staff have helped BCDC identify an area of potential need that the Seaport Plan could begin to address. As the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan recognize, seaports are part of the Bay Area’s critical infrastructure, playing roles in the region’s economic stability, supply distribution, and emergency response. As suitable land for port operations is a limited resource, it is important that ports are able to adapt in place to rising sea levels. Staff at the Port of San Francisco recommended that BCDC clearly state this need in the Seaport Plan and seek ways to facilitate multi-jurisdictional cooperation for port adaptation, particularly around the allocation of resources to meet the likely high costs of adaptation projects that the ports would not be able to fund on their own. Additionally, staff at the Port of Oakland recognized that cooperation with other agencies and community members is essential, as addressing specific port vulnerabilities may mean implementing adaptation projects beyond port property and some adaptation projects themselves may have unintended effects on neighboring sites. The ART Bay Area study has a companion Adaptation Responses spreadsheet, which includes potential adaptation responses for the eight Regional Key Planning Issues identified in the project.7 Additionally, in a 2013 report titled Adaptation Responses for the Alameda County ART Project,8 the ART program presented a series of potential actions to address different vulnerabilities in Alameda County. The following policy approaches are stances BCDC could potentially take in the Seaport Plan derived from those suggested actions: • Work with regional partners to develop a decision-making framework for selecting resilient multi-objective adaptation responses that are appropriate for port contexts, identifying economic, environmental, and social equity trade-offs. • Promote community participation in port adaptation efforts • Commit to further study of the Bay Area transportation system, working with regional partners to identify port-specific vulnerabilities and opportunities, and supporting local and regional efforts to manage transportation assets critical to port functions. • Facilitate access to sea level rise data and related information to assist ports, local governments, and other agencies and organizations in adaptation planning. • Promote inter-agency cooperation and public-private partnerships around shared infrastructure management and adaptation objectives. • Develop resources to advise and otherwise support ports in best practices around risk assessment, adaptation strategies, and collaboration.

7 The Adaptation Responses spreadsheet can be reached from http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/project/art- bay-area/. 8 Adapting to Rising Tides 2013. Adaptation Responses. BCDC. Online: http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/Adaptation_Responses_Intro-All.pdf.

Page 36 October 19, 2020

• Direct ports to consider and address risks from rising groundwater and provide guidance on best practices. C. Ground Transportation The 2012 Seaport Plan states that it constitutes the maritime element of MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and previous iterations of the Seaport Plan have also served this purpose. However, the Seaport Plan is not currently used as such by MTC nor does MTC intend to adopt the updated Seaport Plan as part of its RTP at this time. Rather, MTC continues to participate in the Seaport Plan update process as part of the SPAC while BCDC is participating as a stakeholder in MTC’s RTP update – Plan Bay Area 2050. The Ground Transportation section in its current state includes several policies that apply to decisions outside of BCDC’s jurisdiction, such as those around transportation project prioritization and funding, meaning that carrying existing policies forward would not effectively serve the region. Nevertheless, there may be some room for the updated Seaport Plan to continue furthering the goal of promoting integrated and improved surface transportation facilities at the ports. There may be opportunities to support the continued use and improvement of rail facilities and/or consider the availability and siting of ancillary uses related to truck movement. D. Environmental Justice The State of California defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." In 2019, BCDC adopted Environmental Justice and Social Equity findings and policies into the Bay Plan (BPA 2-17), as well as Resolution 2019-07 to uphold a set of Environmental Justice and Social Equity Guiding Principles. The newly adopted policies include requirements for permit applicants to include meaningful community involvement in their projects, identify and address disproportionate project impacts, and adhere to public access, shoreline protection, and mitigation standards intended to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the development process. The policies also require the Commission to consider the Guiding Principles in all of its actions and activities, which include the following: • Recognize and acknowledge the California Native American communities who first inhabited the Bay Area and their cultural connection to the natural resources of the region. • Maintain its commitment to ensuring that the Bay remains a public resource, free and safe for all to access and use regardless of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic information, or disability. • Continually strive to build trust and partnerships with underrepresented communities and community-based organizations.

Page 37 October 19, 2020

• Endeavor to eliminate disproportionate adverse economic, environmental, and social project impacts caused by Commission actions and activities, particularly in disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. • Ensure that the needs of vulnerable shoreline communities are addressed as the Commission assists all stakeholders to plan for current and future climate hazards. • Work collaboratively and coordinate with all stakeholders to address issues of environmental justice and social equity. • Continually build accountability, transparency, and accessibility into its programs and processes. In following these principles, BCDC must recognize the disproportionate environmental burdens often experienced by near-port communities given the industrial nature of cargo-handling operations. In its 2020 Environmental Justice Primer for Ports,9 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) identifies a number of common health and environmental impacts that can result from port activities, including those related to air pollution (specifically exposure to diesel particulate), water quality, light and noise, and quality of life. Moreover, port communities often also face barriers to addressing their concerns through participation in established decision-making processes. The Seaport Plan update is an opportunity for BCDC to identify the environmental justice concerns of communities surrounding the Bay Area ports and, where possible, establish policies to help improve environmental health conditions and meaningful community engagement in those areas. In this way, while fulfilling BCDC’s responsibility to promote environmental justice and social equity, the Seaport Plan would also be advancing its goals to ensure the continuation of the San Francisco Bay port system and improve the environmental quality of San Francisco Bay and its environs. As noted by the US EPA, collaborative efforts between ports and their communities have the potential to help avoid risks and losses from regulatory delays, litigation, and lack of community support, and can provide a foundation for further innovation. BCDC staff is in the process of conducting an environmental justice assessment for the Seaport Plan update that will describe conditions and concerns in the communities surrounding the port priority use areas. Thus far, some potential policy approaches that have been identified include: • Facilitating participatory planning, which could be achieved through actions such as: - Supporting community-led and -inclusive studies;

9 US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality 2020. Environmental Justice Primer for Ports: The Good Neighbor Guide to Building Partnerships and Social Equity with Communities. Online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100YMNT.pdf.

Page 38 October 19, 2020

- Supporting ports and local jurisdictions in their assessments of health impacts, hazard exposure, and socio-economic data to further the understanding of environmental justice issues at the local level; - Promoting community representation on BCDC committees and in BCDC proceedings, including in the seaport planning process; - Supporting the creation of structures within port agencies to engage and improve accessibility for community members and advocates; - Committing to improving BCDC’s processes in order to effectively facilitate and mediate port-related planning issues when needed; - Facilitating information exchanges and mutual learning activities among port stakeholders and community members; and - Providing guidance for what BCDC would consider meaningful engagement for projects in the port context. In many cases, these actions would be building on ongoing community engagement and equitable participatory planning efforts at BCDC. • Facilitating the reduction of environmental and social impacts, which would rely on identifying specific community concerns and may be limited given BCDC’s jurisdiction; however, the Seaport Plan could potentially address concerns, such as those related to truck movement and parking, through land use policy or leveraging partnerships and inter-agency coordination. E. Seaport Planning More generally, the update process gives BCDC a chance to reconsider its approach to seaport planning. Thus far, the following two issues have been raised: • Timeliness and accuracy of projections. There is an unavoidable level of uncertainty related to the long-term demand and capacity projections used in the Seaport Plan. There may be an opportunity to increase confidence in the projections if they were conducted more frequently, such as every five years, to allow for corrections and if they were broken into mid- and long-term projections. Access to more frequently updated forecasts could also allow for more regular maintenance and routine updates of the Seaport Plan’s designations and policies. The SPAC may also want to consider ways that the Seaport Plan could leverage port-specific projections conducted as part of each port’s own planning efforts to allow for more fine-grained information. The Seaport Plan currently includes policies providing for ongoing monitoring of the region’s maritime cargo volumes, marine terminal use, and ship calls. BCDC provides the SPAC with an annual report on berth uses and cargo volumes moved through Bay Area ports. This data is intended to provide a basis for ongoing review of the Seaport Plan findings and policies for cargo terminal designations and was intended to eliminate the need to update the cargo forecast every five years. While this monitoring is

Page 39 October 19, 2020

implemented on an ongoing basis, it has not prevented the current version of the Seaport Plan from carrying over outdated data and policies. • Quality versus quantity of port priority use land. While the SPAC was reviewing the Cargo Forecast, BCDC heard feedback from port staff, operators, members of the public, and expert reviewers that acres of port land are not interchangeable. The Seaport Plan is ultimately a tool for conserving land, and translating cargo demand and capacity into acres for port priority use designation is one method of ensuring that adequate land is reserved. However, it is possible there is a more precise way to measure cargo handling capacity based on other factors such as berthage, location, utility, etc. to help optimize the kind and amount of land reserved and to reduce the possibility that projections are over- or under-stated. V. Next Steps Upcoming milestones in the Seaport Plan update process are as follows: • Alternatives evaluation (Fall/Winter 2020). Following the direction of the SPAC, BCDC staff will conduct an analysis of potential impacts of each Alternative. The results of the evaluation will be presented to the SPAC at its next meeting. • Preferred Plan selection (Winter 2021). With the results of the Alternatives Analysis, the SPAC will deliberate on the overall land use configuration to recommend as the Preferred Plan. The Preferred Plan may be any of the Alternatives, an altered version of an Alternative, or a combination of elements from more than one Alternative. The SPAC will also direct staff on any specific policy approaches to pursue in the drafting of the updated plan. • Environmental justice assessment (Ongoing). The environmental justice assessment is an ongoing process involving research and outreach. Each of the two BPAs will be presented to the Commission with an assessment of potential direct and indirect environmental justice and equity impacts that could result from adoption. The goals of the assessments are to publicly disclose potential impacts of the BPAs and allow Commission members to consider the impacts prior to taking an action. To date, staff has developed an engagement program with the input of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and staff from the ports and local jurisdictions and is populating a list of community contacts and forums to engage. BCDC hopes that engaging with members of the port communities will help achieve the following objectives: - Building trust and partnerships with communities near each port priority use area who are knowledgeable about environmental issues facing their communities and are able to communicate local concerns to BCDC. - Sharing information with community members about the Seaport Plan and its role in seaport development.

Page 40 October 19, 2020

- Ensuring that BCDC’s portrayal of environmental justice concerns in near-port communities is accurate and reflects actual perspectives within the communities. - Engaging community partners in a dialogue about plan policies, potential impacts, available alternatives, and possible mitigation to minimize the risk that the updated Seaport Plan will have unintended negative consequences on near-port communities. The engagement program currently consists of the following activities: - Literature review. This task entails reviewing past work conducted at BCDC and the wide range of information readily available from government agencies, advocacy groups, news sources, and others to provide a basic understanding of environmental justice concerns in port communities both generally and in the context of specific Bay Area port communities. - Documentation of existing port efforts. BCDC staff has conducted interviews with ports staff to learn about existing port- and community-based initiatives to identify and address off-port impacts in surrounding communities. - Stakeholder identification. Based on information gathered during the literature review and port interview tasks, BCDC staff is identifying community stakeholders whose input we would seek in the assessment process and preparing an outreach approach that is respectful of their time and contributions. - Stakeholder interviews. BCDC will schedule phone interviews with willing participants to share more information about the Seaport Plan and learn about any issues stakeholders believe should be considered as part of the update process. - Information sharing. BCDC is also looking for opportunities to join meetings for existing groups or forums to help spread awareness of the update process and the role of the Seaport Plan in regional planning. Additionally, staff will be developing informational materials geared towards community members. - Targeted consultation on plan contents. If any stakeholders are willing and able to continue participating in this process, BCDC staff will work with them to review the proposed Seaport Plan update and discuss any potential concerns or recommendations. - Coordination with BAAQMD. BAAQMD has already offered valuable insight into air quality-related environmental justice concerns and methods of engaging with community members around the Seaport Plan. BCDC staff will continue to coordinate with BAAQMD staff in order to share resources, outreach opportunities, and technical expertise. - Participation in Howard Terminal outreach activities. BCDC has been following outreach conducted by the City of Oakland and the Port of Oakland around the

Page 41 October 19, 2020

Oakland Athletics’ proposed stadium development and has been attending or tracking public meetings related to the project, including meetings for the City’s Community Benefits Agreement. BCDC staff is also in contact with the City of Oakland, the Port of Oakland, and the Oakland Athletics to identify opportunities to participate in their planned outreach activities. Staff welcomes any recommendations from the SPAC or members of the public to improve this engagement program. • Draft Seaport Plan (Winter/Spring 2021). Staff will prepare a draft Seaport Plan update based on the Preferred Plan, policy direction from the SPAC, findings in the Cargo Forecast, public comment, and other research completed to date and present the draft for SPAC review. • Environmental assessment (Winter/Spring 2021). Staff will work with consultants to complete environmental assessments of each of the proposed BPAs based on the draft Seaport Plan. The environmental assessment for BPA 2-19 will be largely based on the City of Oakland’s EIR for the proposed stadium development. • Preliminary recommendation (Spring 2021). Staff will present preliminary recommendations on BPA 1-19 and BPA 2-19 for consideration by the Commission. • Final recommendation (Spring 2021). BCDC will respond to public comments on the environmental assessments and preliminary recommendations and make a final recommendation on the proposed amendments for consideration by the Commission.

VI. Committee Discussion Staff requests that the SPAC consider the following questions as part of its discussion. 1. What are the Alternatives, or components of the Alternatives, BCDC staff should evaluate as part of the Alternatives Analysis? Should there be any alterations to the Preliminary Alternatives or additional Alternatives? 2. Are there other topics staff should assess as part of the Alternatives evaluation that would help the SPAC make its recommendation on a Preferred Plan to the Commission? Is there any particular direction for staff on information sources or types of information the SPAC would like to see as part of the evaluation? 3. Are there any initial thoughts on potential policy approaches for sea level rise, ground transportation, environmental justice, or general seaport planning that staff should explore and expand upon for the next SPAC meeting? Are there other topic areas or approaches you would suggest? Do you have insights on how well a potential approach might work or what implementation might look like? 4. Do you have comments or suggestions on community outreach around the Seaport Plan, or ideas of forums or contacts staff should consider?

Page 42 October 19, 2020

VII. Public Comment Submission Public comments received since the May 11, 2020, SPAC meeting can be viewed at the October 29, 2020, SPAC meeting page: https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/seaport/2020-10-29-Agenda.html. Members of the public are requested to provide any written comments to be considered prior to the October 29, 2020, SPAC meeting by e-mailing [email protected] or [email protected] by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, October 27, 2020, to allow time for comments to be shared with Committee members and posted online. To provide comments to be considered for the Alternatives Analysis, please e-mail [email protected] by 5:00 PM on November 20, 2020, to ensure that any information provided has time to be incorporated. Other general comments on BPA 1-19 or BPA 2-19 may be submitted at any time. PLEASE NOTE that all written comment submissions must be formatted to meet ADA accessibility requirements; see https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/How-to-submit-content.html for more information.

Attachment: A. Public Comments on Selby

Attachment A: Public Comments on Selby To: Larry Goldzband, Executive Director The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)

From: Concerned Neighbors of Selby Slag and the Rodeo Citizens Association

Re: Remove the Port of Selby from the Seaport Plan and the Bay Plan

Dear Executive Director Goldzband and Fellow Commissioners,

We are writing to request that The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)remove the Port of Selby from its list of port priority use, which is contained within both the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and the Bay Plan for water­ related industry.

Decades ago, Selby Slag was reserved as a potential deep-port access for single-usage, liquid - bulk cargo. Port priority usage would be an unnecessary expansion of commercial shipping activity, occurring directly atop the 66-acre Selby Slag California superfund site containing 2.5 million tons of toxic heavy metal-laden slag, and located within a former San Pablo Bay wetland. The massive Bay dredging that would be required would be extremely ill-advised.

We are writing to you as residents of a long-disadvantaged community in West Contra Costa County. We are encouraged by BCDC'snew Environmental Justice policies, which consider the health, environmental, and economic impacts we face here. We neither need, nor want, any more crude oil or other oil-related transport in this region, which an expansion of commercial shipping activity would bring. Phillips 66 is imminently expecting Bay Area Air District (BAAQMD) approval of a proposal to increase its planned shipping activity from 55 ships/yr. to 155 ships/yr. at their private Marine Terminal adjacent to Selby Slag. And let's not forget the Shore Terminal, owned by Nustar LLC,which ships out Phillips 66 products. This area is already greatly affected by petroleum-related environmental impacts.

Currently, 80% of the Selby site is owned by the CA State Lands Commission, and 20% is owned by Phillips 66. The CA Lands Commission and BCDCare public agencies. A decision to remove the Port of Selby from the list of port priority use can and should come from the principle owner of the property of Selby, on the basis of State of California-deemed public interest. As concerned neighbors of Selby Slag, it appears to us that neither the State Lands Commission, BCDC,nor the Metropolitan Transportation Agency have ever clearly articulated any urgent reasons (with an adequate level of rigor) for the port priority use designation for Selby. t' ' •

2

Please support the request from our local community groups and concerned residents to eliminate this threat from our future. If there are any further actions might we take to secure the removal of this project from State of California consideration, please let us know what these might be. We would be happy to comply with any such request.

Very sincerely yours,

Maureen Brennan, Rodeo Charlie Davidson, Hercules Rodeo Citizens Association

cc: Jennifer Lucchesi, State Lands Commission (SLC) From: Maureen Brennan To: Scourtis, Linda@BCDC Subject: Public comment Jan. 17 2019 Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 2:48:00 PM

Hello Linda,

I met you briefly at the Jan. 17 2019 meeting of BCDC. I had agreed to send bullet points from my public comment regarding the SF Bay and Seaport Plans. Sorry to take so long.

I ask that the Selby site be removed from the BCDC Seaport Plan: • The proposed 5-berth potential terminal would negatively affect the Rodeo/Crockett communities, already besieged by refineries along the Carquinez Corridor. • The designated terminal would be for liquid bulk only. Phillips 66 recently has permits to increase their traffic from 35 to 155 ships/yr, and a total of 87 barges. Too much petroleum already. The liquid bulk sites should be decreasing in numbers, unless they carry vegetable oil. • Selby site is adjacent to Phillips 66, who is working to be “tar-sands” ready. Bitumen crude is the dirtiest and cheapest around. No spill response available. We don’t want to see an increase of tar sands oil on our Bay. • Most cargo needs are for container shipping. A liquid bulk terminal is not indicated at this time. We need to import and process less crude in the Bay’s future.

Thanks for your help in soliciting public comment. Maureen Brennan, Rodeo CA 510-245-2788 From: Nancy Rieser To: Scourtis, Linda@BCDC Subject: My comments, Jan 17th meeting (plus supplemental notes) Date: Sunday, January 20, 2019 9:47:26 AM

At Jan 17th, the BCDC approved a public notice for a future review process of the BCDC seaport plans, a process that would occur in December. The notice for the Jan17th meeting stated that BCDC had jurisdiction over only 5 seaports.

The notice advertising the Jan 17th meeting failed to mention that the 2012 SF Bay Seaport plan identifies SELBY as a potential seaport. The fact that BCDC would even consider Selby for a potential "seaport" expansion is alarming. It is true that this capped, toxic site is owned by the State Lands Commission. Two terminals exist already. On the Northern edge of the slag, NuStar maintains tanker fuel marine terminal. On the Southern edge, P66 oil refinery maintains a marine terminal. Currently, P66 is pushing big plans for Selby that, if put into place, would devastate to the health of the bay. • P66 is now a fully, tar sands-capable-and-ready refinery. It has incrementally made changes over the years to make it ready to increase its refining capacity for the dirtier crudes from Alberta. • P66 has recently asked BAAQMD to approve a marine terminal expansion from 59 to 135 ships a year that will be bringing tar sand bitumen from Alberta Canada, a 4 fold increase from 2012 levels. • The Phillips 66 pier recently has had two oil spills (2016 and 2017) just for regular crude Further: • Tar sands is not a traditional light crude oil. It is a solid hydrocarbon that sinks in water. • There is no spill plan for "non-floating oils" in place for a tar sands spill in the SF Bay, according to the CA Office of Spill Preparedness Response (OSPR). • A Tar Sands Spill would have a similar water column behavior as the 2010 Kalamazoo River Pipeline Dilbit spill which has cost over $1.2 billion dollars, to date. • Experts have said that if a Tar Sands spill happens in the SF Bay, it will be far worse than the 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill.

Increasing the number of marine terminals at Selby is truly a disaster waiting to happen.

Nancy Rieser Crockett, CA