[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:04] We appreciate it very much. These facilities do have a Wi-Fi available for those who have electronic devices in the room would appreciate it if you would put your cell phones, laptops and tablets into solid mode in difference to the proceedings.
[0:22] For those of you who wish to speak to the board, please fill out the speaker slips, which can be found in the lobby prior to entering the council chambers.
[0:32] And if you find that, please fill it out, mark the number of the agenda item that you want to address so that when we get to that, we can call upon you to come to the podium.
[0:47] If you're anticipating speaking to the board, I would suggest that you read the notes on the printed agenda for the meeting so that you may be properly prepared.
[0:59] Members, we have one time item today at one o'clock, which is a public hearing for the
[1:05] Myers enforcement order, which the board, I think, is familiar with by this time.
[1:12] I would propose trying to complete all the items on the agenda with the closed session
[1:18] at the end of the morning.
[1:21] Then we would conduct the closed session during the lunch period, and then finally we would
[1:28] conduct the timed enforcement hearing as the last item for the day at one or one
[1:35] thirty close to one o'clock that we can get back from our closed session.
[1:40] If that is acceptable to the board, I think we'll establish that as a goal for today.
[1:49] I do believe we have a very interesting agenda this morning so let's proceed it's always an
[1:54] interesting day when you have an enforcement hearing regarding the items themselves vice
[2:01] president and secretary Jane Dolan under item three will be presenting the minutes of December
[2:08] 20th regular board meeting I believe those items all four items are in order and are ready
[2:15] adoption, they will be adopted with one single vote unless someone wants to, from the public
[2:23] or on the board, remove it from consent calendar for discussion.
[2:31] The consent calendar, I
[2:32] say, has four items in and we'll proceed with one vote. Next under item seven,
[2:43] Ryan Larson,
[2:43] the chief of the flood protection and navigation section of the core will be discussing the new
[2:49] levee safety draft guidance that was just released for public review this week and kicks off
[2:56] a 60-day public review period hopefully Ryan will be able to give us some insight about this new
[3:03] guidance and how it compares to or doesn't compare to our OMRR resolution that the board adopted a
[3:11] months ago. That'll be an interesting presentation. Then under Item 8, Jeremy Erich, Chief
[3:18] of the Division of Flood Management, has his monthly report for the Department of Water
[3:22] Reef Forces. He will make the first presentation under Item 8A. Then under Item 8B, Mary
[3:30] Hemman is from DWR, will provide an update on the Board's workshop regarding climate, change
[3:38] the challenges and solutions analyzed in the 2017 update of the flood plan and what we're looking
[3:46] forward to and their approach to that subject, how they're one or approach it for the 2022
[3:54] flood plan update. And that's been a subject that the board has been invested in for some time.
[4:01] Also under item 8C, Darren Sue and of the Board staff and others from DWR will be giving us an update on the public scoping process for the Delta convenience project as well as the rundown on the initial study and the negative proposed mitigated negative declaration for soils and investigations for the data collection in the Delta.
[4:26] And finally, under I'm a D. Dave Wilden from DWR, we'll give us an update on the state
[4:33] federal rehabilitation work from the 2017 and 2019 storm events.
[4:40] This item was postponed from last month, and Dave will be presenting that this morning.
[4:48] Then after item eight, I'd like to proceed to item 11 board items, and we have three
[4:55] for consideration, one is 11A is the timed item which will be discussed.
[5:02] We're going to talk about this as in the past board meetings on, we've had briefings on that, but we're asking
[5:15] being asked today to consider the approval of the permit to construct that seven mile levy setback project along the north bank of the Sacramento
[5:25] bypass in the east bank of the yellow bypass.
[5:29] Greg Harvey and Kyle Bickler from LIDWR will report for the board.
[5:35] Finally, under 11 C. Greg Harvey of our staff and Paul Brunner of three
[5:39] rumors, we'll be asking for our approval of permit number 1943 to construct approximately
[5:46] a 2.6 mile levy extension starting at the upstream terminus of the
[5:55] U.B. River, South Levy. This project was discussed by the board, informally at our meeting
[6:03] last month. Then under items 12, 13, and 14, we have our usual executive officers
[6:09] report, including the informational staff reports for the Board's review, and then we also have
[6:15] their normal board comments, committee updates, and calendar. Then after these items, I'd
[6:21] to go back to item nine, which is our closed session conducted during the lunch hour, and then
[6:28] as close to one o'clock after lunch, we'll proceed to the time hearing as the last item
[6:34] for the day.
[6:36] So this should be an interesting meeting.
[6:39] So under item one, let's leave you of any announcements you'd like to make.
[6:44] Thank you, Mr. President.
[6:45] Good morning, everyone.
[6:46] Just a couple of things.
[6:46] First of all, I wanted to note our new board member on the
[6:51] dias, Brian Johnson is joining us for our first regular board
[6:54] meeting. So welcome.
[7:01] Also just to note and give
[7:02] regrets from Catherine Freeman, who normally joins us on behalf
[7:06] of Eduardo Garcia and the Assembly. She is on a speaking
[7:09] engagement in Southern California on behalf of
[7:12] Mr. Garcia and is unable to join us today. So she sends her
[7:15] threats for that. I would just also note both with happiness and with a little bit of unhappiness
[7:23] that we have promoted Wendy Valdez to a SSA, which is a staff service as Analyst. She's
[7:29] going to be working in the new safe construction. So we are going to be losing her excellent
[7:32] help here at the board meetings and I'm not sure what we're going to do without her, but we're
[7:37] very happy she's still with us. She's this is a great promotional opportunity for her, so congratulations
[7:43] to Wendy.
[7:47] And just he didn't want me to note this, but I would just note that it also was Gito's birthday
[7:52] yesterday, so happy birthday. Thank you for spending your day with us here. Those are all my
[7:57] announcements.
[7:58] Okay, thank you. Members, let's see,
[8:06] we're on the roll call. This is item two. Ryan, would you
[8:10] Please call the roll to turn we have a quorum and we can talk to others board member Johnson
[8:18] Board member Ramirez
[8:20] Board member Valines
[8:22] Board member country men for a member McDonald vice president. Oh, I'm
[8:28] President Edgar we're all here full board today, so we're obviously can
[8:34] Conduct our business members were on item three the minutes of our December 20th meeting
[8:40] regular business meeting for everyone's information. This is an action item.
[8:45] Mr. Dolan, our board vice president, Secretary has this item.
[8:50] Jane, please pause your question.
[8:54] Thank you.
[8:57] I got my schedule all sorted out so now it went out with the agenda packet instead of two days after that.
[9:05] So for our new board member, I've been to remind the rest of you.
[9:08] I've reviewed these and I believe they are in order,
[9:11] But I pause to see if anyone has a question or a correction or comment.
[9:19] I see none. So I move a approval of the minutes of December 20th, 2019.
[9:24] Do I have the second to this question?
[9:26] Okay, moved by Dolan seconded by McDonald's, the minutes of our December 20th meeting, be approved.
[9:34] Any members of the public want to comment on the minutes?
[9:37] Thank you. Bring it back to the board. All in favor?
[9:41] minutes for December 20th.
[9:47] Oh, thank you. When they're right, be hard to approve the minutes.
[9:54] Okay, minutes were approved with Mr. Johnson abstaining because he had
[10:00] Okay,
[10:03] there may be you were appointed, but you didn't, yeah, I think that's right, yeah, whatever. Okay, we're on item 4,
[10:12] Leslie, you want to review the agenda and clear up any items that I may have missed?
[10:16] Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I just have one item of note on item 5D, or consent item, your staff report,
[10:24] acknowledge that there was no core letter received, but we do have the core letter and
[10:29] Gary Lemon has copies of that for anybody who would like to see it. There were it's your
[10:34] typical core letter with no additional conditions. Okay thank you. Okay members we are on item five
[10:41] are consent calendar for today, today's meeting and as I said earlier, unless someone on the board
[10:49] or in the public wants to remove one of these items, we will approve items 5A through 5D with
[10:57] a single motion and a second followed by a single vote. And obviously this will be an action item.
[11:07] Are there, I won't read the items, you have the agenda items, we're talking about 5A through
[11:14] 5D, is there any, what's the pleasure of the board?
[11:23] Okay, move by, countrymen second by,
[11:28] is there any member of the public, want to talk about
[11:33] any items on the consent calendar, this is items 5A through 5D.
[11:39] Okay, bring it back to the board, all in favor?
[11:43] Okay, unanimous vote for items 5, 8, 2, 5, b.
[11:49] Our on item 6, which is the item for public comments, not on the agenda.
[11:55] Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the board?
[12:00] No, there's Melinda.
[12:01] Good morning.
[12:02] I'll leave it here because I'm going to talk another minute.
[12:04] Okay, great.
[12:05] We'll take care of that.
[12:06] Thank you, Melinda.
[12:08] Melinda Terry, who's the-
[12:09] Since we have a new board member, I'll formally introduce myself, my name is Melinda Terry.
[12:14] I'm the executive director of the California Central Valley Flood Control Association.
[12:19] And I'm going to try and attend mentally and bring something up at each meeting.
[12:24] So I just have one item today for you to consider for hopefully a future agenda item,
[12:30] and maybe an informal discussion before there's a permit before you.
[12:35] But as you know, there was the EIR for the notching of the Fremont weird.
[12:41] I have an operable gate.
[12:43] It has to do with the compliant with biological opinions, creating a salmon habitat for the
[12:49] Tracy pumps that are part of the state water project and the Central Valley project.
[12:57] And one of the things we'd like you to consider talking about in the future is one thing that
[13:00] very unclear in the EAR is whose facility is this going to be? Currently, the weir is officially
[13:09] part of the state plan of flood control. It's the facilities that the courts part of the
[13:15] bypass system that goes with the levees to help the efficient evacuation of flood waters.
[13:23] But once the notch is in, it does have an operable gate. I'm assuming DWR will operate that.
[13:30] I'm also assuming the operator does part of the state water project.
[13:35] But again, the EIR really was I'm clear about that.
[13:38] So it really would be nice since this really is the major workhorse for our system to understand
[13:43] a little bit more of who's who as that project moves forward.
[13:49] And I will leave it at that.
[13:51] Thank you.
[13:54] Yeah, I didn't know there was a question on that.
[13:57] Do you have been following that I have?
[14:00] Well, I hadn't thought through this idea, who's going to pay for the maintenance and operation of the gate I guess I guess Melinda's right then. Okay
[14:10] We'll do that. Thank you, Melinda
[14:13] Any other items or public any other items you received brand or Ryan you
[14:20] See if any other slips. Okay
[14:25] Okay, we're on item 7. This is the
[14:30] Court's release of the draft Levy guidance document for the public review and comment, and we heard
[14:38] an introduction of this item at the Courtney and Community on Wednesday, but Ryan indicated
[14:43] to the group there that he would be presenting at least what he knows about this new guidance
[14:50] at our board meeting today. He's kind of reading along and learning about it as we are because
[14:58] he wasn't real.
[15:01] Involved in the preparation of the document itself. So I'll just let Ryan speak. Good morning, sir.
[15:07] Good morning, President Anchor. And members of the Board, my name is Ryan Larson, the Army Corps of Engineers,
[15:11] I'm the Chief of the Levies in Channel's Branch, in our operations division, and also one of the levies he took program managers.
[15:17] So I'm coming to you with information about a draft, levies safety, engineer circular, which is a document that's been published by the agency,
[15:26] We're not in the federal register earlier this week, and we want to make sure that our sponsors are aware of this document and get adequate chance to take a look at it and review it and provide comments.
[15:40] So with that, I'll jump into the intent of the levee safety program. Just read this here and make sure that everyone's clear what we're doing.
[15:49] We understand monitor and manage flood risk associated with levees over time and to adapt
[15:54] activities and actions based on the dynamic nature of flood risk.
[15:59] And so that's a state of intensive of the levees safety program and then this document
[16:03] gets into how we're going to do that or the approaches for that.
[16:08] This document lays out risk-informed decision-making as one of those approaches.
[16:15] So, we're looking at the water, the hazard, the performance of the levy systems, and then also
[16:23] the consequences, land, or of those levy.
[16:27] And all those things, a couple together, a great risk, and then so we're looking at all
[16:35] those factors in risk informed decision making.
[16:37] We want to make sure that we've got transparent engagement with the public and with our
[16:42] We understand the key role that sponsors play and operating maintaining those
[16:46] levees.
[16:47] And then there's also showing a connection between the core of engineers and
[16:52] FEMA on information related to levees.
[16:56] So I'm going to break down the document itself when you sit down and
[17:01] crack this open for the first time.
[17:02] You understand a little bit of what you're looking at.
[17:06] Okay, so this is one document and we're really talking to two
[17:10] of an audience with this circular.
[17:14] One being sponsors, local maintaining agencies,
[17:19] people doing the workout in the field.
[17:21] And then it's also a policy document
[17:23] to speak to core engineers employees
[17:26] and how we do our business.
[17:29] And it's broken down into four volumes.
[17:33] So when you think of volumes, I think of an encyclopedia
[17:37] on the shelf that's 30 volumes long, but this document's only 125 pages in total, so it's
[17:45] not going to break you back or keep you up late hours reading all of this.
[17:51] On the 25 pages with those four different volumes, the upfront matter is definitions key
[17:57] terms, volume two is speaking to sponsors, sponsors roles and responsibilities in the
[18:08] The core policy, speaking to core employees, and then the fourth one is speaking to everybody about who else uses this information.
[18:16] So I'm going to break down each one of these different volumes a little bit closer.
[18:20] First one being those purposes of levy safety purposes of this document and some of those key terms and definitions.
[18:29] Second one, speaking to sponsors.
[18:33] So if you want to focus your efforts on what this document is trying to do and speaking to sponsors, look at volume two.
[18:41] But these are what we think the sponsors responsibilities are in the
[18:44] levy safety program.
[18:45] It's organized around the concept of prepare, respond, recover and mitigate.
[18:54] Typically use those terms in a disaster response or the disaster response model.
[19:03] But you respond to a disaster.
[19:04] You cover from the disaster.
[19:06] And afterwards you look at it and say, what sort of things can we do to mitigate?
[19:11] for the next, next thing Mother Nature throws in us, but that's how this chapter of
[19:17] excuse me, volume is organized.
[19:21] Okay, very busy slide. This is the one that speaks to
[19:23] the core of engineers staff, but I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm all this to say, there's,
[19:29] there's different chapters within this volume. The ones highlighted in dark blue or
[19:34] the ones I'm going to talk to on the next slide, that I think have, have, the boards
[19:41] interest, or should have the board's interest.
[19:44] So those areas are program oversight,
[19:46] levee inspections and site visits, risk assessments,
[19:50] and then tracking levee risk.
[19:54] So in that first category of program management.
[20:00] The policy requires the district to come up with a 10-year outlook, a program management plan of the 10-year outlook.
[20:07] So what levees are we going to be looking at within the next 10 years? What's our schedule?
[20:12] So that, so that you as the sponsor could know at any given time, you know, which ones are next?
[20:16] Which ones are coming next year and the year after that?
[20:22] Next, the type of any inspections area, you know, one thing, one thing of difference here is that,
[20:28] There's no longer routine and periodic inspections.
[20:32] There's just inspections, formal inspections with a requirement to do those inspections once
[20:41] every five years.
[20:46] In the previous policy is in documents, there were routine inspections that the court district
[20:51] was to do every year, that in this district is challenging with our resources and our amount
[20:58] funding that we get, and we lean heavily upon, upon Department of Water Resources and the
[21:03] work that they do, I mean, there's in their inspections.
[21:07] But in this document, there's, there are formal inspections conducted once every five years
[21:13] and then special inspections.
[21:14] And those are, as needed, if something happens, and you call us, and you say, hey, there's
[21:19] a problem out there, we can go out and take a look at that, and that would be called a special
[21:22] inspection, and we would document what we saw, or if there was, you know, some sort of flood
[21:27] or another event that cost a change, we could go out and take a look at that and we would be calling that a special inspection.
[21:35] Another item of interest is that there would be no system and segment ratings associated with a levy inspection.
[21:42] So we would not come out and say levy system x is unacceptable or levy system y is unacceptable or minimally acceptable or acceptable.
[21:56] We're still going to be doing inspections, and rating those individual categories of maybe
[22:02] encroachments or erosion or sea victims stability, and we'll be rating those individual
[22:08] items, but we won't have an overall rating for the levy system.
[22:15] And so that ties a little bit to the last bullet there, the last item, so I'm going to
[22:23] see if I can address the questions before you ask them.
[22:29] And then, so back to inspections here for staying with inspections for a second, there's a
[22:33] 10 day requirement for a 10 day notification of an upcoming inspection.
[22:37] I would say we do that already with board staff, notifying you at least 10 to 10 business
[22:44] days before an upcoming inspection.
[22:47] Assessments, risk assessments will be conducted once every 10 years, and there's a requirement
[22:51] to notify sponsors at least 30 days in advance
[22:55] of an upcoming risk assessment.
[22:58] And then, this last item on the screen here,
[23:00] this ties to the chapter of tracking levy risk
[23:05] is this concept of a levy risk management summary.
[23:10] So as we do levy inspections, we learn more
[23:12] about the levy system.
[23:14] As we do a risk assessment, we learn even more about the levy system.
[23:18] And we learned what are the, what are the,
[23:21] what are called the risk drivers for a levee system?
[23:24] Is it, you know, what are the,
[23:26] what are the things driving the risk for a particular levee system?
[23:30] And so ideally, the next time we've got to do a levee inspection,
[23:33] we're focused on the risk drivers
[23:37] when we've got inspect and say, you know,
[23:40] hey, the risk drivers for this levee system are
[23:44] sea-bitch and piping.
[23:46] And as we go out and do our next inspection, we're going to be looking at, primarily,
[23:52] seepage in piping and sponsor, what have you done in your maintenance actions to improve
[23:58] the conditions of seepage in piping through this lovey system?
[24:01] And so this lovey risk management summary is trying to document the issue,
[24:11] and then promote
[24:11] a dialogue between us, the core of engineers and the sponsors and the look of maintaining
[24:16] agencies to say, you know, what are these drivers for this
[24:20] level of the system? What are the actions that you're taking to improve the conditions of those drivers?
[24:24] And then we capture that in that level of risk management summary. So what I think this policy is trying to get at is that
[24:30] rather than saying the level of the system is unacceptable or minimally acceptable,
[24:35] the sponsor is aware of the risk drivers and they are taking actions to reduce risk
[24:39] associated with those risk drivers in this level of the system that will pause there.
[24:44] I've partially reviewed this document, so I don't want to claim I know all about it.
[24:52] There's a big emphasis on the definition of risk, which is consequences and probability of...
[25:00] Failure, probability of a problem. I didn't hear that in what you just said. In other words, if we got a rural area,
[25:09] you may have a very low risk. But you seem to be emphasizing what have you done about
[25:15] sea beach, or what have you done about a whatever. How are you reconciling those two ideas here?
[25:22] Every levy system has risk, every levy system is going to have risk drivers for that area,
[25:32] for that levy system, what is driving the risk.
[25:35] And so what is being done, and then what is, so then the conversation turns to what is being done about that risk for that levy system.
[25:42] For that rural area, for that rural area, they should still be concerned about the risk drivers,
[25:49] whether they're high risk or low risk they should still be a rural area should still be
[25:53] concerned about the risk drivers and should still be thinking about the risk
[25:56] drivers and taking actions to reduce the risks associated with their love
[25:59] system.
[26:00] But you're not ranking in other words, in any kind of ranking, you're going to find it was
[26:06] based on risk and the need to take actions.
[26:10] Say, you're going to find the rural areas have a very low risk because the
[26:15] consequences are so low compared to an urban area, for instance.
[26:19] So there's not an idea here of ranking risk and saying we got to take the most risky
[26:25] actions first or water.
[26:29] Not big large-scale programmatically, you know, for, for, for, for levy sponsors and local
[26:35] maintaining agencies.
[26:36] We want local maintaining agencies to look at their, at their levy system in their
[26:39] world and, and take actions to reduce the risks in their, in their, in their system,
[26:44] So I'm not comparing system Y.
[26:48] There are, I would say, the risk assessments
[26:51] allow the core of engineers to look nationwide
[26:56] and spread their money where there are the greatest risks
[27:02] and so the conversation.
[27:04] I'm doing on, I'm sorry.
[27:07] You're now you've lost me a little bit here.
[27:09] Okay, the core, this is about operation and maintenance, isn't it?
[27:13] This is about the levy safety program, the whole program.
[27:16] This is about the levy safety program.
[27:19] So that levy safety, the operations,
[27:22] maintenance is a piece of that, of that,
[27:26] looking at risks associated with performance of a levy system.
[27:29] Those are operations, maintenance is a piece of that risk.
[27:32] But the right effect of recovery, you're saying,
[27:36] that if there's damage in it, I say, well, because there's low risk here,
[27:41] that wouldn't get the allocation, the allocation would go to the high risk.
[27:45] That could happen. That could happen.
[27:48] If I went back, I'm just going to go back a couple of slides here to show you.
[28:01] Sorry, it's not, I thought it was on here, it's not on here.
[28:05] But risk could be a tool for the Corps of Engineers to prioritize limited resources
[28:10] and spend the money where the risks are the greatest.
[28:15] That is possible, and this document does lay that out or set that up.
[28:22] That's a big one for us.
[28:28] So just stopping here on a love U.S. management summaries are that's something new.
[28:34] But it's something, hopefully, to guide core of engineers and inspectors on what to look for.
[28:41] during the next levy inspection, but it also would guide sponsor actions on the ground with
[28:48] associated with their levy system. What are the things that they can do to reduce the risks
[28:51] associated with their particular levy system?
[28:54] Okay. Ryan, we spent a lot of time on the resolution, kind of trying to get an understanding
[29:04] of what the criteria is for OMRRR. Is there anything in this guidance that is
[29:11] would affect the criteria or definitions that we worked on for.
[29:15] I do not believe so, and I'll cite my basis for my comment.
[29:21] It's on its volume two, levy sponsor activities.
[29:25] At the bottom of page one, there's a sentence that says,
[29:29] nothing in this document modifies or takes the place of the responsibilities
[29:33] of levy sponsors identified in 33 CFR,
[29:36] to wait 10 or project partnership agreements.
[29:41] Okay. Okay. 33 code of federal regulations to wait 10 is the document that is the basis for our operations and maintenance manuals.
[29:49] Right. And then there's also project partnership agreements.
[29:52] But there's calling out, you know, that statement basically saying nothing in this, in this levy safety policy document changes.
[30:00] Anything in our operations, maintenance manuals, or a project-pernish micromancer.
[30:05] For what you're saying, it sounds to me like we're talking more of a change in process and review and oversight,
[30:13] rather than basic definitions and criteria used out in the field.
[30:21] I feel like we're taking things to the next step.
[30:25] We might have been just focused on, you know, with our blinders on looking at the levy and doing it levy inspections, right?
[30:32] But here we're now we're broadening our view and looking more more at everything that's going on out there.
[30:39] And, and then,
[30:42] you know, acknowledging that there are actions that that sponsors and maintaining agencies can take to.
[30:50] There are, there are actions that they can take and get more bang for their buck.
[30:55] You know, if you looked at the inspection checklist, you could say, well, gosh, there's 15 items on here.
[31:00] I got to go do all 15 of these things.
[31:04] So, a better start at number one and just work my way down the list.
[31:09] We're trying to get to, you know, okay, what are the best things to go look at today?
[31:15] And work on with my levy system today.
[31:17] What's going to give me the most bank for my buck? What's going to drive my risk down?
[31:21] And, you know, I've got limited resources.
[31:23] What are the best, what are the best four things I could go do today, and what's my justification
[31:28] for going and doing those, those, those things yeah yeah yeah I think Tim was on the cube
[31:39] where I get to, that's okay I was waiting patiently I was waiting until you finished but now
[31:45] I can't myself sorry you guys do we're gonna ask questions right I'm probably have several
[31:50] but I'm gonna try to ask an overarching one
[31:52] and you can fill in the blanks.
[31:54] How does this devtail with the inspections
[31:57] and the assessments and the ratings
[31:59] for the PLA-49 program?
[32:02] The inspections that we do are the basis
[32:05] for making our PLA-499 determinations.
[32:10] But now we're doing them less frequently.
[32:15] We would be, this policy would get us closer
[32:19] to what we currently do here in this district.
[32:22] Okay. On almost once in 10 years cycle.
[32:32] And that just works out with the amount of funding and resources that our district gets to inspect the levies that we have.
[32:40] So fundamentally, I think we said is nothing really changes. All that stays. It's the same.
[32:46] would try to just figure out how would be codified, I guess, and what you guys have in writing
[32:54] as guidance that's provided.
[32:55] That program is intact and it carries forward.
[33:00] The Dismarination Strupulity 49 will continue to be made, and there's the right now.
[33:07] There's an interim guidance on making PULI-499 decisions and determinations, and that policy
[33:13] still stands, and we would, this would just be the policy that we would use for how frequently
[33:20] we would go out and do inspections, the determinations that are made with those inspections
[33:24] would be back to that interim guidance for the billy for any of that.
[33:27] And those inspections are done the same way, where there are same inspections.
[33:32] Same as what you just mentioned.
[33:33] Because I thought you said that there was something else about them, you weren't going
[33:37] to be checking the boxes like you had before.
[33:39] We weren't going to be a sign.
[33:41] We're still going to do the inspection.
[33:42] We're still going to look at the same things, right?
[33:47] We just will not come to the end and say,
[33:50] this levy system is unacceptable.
[33:55] We will come to the end of the inspection, and we will say,
[33:59] look at looking at the levy risk management summary.
[34:02] We'll say, this levy system has deficiencies in the areas
[34:05] of erosion, encroachments, and running.
[34:13] And the levees sponsor needs to work on those items, needs to work on those deficiencies.
[34:18] I can see here from the levee risk management summary in the conversation with the sponsor.
[34:22] They've been working on encroachment issues and erosion.
[34:25] They really haven't had time and resources to work on the running.
[34:29] But the risk drivers indicate that they're on the right track.
[34:32] They were working on, they were working on the right things.
[34:38] Okay, so let me test that for a second.
[34:40] If there's a system that last year was inspected and determined to be up to SNAP,
[34:47] I think it was fine.
[34:49] I'm sorry.
[34:49] If a system was inspected two years ago,
[34:53] I think it was fine.
[34:54] And now you out inspect again in with this new guidance.
[34:58] Um, it sounds...
[35:00] It's like there's not going to be a determination made that it's insufficient ever again, potentially.
[35:11] You're just giving us advice, but you're not going to take it instead of the category of your deficient.
[35:16] We're still going to make inspections. We're still going to do inspections, right? We're still going to inspect those individual items.
[35:21] So the item that I think this levee system, the problem that this levee system had was erosion.
[35:28] And in the last two years there are a erosion problem has developed.
[35:32] We would document that there is an erosion problem with this levee system.
[35:37] That will conclude the levee inspection.
[35:40] We would look at our guidance for determining peolety-formin and analogieability for levee systems.
[35:45] We would look and is erosion an item that has a bearing on peolety-formin and analogieability.
[35:50] Yes or no?
[35:51] in this case yes yes it does right and so we will say okay sponsor here are the
[35:57] results of your levee system levee inspection there were issues in the category
[36:01] of erosion.
[36:05] Now you're able to get the determination guidance for for
[36:08] purely for name and when there when there is problems with erosion that levee
[36:14] system will be inactive in the rehabilitation problem. So we just won't get that like
[36:21] an overall statement that says this levee system is
[36:23] acceptable or minimum.
[36:24] We'll still be looking at the individual pieces of the inspection checklist and still
[36:30] be making PLD-499 determination.
[36:35] This sounds like it could be beneficial.
[36:39] Let me just test it here for a second.
[36:43] Let's take your example.
[36:44] You found that there's a erosion problem and we have an event and there's a failure due to
[36:51] Undersea Beach, some place where erosion has not been identified as a problem.
[36:58] Are you saying, okay, you could get PL-84.99 assistance with that location, because it
[37:07] wasn't found to be deficit.
[37:11] Even though the system has a hole, it may have been unacceptable under the old criteria.
[37:17] where that failure occurred, there was nothing identified,
[37:21] so therefore you could get PL-84.99.
[37:27] In this particular scenario that we're describing,
[37:30] if the levy system had erosion issues,
[37:32] and was determined to be inactive in the rehabilitation program
[37:35] because of those erosion issues,
[37:37] that seatbed site would not be eligible
[37:39] for PL-84.99 in rehabilitation.
[37:41] Why?
[37:41] This policy is not speaking.
[37:43] It's not changing the district determinations
[37:46] of PL-84.99 determinations at all.
[37:48] It's all it is saying is that at the end of an inspection, we will not come out with one single rating for a
[37:54] Lovey system or a Lovey segment of acceptable minimum acceptable or unacceptable
[37:58] We will still be making Pility 499 determinations like we are say that and because that doesn't seem to be consistent with with everything else that you're saying
[38:08] In other words, if the failure is due to something not related to the inspection findings
[38:14] why then it's not it's not acceptable to get PLA for 99 assistance. We can pull up I can
[38:23] propose to do a briefing at some other time about about how we make PLA for 99 determinations.
[38:30] That's not changed by- That's not changing by this policy. So what is this policy changing?
[38:36] That we are not going to give system or segment ratings for a levies system. So why?
[38:46] It doesn't change anything.
[38:48] You're just not going to state it publicly.
[38:50] We're not going to say that.
[38:51] Overall, this lovey system has a rating of X.
[38:56] But you're going to treat it that way.
[38:57] But we're still going to do inspections.
[38:59] And we're still going to look at all of the pieces of the inspection checklist.
[39:03] I'm just telling you that as I am reviewing this policy right now to,
[39:09] This is what the language is saying is that we will not come out with overall system and segment ratings,
[39:17] but we will still be doing inspections and looking at individual items.
[39:22] So, you know, for a long time we've had problems between the state and the core on concerning vegetation.
[39:29] Does this in any, and part of our, the state view is that the vegetation is a low-risk
[39:38] item compared to other things, you know, rodent action or whatever.
[39:45] Does this in any way acknowledge that the state's doing the right thing and doing the taking
[39:51] care of the riskiest things first and doing the less risky things, you know, later?
[39:57] This document sets up the conversation.
[40:00] For looking at risk and doing things in a worse first manner, this document does not speak to the actions of the State of California and it doesn't get into the changes to the inspection checklist or new inspection checklist.
[40:19] Well, still the bottom line is that these LMAs have to be. There are all of them at target has got to be their operating manuals.
[40:30] Absolutely, you know, basically is still what they're doing, so nothing is changing here in terms of that.
[40:38] That's, and that's, that goes along with the statement I read, and I'd like to you that we're not changing the operations of maintenance manuals here.
[40:44] We're just talking about the level of the safety policy and procedures.
[40:47] Okay.
[40:49] Okay.
[40:49] Please proceed.
[40:50] All right.
[40:51] The last volume talks about the shared information and the other groups that can use the information on the level of safety program.
[40:59] All right, so, you know, what are the next steps and how can you engage, how can be part of this, you know, this public review period?
[41:09] There is going to be a sponsor engagement session here in Sacramento, one of five throughout the country on March 26th.
[41:20] from one to four PM, the double tree by Hilton, on 2001 Point Westway, that's fairly close to the El Camino Office for Department of Law and Resources.
[41:30] Sessions are open to the public, with a target audience of 100 people.
[41:37] And those 100 people are sponsors, local maintain agencies,
[41:43] central and local control association, whoever, whoever is interested in this.
[41:48] This is being publicized across all of our core districts.
[41:52] So I imagine that it could be some sponsors from the Bay Area that make the track up to try to take part in this session.
[42:03] There are tickets that you have to get like RCP and sign up who you are to get a ticket to come to the session.
[42:12] As of this morning there were 89 seats left, 89 tickets left.
[42:17] I'll get you to the link at the end of the presentation for where you can go to sign up.
[42:23] I encourage folks to think about their organizations and who are the best folks to be there to engage in this conversation.
[42:32] So the objectives of the session are to provide the background probably similar to what I provided here during this presentation,
[42:39] but they will go into greater detail and probably have better answers for you on those things since they wrote the policy.
[42:45] It will cover the open comment period and how you can submit comments and then just have a chance to engage in to a conversation about about this document and about relationships with the Corps of Engineers and the Legislature Program.
[43:02] So you can see a basic agenda for what they've got.
[43:07] What the plan is, you can see some small group discussions on topics of interest over an hour with Q&A at the end.
[43:15] So I think your question about inspections and the bottom line, you know, be an issue when to bring up to that group.
[43:25] The outcome or the output of this public comment period is going to be an engineer's circular.
[43:30] Very similar to how the guidance document that we have for this section for weight program.
[43:35] It's been an engineering circular since 2014.
[43:37] Those have a two-year time frame,
[43:42] so those have an expiration date and they get updated over time based on feedback based on comments.
[43:47] So at the end, there is a target date for publishing this guidance.
[43:54] It's a July of this year.
[43:56] And then with the understanding that it will become an engineer circular, there will be a time to try it on.
[44:03] See how it works and provide comments while we are implementing that EC.
[44:08] So with that,
[44:12] here is the website where you can find information about that public engagement
[44:17] session, where you can go to sign up and get your ticket.
[44:22] And then if you're interested in just getting the document, that's probably the easiest
[44:26] place to go.
[44:27] If you just Google headquarters, or you say, let me say, this will be the link that comes
[44:33] up.
[44:33] If you're interested in actually putting comments in our public submitting comments, that's done
[44:39] through the federal register and the federal register docket numbers there on the screen.
[44:43] And then if you just have any general questions about the document, there is a email address
[44:49] staff at headquarters to answer questions about the policy.
[44:57] Okay.
[45:02] Well, thank you. I think you know, Mr. Larson coming to our board meetings that every single one of us in entire staff is interested in this as the state's sponsor of the system. We need to know that. So we wouldn't want to overwhelm your session with just floodboard folks. Is any of is there only one this one session?
[45:25] There are five sessions nationwide.
[45:27] nation-wide nation-wide five New Orleans Sacramento Portland Kansas City and Albany New York
[45:35] Okay, so this is one in California is any part of it like the opening presentation or anything going to be available as broadcast
[45:41] We could go on with all those
[45:44] Skype-y kind of things. It is not it's not it's a gonna be present
[45:51] Too bad go
[45:56] general
[45:58] after here and what you've had to say here
[46:01] I'm just, what do you feel that core headquarters hopes to achieve with what's their goal
[46:09] as far as this regulation, what are these things that they're going to change, is it just
[46:15] not as many inspections or what do you think, what are they trying to accomplish with this
[46:22] regulation?
[46:23] It's
[46:31] a layout, the policy and procedures associated with with how the core of engineers and
[46:37] our levee sponsors can meet the intent of the levee safety program, broadly, acknowledgment
[46:45] that it's not just operations and maintenance manual and looking at the levee system and documenting
[46:52] the performance issues with that levee system, but it's looking at at levee risk.
[47:01] And taking actions, the right actions, the most appropriate actions, to reduce risk of
[47:08] social development systems.
[47:10] They feel that's not happening now.
[47:15] Maybe I don't, I wouldn't say that, I would not say that they don't believe it's happening
[47:19] now, I would say that there is no policy document that would show how that gets done.
[47:31] Ryan, is there any reference to a preference for multi-benefit projects or things like in here?
[47:43] I don't believe so. I'm not sure.
[47:46] I don't know.
[47:48] Because that's obviously a priority of the administration.
[47:53] I think the state and we're all geared toward that.
[47:59] That would be important.
[48:03] Lastly, I would ask you to maybe brief the board a little bit on what the staff is doing
[48:09] to try to meet this 45 day period, or what is it, the public review period?
[48:16] 60 day review period that concludes on April 27th, I believe, based on the published
[48:24] the document post on the register earlier this week.
[48:28] And, remember, Dolan, I would,
[48:33] there was one thing I did not mention that might meet your needs.
[48:39] There is a, there is a nationwide, there are two,
[48:43] nationwide webinars on Mark IV to give anybody the public,
[48:51] The chance to hear from Headquarters on the document, if you couldn't make it to the public session,
[49:00] those are on March 4th at 8 a.m. local and noon local and the instructions for how to sign into that webinar are also on that Headquarters,
[49:11] I'd love you safety website.
[49:17] Hey, Leslie.
[49:18] Thank you, Mr. President.
[49:19] Yes, we do have several staff members reviewing this.
[49:22] We are aware of the deadline.
[49:23] We've been coordinating with board member,
[49:25] a countryman, who I believe also has some independent comments
[49:28] and will be collecting those and submitting them.
[49:31] I would also ask any board members
[49:33] who are interested in attending.
[49:35] Would you please let me know so we can get tickets for you?
[49:39] OK.
[49:39] Thank you.
[49:41] All right, any board member who wants to attend this meeting, let Leslie know, Leslie are the comments on this document going to go through the board before they're submitted, or do you have the time to do that or not?
[49:58] For information purposes.
[50:00] Good line. No, that line is April 27. We could bring those to your March meeting if you would like.
[50:10] Just for your eye information, that might be helpful.
[50:13] Okay. Ryan, can we make sure we get that on the agenda?
[50:18] Okay. Any other questions for Ryan?
[50:23] Joe.
[50:24] Okay.
[50:26] Thank you, Ryan. Very much.
[50:33] Members were on item eight.
[50:38] Department of Water Resources under.
[50:42] Item 8A, we have our normal monthly report from the Department, Jeremy Erich, the Chief of
[50:49] the Division, Flood Management is here, and we'll present the report to the Board.
[50:54] Good morning, Jeremy.
[50:55] Good morning, President Edgar, members of the Board, Jeremy Erich, Chief of the Division
[50:59] of Flood Management for the Department of Water Resources.
[51:03] First I wanted to welcome Board Member Johnson on behalf of DWR, it was good talking to you
[51:08] board workshop a couple of weeks ago and we look forward to working with you so let us know
[51:12] how we can help. A couple of announcements I don't have slides for and I'll go into
[51:19] just a brief update today. As you may know the fiscal year federal fiscal year 2020 work plan
[51:27] came out a couple of weeks ago and I just wanted to congratulate the the Samwalking Area
[51:33] flood control agency on their recent, recent success, the Lower San Joaquin River, California
[51:38] Project, received one of two nationwide new starts to implement the authorized Lower San Joaquin
[51:46] River Feasibility Study Project that was worked on for a long period of time.
[51:51] So congratulations to Sajafka on that, good news, the core through the work plan appropriated
[51:57] $22.8 million for them to begin that construction.
[52:00] And so we'll hear more about that in upcoming months.
[52:08] The second announcement, DWR, board staff, and Sacramento area, Floor Control Agency have
[52:15] been coordinating on a federal advocacy trip that we're going to next week.
[52:20] So we'll be traveling Darren soon and myself, Gary Lippner, Laura Hollander, from DWR and
[52:27] and a couple of folks from Sacramento area
[52:30] for a control agency will be going to talk about three main issues.
[52:36] The YOLA bypass partnership program as you're familiar with,
[52:41] we're going to be talking about the idea of new federal legislation
[52:47] to bolster the core as ability to work with us
[52:51] on the YOLA bypass partnership and look at new ways for them
[52:55] to consider different kinds of benefits in their valuations
[52:58] as the core as a critical partner,
[53:00] in all of our projects, the old bypass notwithstanding.
[53:04] So we want to get them in there at the table with a,
[53:09] you know, and provide a meaningful role
[53:12] and help them be successful as we all work toward that effort.
[53:16] The second item is the federal fiscal year 2021,
[53:21] federal appropriations requests.
[53:22] So the President's proposed budget came out, also a couple weeks back, and so there's some requests in there to supplement some of that through the work plan process.
[53:32] And then finally, a request extension of the 2024 deadline for the use of excess credits.
[53:39] So more to come, maybe we can report back after that trip, but we look forward to that, to get opportunity for us as a collective state and local partnership to go and advocate together.
[53:59] So for my other updates today, I'm going to give a quick update on small communities.
[54:05] I didn't realize when I prepared the presentation that the second item here, the storm damage emergency rehab program update,
[54:12] is actually a separate agenda item I thought it was part of my update.
[54:14] So I have one slide on that just to steal a little bit of thunder from Dave Wildin and give you a preview,
[54:20] but I won't spend too much time on that.
[54:22] And then Dr. Mike Anderson is here.
[54:24] these are state climatologists, and so he'll give you our monthly winter time word from our
[54:29] state climatologist, although it doesn't seem like it's winter right now.
[54:35] So a quick update on the small communities program, and I think for the benefit of more
[54:40] member Johnson, if you don't mind, I'll just give like a really quick overview.
[54:44] We've done a number of updates on this grant program over the past several months, but
[54:50] In the 2012 and 2017 CentroFiveFive Protection Plan, we identified urban improvement needs,
[54:56] rural improvement needs, and system light improvement needs.
[54:59] This program is a...
[55:00] The result of some of the rural improvements that we want to do in some of the small communities that
[55:05] aren't urbanizing areas at this point. So we went out with a phase one process where we
[55:12] need to be our funded 35 local communities to develop feasibility studies for what they identify
[55:21] their problems and opportunities and come up with some solutions that they want to look at moving
[55:25] forward. So it's really, the focus has been on the urban areas in the past, you know,
[55:31] few decades and we haven't had the time or resources to address the small communities.
[55:36] So this was a program to move that ball forward. The phase one process is wrapping up. Some
[55:44] of the communities needed more time so they've extended their agreements with us. I think 15 or 20
[55:51] are wrapping up, have wrapped up already of the 35 in the phase one, feasibility study process.
[55:58] And then we've already started implementing phase two, which is the implementation of some
[56:02] of those projects.
[56:05] So the phase two solicitation period for our proposal solicitation package we put out was
[56:11] December 5th through February 3rd.
[56:13] So February 3, the application period closed for Phase 2.
[56:20] The table here shows the five communities that applied for Phase 2 funding, Grimes,
[56:27] Knights Landing, Tudor, Wheatland, and Franklin Beachwood in Merced County.
[56:33] Part of our guidelines allowed them flexibility to pick from a menu of options as they
[56:37] put together their applications.
[56:38] As I've mentioned before, we only have about 28 million dollars available for implementation,
[56:45] and there's probably at least a $2 billion need out there in the system based on our
[56:50] certified foot protection plan estimates.
[56:53] That's a B billion.
[56:57] So with 28 million available, these five projects came in, and if you were to implement these
[57:03] five projects in their entirety, it's over $300 million worth of work.
[57:06] So obviously, we're not going to be able to fund that.
[57:09] So what we're looking at is, and the local communities that the communities that applied
[57:13] for the phase two funding, they did leverage that flexibility in the guidelines and they
[57:18] proposed different options for the department to consider.
[57:20] So we appreciate them in their flexibility because it's really tough to fund $300 million
[57:26] of work with $28 million.
[57:29] So we're in the review process there for that for those five applications.
[57:35] We're on a fast burn with this review process because our prop 1E funding commitment deadline is June 30 this year.
[57:42] So we're looking to complete our reviews by the end of March and make some recommended awards to our director.
[57:49] And then from there we hope to get our final awards out by the end of April for that 15-day comment period.
[57:56] And then we'll be working on contracts to tie that funding up over the next couple of months.
[58:03] Any questions on small communities for I move on?
[58:09] Any questions?
[58:11] Okay.
[58:14] Just real quick on the 2017-2019 storm damage emergency rehabilitation program.
[58:21] As a reminder, the Center of I Water Sheds experienced record rainfall in 2017 and 2019.
[58:27] They run off from these storms cause a lot of damage to our levy systems, particularly in 2017.
[58:32] And as a result, back in 2017, the State Legislature redirected some of the deferred maintenance
[58:37] funding that was provided to DWR to address the storm damage that we experienced.
[58:46] So DWR quickly organized under the leadership of Dave Wildin, who will talk to you a little
[58:50] bit later in more detail, organized and multi-agency effort to identify, prioritize, and repair
[58:56] these sites.
[58:59] Dave has provided several updates. It's been a while, so we thought it would be good to come back and provide kind of a reminder of where we've been over the past couple of years and then a status of what some of these repairs are looking like and how much more work is left.
[59:14] And there is a lot of work to be done. We have accomplished all 38 critical sites have been repaired. There's more work to be done.
[59:24] But I just want to give Kudos and a big thank you to Dave, his leadership and the multi-agency team that has helped to Dave be successful in this program.
[59:33] There were a couple of awards that I noted up here on the slide.
[59:36] The American Society of Civil Engineers 2017 Project of the Year Award for this program.
[59:42] As well as the American Council of Engineering Companies 2019 Engineering Excellence Merit Award.
[59:48] So the team should be very proud of their work.
[59:50] I'm proud of the work they've done and more to come on that.
[59:57] That's it for me unless there are any questions I'd like to bring in Mike.
[1:00:00] Anderson up. In the interest of time, the last slide that Michael probably clicked to will be our next scheduled program briefing for March is Todd Bernardi will come and talk about our flood risk reduction projects, specifically the US Army Corps of Engineers projects, give you an update on construction completed last year and the plans for this upcoming year and future plans for construction. So that should be good update for everybody on the urban program.
[1:00:30] I have a question.
[1:00:33] In reading the report that was submitted to the board, not what you just talked about,
[1:00:39] I didn't see very much work that was being done by the state on repairing rodent activity.
[1:00:50] And I'm wondering is there a problem getting fish and wildlife service approval
[1:00:55] because of the garter snake is why they seem to be a lack of activity in this area or where
[1:01:01] are we with that? We worked out something with Fish and Wildlife Service on the garter snake.
[1:01:07] That's a good question. I think in some areas we don't have issues with the garter snakes
[1:01:12] that we're able to continue doing that kind of work. I can't answer your question indeed
[1:01:17] today and I don't have our flood maintenance officer. I don't believe today. But we can come back
[1:01:22] next month and kind of give you a test problem we need to be because when we look at the inspection
[1:01:27] reports that seems to be like one of the biggest items that is recurring over and over by the
[1:01:33] core and by our own inspectors yet I don't see much activity yeah I mean we're constantly working
[1:01:39] with the official wildlife agencies on this issue it's been a longstanding issue as you as you
[1:01:44] imagine I look forward to hearing from you yeah we appreciate that question and I'll try to get
[1:01:49] information for you next time. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you all. So I'll bring up Dr. Mike
[1:01:54] Anderson.
[1:01:57] You were on the queue here. I clean well. All right, President Edgar in the board.
[1:02:04] Good morning. Hi, Michael. All right, what are your 2020 to date? When I was here in December,
[1:02:12] mentioned that the outlook was dry. This is how it has realized through the winter. We were
[1:02:18] transportation in snowpacker, hang an out near 50% for the central valley water sheds.
[1:02:25] Maximum temperatures in the top quartile with minimum temperature in the top 10%.
[1:02:30] So we are seeing that warmer, drier pattern that has been more present than not in the past decade.
[1:02:42] Some record territories, some discussions to have.
[1:02:45] So I think last time I told you we had a potential sea level pressure record.
[1:02:49] We have an extreme committee formed, and they are reviewing the data and preparing a report
[1:02:55] for consideration by NCEI for that record.
[1:02:59] You may have also seen news reports on February 9th of a wind reading of 299 miles an hour
[1:03:05] up at Kirkwood.
[1:03:07] We have investigated that reading and find we do not have sufficient information to pursue
[1:03:14] updating the record at this time. The precipitation indices, the aid station, the
[1:03:20] five station in the sixth station are at or near-record lows for February and also
[1:03:27] currently for water year to date. And six of the 21st century snow packs
[1:03:33] for April 1 are less than or equal to 50% of average. So again, kind of fitting into
[1:03:39] the narrative with climate change, less snow, more extremes, more variability.
[1:03:50] Looking with the national multi-model ensemble, which is the graphic there.
[1:03:54] This is the outlook from our chapel in May.
[1:03:57] And again, you see a good part of California in the below-average category for the three
[1:04:03] month accumulation.
[1:04:05] What I do want to caution is that March is still a month where significant precipitation
[1:04:10] can happen. And one storm can produce fish of flows to cause high water even if the seasonal
[1:04:16] accumulation remains below average. So we do need to be mindful that you can have a wet
[1:04:22] extreme within a broader dry extreme environment.
[1:04:29] And that's all I have for you today any questions?
[1:04:33] Questions on the climate change report? Pretty grim for a drought, huh?
[1:04:40] We seem to be back in that territory.
[1:04:43] Yeah, it looks like it.
[1:04:44] Okay.
[1:04:44] Thank you, Michael.
[1:04:45] Thank you.
[1:04:48] Anything else for me?
[1:04:54] Oh, Tim, you want?
[1:04:59] Just real quick.
[1:04:59] Thanks.
[1:05:00] Mr. Jeremy, the report that we get in writing that has the top conservation conditions at the reservoirs in the state.
[1:05:07] There's another version of that with the snow pack on it. Also, it needs to be in the report.
[1:05:11] Can you guys throw that back in when you do the monthly versions? I just like that one also.
[1:05:15] It has the rest of the information on it.
[1:05:17] Yes, that makes sense. Great. Thank you.
[1:05:19] Thank you.
[1:05:19] Appreciate it.
[1:05:21] Anybody else?
[1:05:24] Okay.
[1:05:26] Okay, under, thank you, Jeremy.
[1:05:28] Under item,
[1:05:31] we're on AB,
[1:05:37] Mary.
[1:05:38] Mary is going to provide us with a little kind of summary of what we did in our workshop on climate change.
[1:05:45] And then the next steps to kind of upgrade the information that we had in the 2017 update of the plan.
[1:05:55] and then what we're looking forward to as an approach to the 2020-22 update.
[1:06:05] Good morning and thank you, President and Gurn members of the Board.
[1:06:08] Please to be here today on behalf of the Center of Olive Flip Protection Plan DWR team.
[1:06:17] We enjoyed a four-hour long and productive workshop with many of you and our
[1:06:24] value stake holders on February 14th at the City of West Sacramento.
[1:06:28] We had approximately 60 attendance, a 60 people in attendance, including board members, leads
[1:06:35] from the San Joaquin Regional Flood Management Planning Groups, local flood protection agencies,
[1:06:41] environmental, non-governmental organizations or NGOs, resource agencies and landowners.
[1:06:47] We had a very nice variety of participants there.
[1:06:50] The purpose of the workshop on the 14th was to foster a shared understanding of the San
[1:06:56] Joaquin Basin Problems, Climate Change Findings, Range and Solution Study and Recommendations
[1:07:02] from the 2017 Flunk Protection Plan Update.
[1:07:05] We had a robust body of work that supported that and we wanted to use that as a launching
[1:07:10] point to work toward shared understanding of our current climate change-related studies
[1:07:15] that were proposed for the 2022 flood protection plan update and begin to engage and receive input
[1:07:22] in a public setting on our proposed San Joaquin Basin climate change approaches for the flood plan update.
[1:07:32] So, in overview of the presentation topics that we presented in much greater detail to weeks ago,
[1:07:39] we had an overview of the challenges, findings, and recommendations from the 2012 and 2017 flood protection plan.
[1:07:48] Using that, again, as a launching point to work toward our 2022 flood protection plan update.
[1:07:55] And that was focused on a couple of things.
[1:07:59] One is the recognition that the San Joaquin River Basin is expected to face severe climate change impacts,
[1:08:05] and we are gaining a better understanding of that over time.
[1:08:09] The second is that there are a suite of multi-benefit recommended actions,
[1:08:13] included for the San Joaquin Basin in the Central Value Flood Protection Plan that was adopted
[1:08:18] by the board in 2017.
[1:08:22] We want to use that to assess a broader range of climate change
[1:08:26] projections and flood system vulnerabilities to climate change moving towards 2022. Explore
[1:08:33] integration and add up to explore the integration of various adaptation strategies with decision
[1:08:43] analysis to reflect the changes that we know are occurring in the system.
[1:08:52] Here's just a sublist of the key feedback provided.
[1:08:55] There was a lot of great feedback and we're digging into it as we speak.
[1:08:59] About a summary for you up there.
[1:09:01] There are significant sermons expressed regarding the range and climate change projections.
[1:09:06] It's a wide range.
[1:09:08] We all looked at a scatter plot that raised some eyebrows.
[1:09:12] But related to that is there is great uncertainty amongst all of our partners
[1:09:17] on how to respond and where to invest, so we want to continue the dialogue on that.
[1:09:22] There's an interest in integrating flood management into other efforts, recognizing that
[1:09:26] often groundwater management and habitat restoration needs are at the forefront of people's
[1:09:31] minds in the San Joaquin.
[1:09:33] There were requests for a peer review of our climate change analyses that we are working on now.
[1:09:38] We had a discussion of how upstream actions affect downstream areas and communities in the
[1:09:47] challenge and barriers to implementation that are unique to the San Joaquin basin.
[1:09:52] Some of those are common to the Sacramento as well, but it definitely presents the focus challenge.
[1:10:00] In the San Joaquin, in different ways. So some of the challenges and barriers that we discussed in more detail
[1:10:06] two weeks ago included a lack of funding, limited institutional capacity, concerns about hydraulic impacts,
[1:10:15] why is use of floodplain issues in the San Joaquin, real estate issues and availability of real estate
[1:10:22] and how to garner land on a support.
[1:10:26] The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a wait process and state plant-of-flow control issues and the long-term nature of system-wide projects.
[1:10:39] So this is near the end and I'll pause for questions.
[1:10:42] But what's happened since February 14th for our planning team and what's next?
[1:10:47] We had a targeted engagement with the San Joaquin Regional Flood Management Planning Leeds on February 21st.
[1:10:53] I found it personally to be a very productive and meaningful use of time with the leads to hear more about their concerns and priorities.
[1:11:02] Regional flood management planning update was given to the Coordinating Committee to days ago by Chris Williams and the leads from the six regional flood management planning efforts in the Valley Sacramento and San Joaquin.
[1:11:15] And so what's coming next, we're working toward a summary of this climate change workshop
[1:11:20] to continue the engagement with our San Joaquin stakeholders at the March Coordinating Committee
[1:11:26] that I'm told is being planned for a location in the San Joaquin Basin to be determined.
[1:11:31] So we're hoping to get some additional folks to attend and engage with us there who weren't able
[1:11:36] to make the trek up to West Sacramento. And we are eager to begin engagement on our vision
[1:11:41] for the conservation strategy update, vision as well.
[1:11:45] So that will be coming soon.
[1:11:48] With that, I'll pause for questions.
[1:11:52] For comments.
[1:11:53] It's very, we had a little discussion
[1:11:57] about that at the coordinating committee,
[1:11:59] and then, of course, at the workshop.
[1:12:01] I think there are two areas that we need
[1:12:04] to get some policy guidance on.
[1:12:07] One is this whole issue of, it looks like Roman
[1:12:11] and the climate people are headed toward determining kind of a range rather than a specific
[1:12:20] number for the, you know,
[1:12:28] what they, you know, you're going to have to design to
[1:12:32] in this San Joaquin Valley. And I need to know how exactly we're going to deal with that.
[1:12:42] In other words, is the state saying that this is the range that we think climate change is going
[1:12:50] to affect Santa and the locals have the ability to pick a design number to design
[1:13:00] too within that range and that's their choice, or are we going to determine it, or what?
[1:13:07] That's a great question and it had come up two weeks ago.
[1:13:10] We are planning on presenting a range and we are saying that it is up to the locals to
[1:13:15] determine their design level to how far they would think they can go within any one
[1:13:22] project and accommodating projection of climate change.
[1:13:25] We do hope that the range will start to hone down where we think a reasonable space for the
[1:13:32] future given a large range of uncertainty to help guide that but we are certainly not going
[1:13:36] to make that decision for the locals, but secondly, we want to be able to flip the
[1:13:42] near to that adaptation.
[1:13:44] Has that been determined?
[1:13:45] That is the state policy at this point.
[1:13:48] That the state's position is that we will produce the numbers that will produce a range
[1:13:55] and that the locals have the choice to work within that range.
[1:14:02] Yes.
[1:14:03] Is that what the policy is at this point?
[1:14:05] My understanding yes, all right,
[1:14:14] the second issue while while we're getting issues on the table is is it seems to me that
[1:14:23] I'm a little worried about we spent a lot of time integrating the conservation strategy in the metrics
[1:14:30] into
[1:14:31] the plan
[1:14:32] during the
[1:14:34] 2017 and it looks like now we're gonna be producing a
[1:14:38] according to Lorie at the Department,
[1:14:44] a conservation strategy update or a paper of some sort
[1:14:49] that will be produced in 2021,
[1:14:53] which will inform the writing of the plan in 2022.
[1:15:00] A little worried about that we're bifurcating the plan and the conservation strategy again.
[1:15:08] And I really, a lot of us broke our picks on trying to pull it together and make sure it was in the plan.
[1:15:16] It was our policy in the plan as part of the conservation strategy was in the plan.
[1:15:22] And I'm sensing it, this is kind of bifurcating again, and it's moving away, so we need
[1:15:30] to make sure that that doesn't happen, because that would be a mistake, would go back
[1:15:36] to where we were before, where we have a conservation strategy, and we have the flood plan,
[1:15:41] and we're constantly trying to make a mesh together, and we don't want that.
[1:15:47] We want to integrate it.
[1:15:49] Right?
[1:15:49] I agree with you. The team has been thinking through the most efficient way to make sure
[1:15:53] that happens and that's why Laurie mentioned one thinking is a light, a relatively light
[1:15:59] document that's easy to plug in to the main narrative of the plan. So we're trying to think
[1:16:04] through creatively how to make sure that that connection is as tight as possible. That being said,
[1:16:08] it is one of the key multiple supporting efforts we need to integrate in. So we are trying
[1:16:14] to think of it in that way, in terms of it is integral part of the flood plan.
[1:16:20] The back to the climate change range again.
[1:16:25] So, Jeff is now taking the position that they are.
[1:16:30] Their policy basically is managing climate change by adaptive management.
[1:16:38] that is they're going to build their levies stronger so that they can be raised in the future
[1:16:47] if the higher end of the range begins to emerge as reality. But if you do the math and they get
[1:17:00] to that high range they're going to need more than just raising the top of the levies. They're
[1:17:06] need essentially a bypass or something that takes a whole bunch of water out to the ocean.
[1:17:17] I don't know how we adaptively manage for that ultimate possibility except for buying land.
[1:17:30] Well, that's the question, is it going to, are we going to, you know, the way I'm seeing
[1:17:41] it now, Sadjavka is planning to manage climate change by adaptive management, which means
[1:17:47] raising the levies over time as they need it.
[1:17:53] But at some point, if the end of the range begins to become reality, they're going to need more than just raising the levee.
[1:18:04] So they're going to need a channel or something to transport all that water out of the area.
[1:18:12] Now, the question is, what are we doing, or is that number one? I guess we need to know whether that's correct or not.
[1:18:20] Number two, if it is, what's the strategy?
[1:18:25] Is it to begin to generally buy land or work?
[1:18:29] So that was what was occurring to me
[1:18:31] as we were talking about that.
[1:18:34] Yes, one thing we talked about with the San Joaquin
[1:18:36] RFMPs was whether Sajafka is looking at giving more room
[1:18:41] and they talked about a corridor outside their levy projects.
[1:18:44] What other adaptations strategies should they be looking
[1:18:47] next. In a prioritized manner to adaptively managed toward climate change and that could be a whole host
[1:18:54] of other things in the toolbox, as you mentioned, including looking at the non-structural actions,
[1:19:00] easements and so forth, land use, reservoir operations, what can be done there. So there are whole
[1:19:06] host of other tools in the toolbox that need to be studied at a more detailed level. And so one of
[1:19:11] the things that we're doing with the climate change is starting to develop these watershed-based approaches
[1:19:16] that allow you to focus in a little better on particular geographies and understand within that
[1:19:21] watershed downstream, which adaptation strategies work a little better for you and get you a
[1:19:27] little further. And so how can you prioritize? It's hard to do that for for region scale geographies
[1:19:34] looking at the whole system. So how can we move towards individual watersheds and studying them
[1:19:39] with partners and picking them off in a prioritized manner to work towards that so that there
[1:19:45] individual projects that begin to make sense at a watershed scale that she's that people can
[1:19:50] start to realize oh we can only get so far with this urban project so the next thing we need to
[1:19:55] looking at is X, Y, and Z and I don't have that answer for you first talk.
[1:20:00] But we do want to work through with our partners how to get to that.
[1:20:05] Okay. Now, if you're idea that some of this is going to be just some of this detail is going to be written into the plan update.
[1:20:14] What we are integrating into the floodblood plan update for climate change are the pilot studies that we are completing on a to all of me and Merced as pilots as examples of ways that you can do it.
[1:20:25] or tailored, so to speak, because if you were at the workshop, you'll see that those two are
[1:20:29] a little different.
[1:20:32] But we will need to do a lot more moving toward 2027 talking about
[1:20:37] what other watersheds can we look at, what can we learn, how can we partner?
[1:20:40] Okay, the question is, how much are we asking, Sajafka to do and how much are we going to do?
[1:20:48] That's, I guess, the balance here. Okay, Tim.
[1:20:55] Thanks for the update.
[1:20:56] I wish I had been a fly in the wall for the RFMP meeting, but oh well.
[1:20:59] I'm glad you guys had that discussion.
[1:21:02] Let me first say thanks for giving this the time and attention that I think we all want to provide.
[1:21:08] The workshop was great.
[1:21:09] I'm really happy to see so much effort going into what happens on the Selma King side of the system.
[1:21:15] There were a few presenters to weeks ago, but there were a lot of people I'm sure that helped prepare.
[1:21:19] So, a big thanks to everybody that was part of that team.
[1:21:23] just a couple of quick comments to maybe echo some of the things that Bill said going forward to try to think about besides that's who you had on the screen.
[1:21:32] One way to look at the update would be to assess the 2017 priorities, right?
[1:21:38] And the priority for the sound machine was the bottom.
[1:21:41] And I think this is happening, but we should be really explicit about not just what we think needs to happen,
[1:21:48] but why it hasn't happened so we can try to get our head around that and figure out who needs
[1:21:52] to be responsible for it. Hopefully we'll do more than just to point out problems. We'll try to
[1:21:57] also point out paths to solutions.
[1:22:00] I think we're doing that. I think the forums that you guys
[1:22:03] have created in the discussions that we're having now are going to generate some of that. Hopefully
[1:22:07] the plan can really capture that and codify to some extent. The issue of the target is super important
[1:22:13] and I don't want to say any more about that right now because I think it needs to play out,
[1:22:17] But I will say that, I think we all know that the current standard of the people they're building to is not sufficient.
[1:22:23] And so, that's not sufficient. We should be able to say more than that.
[1:22:31] And I know there's a lot of implications for being ready to make an estatement for the state or for the locals,
[1:22:38] but we need to figure out how to support each other so we can incrementally raise the bar and be really clear about it,
[1:22:44] so that people know what they're getting when they invest their money.
[1:22:48] And the last thing, I found myself borrowing something that Ryan said earlier, which is sort
[1:22:53] of the program scale, you know, trying to be a little more strategic about how this works.
[1:22:59] And I'm glad that our P-Fox came in, but I want to make sure that we also think about the ways
[1:23:05] that we can connect those three regions, right?
[1:23:08] So besides having these individual regional plans and the projects in them, I think the state
[1:23:15] could do a real service to make sure those things fit together, and then what there's gaps,
[1:23:21] proposed things that fill the gaps.
[1:23:24] And there are things that states leading now that we could do that, as an example, rather
[1:23:27] than just sort of help Sejfka, the Samokin River Estration Program is a big deal, and
[1:23:32] then takes a lot of state time and investment in energy.
[1:23:36] And I think they think about the flooding part of it, but I think we could be more explicit
[1:23:41] about that and really help think about how that area connects to the middle which connects to
[1:23:46] the bottom and start to just draw those things out so that we have not just a more specific plan,
[1:23:55] but also again try to help flag who the responsible parties are going forward. So we have a lot of
[1:24:00] time until the plan's going to be in front of us and and that is and so I'm really happy to see an
[1:24:05] early effort to structure bringing like to these things. So thank you guys for doing that.
[1:24:14] Thank you for the update.
[1:24:18] I thought the workshop that you put on was extremely beneficial and it showed, at least
[1:24:26] them.
[1:24:27] I'm just slow, but it emphasized the uncertainty which has always been there as far as
[1:24:36] these projections are and the one chart that got in my attention was that some of the modeling
[1:24:42] that showed the greatest increase in temperature, which we all agree is happening, also showed
[1:24:49] the least increase in precipitation. That's a lot of uncertainty. So, we need, so
[1:25:00] I have totally agree with your approach to show what the uncertainty is in this new way of going
[1:25:08] for rather than a single item saying this is what the future is. I think we should show the
[1:25:14] range of uncertainty. I also think we should show where we are today without the modeling uncertainty
[1:25:23] of climate change. Okay. And I feel it's a state responsibility to come up, we have a standard
[1:25:35] 200-year. It's a state standard for urban areas. We should come forward and say today
[1:25:43] the 200-year flow is this.
[1:25:48] And so when we do the uncertainty range, we should show where
[1:25:53] best estimate of where we are today is within that range. You following what I'm saying?
[1:25:59] I think so. I mean, it may be. I mean, I've sort of had the assumption that today is like
[1:26:06] here and all of the climate change is over here. In other words, all show an increase. But I'm wondering
[1:26:14] now after the workshop that was presented, if we said today is here and it's within the range
[1:26:21] of the uncertainty of the climate change, that would be valuable information to know, so I would
[1:26:31] encourage that we try to establish what the 200-year flow is on the San Joaquin system today,
[1:26:40] and where it fits within the range of uncertainty with climate change in the future, self-discipline.
[1:26:47] But thank you. I felt the workshop was very effective and I appreciate how you go out
[1:26:53] to the public and gather information and comments and listen and actually try to respond.
[1:27:00] It's really great to see. Thank you.
[1:27:03] If I could add to what you said, another point that came out, your point about the 200 year
[1:27:08] as well is well taken. The same could be said. I think about the 100 year and the 50 and the 25 because
[1:27:14] Another thing that came out is that across the spectrum of flood events, we're expecting
[1:27:19] increases in significant uncertainty.
[1:27:22] So we do want to look at events of multiple sizes.
[1:27:25] I agree.
[1:27:27] One other thing that occurred to me, Mary, is I think one of the reasons we've been able
[1:27:36] to get as far as we have with the Yolo bypass is because we finally convinced Yolo County
[1:27:44] to present an implementation plan to us that we were able to react to and change and so on
[1:27:53] and we're now in the process of implementing that with local support and there changes to it
[1:28:00] and there are places where we're arguing the setback levee down near the deep water channel
[1:28:06] on a few other areas in the bypass, but it's the first time that we're kind of moving together
[1:28:13] in that, in the bypass with projects that have logo support and so on.
[1:28:23] The one thing we need, I think, from the
[1:28:30] lower sector,
[1:28:32] upper sector, I don't know, Levy District, is an implementation plan.
[1:28:37] Now, when we went down and talked to Reggie's boards of directors,
[1:28:43] We told them that we have this list of projects and so on from them, but we need a policy document from them as to what generally they would accept.
[1:28:56] What is their plan for flood risk reduction in that area?
[1:29:06] An implementation plan kind of what Tom Inglor is doing for the Feather River area that the study
[1:29:17] that they're moving forward on, which is an implementation plan taking the policy plan
[1:29:24] of the River Coordor Plan and moving it toward a policy plan for that area in the north.
[1:29:31] We need the same thing for Regis area and I talked to Rob Tol about that and he agrees
[1:29:41] and wants to do that.
[1:29:43] We have some extra money from the F map program if they're willing to maybe bring that forward
[1:29:54] to us, I think we'd be willing to help share the cost of doing that if that's what they
[1:29:59] would need.
[1:30:00] But they're going to have to pay for some of it, because that's one of the requirements.
[1:30:04] But it seems to me that that's one of the key elements of moving the locals to a point where we can get to an agreement on a plan.
[1:30:15] And I think that would also be helpful for us going to the Bureau,
[1:30:21] and saying the restoration of the San Joaquin is having impacts.
[1:30:31] And here's the policy document that shows that.
[1:30:37] And we think the Bureau ought to use some of the restoration money to help with the mitigation on the flood system.
[1:30:46] But we can't do that without a policy plan.
[1:30:48] In other words, we can't go to the Bureau on every little task that comes up that they're
[1:30:55] doing trying to proceed with the Restoration Program.
[1:30:59] We don't have a flood implementation program to say, hey, these are the impacts you're
[1:31:05] having and we expect you to help pay for that.
[1:31:09] We don't have it.
[1:31:11] I thought we talked Jane and I talked to the board members about that.
[1:31:17] We don't see that there's much progress on this matter of fact, Rob Tol's scope of work that he's doing now doesn't have that in it.
[1:31:27] Because they don't want to pay for it.
[1:31:30] But I think we could talk about that.
[1:31:32] But we need that plan.
[1:31:33] We need to know what they want down
[1:31:37] there.
[1:31:38] Anything else?
[1:31:43] Okay.
[1:31:44] Thank you, Larry.
[1:31:44] Thank you.
[1:31:49] Okay, we're on item.
[1:31:51] Let's see.
[1:31:52] You want to take a break?
[1:31:54] Okay.
[1:31:55] Okay.
[1:31:56] What are we trying to get back in 10 or 15 minutes please?
[1:35:16] And initial study and mitigated negative declaration. So here with me this morning, I have a carry
[1:35:23] buckman to talk about the notice of preparation and Captain Markets to talk about the initial
[1:35:28] study and mitigated negative declaration. For the Board's part, Board staff has submitted comment
[1:35:34] letters on both of these applications. In regards to the notice of preparation, which was
[1:35:42] Initially, she did in January 15th of this year, closes on March 20th, Board Express staff expressed concerns about clear identification about locations proposing about the proposed construction activities in the state plan of flood control.
[1:35:59] Our concerns regarding the hall routes and construction zones, specifically as it pertains to potential levy reconstruction and emergency repairs.
[1:36:07] and finally, flood effects to the state plant flood control from constructing the
[1:36:13] Delta Command's project from a faraway application perspective.
[1:36:17] On the soil investigation, for data collection, application, or excuse me, the initial
[1:36:24] study, our board staff, 300 Andrea Buckley and her office, has indicated concerns about
[1:36:31] the little detail necessary to make that determination regarding sufficient information
[1:36:36] to support the environmental analysis for type of testing, depth of drilling, staging
[1:36:42] locations, and those types of things regarding the geotechnical investigations.
[1:36:48] And also the difference of impact studies, such as biological or cultural studies, and
[1:36:55] their corresponding mitigation measures for those that would, again, support making a
[1:37:00] determination of a mitigated negative declaration.
[1:37:03] And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kerry Buckman for that.
[1:37:07] There and I.
[1:37:08] But yeah, Glenn.
[1:37:08] Forgive me.
[1:37:11] It's really sounds stupid.
[1:37:13] But is this the new water fix project?
[1:37:16] Is this what we're doing here?
[1:37:18] It goes by many names.
[1:37:20] But yeah.
[1:37:21] It's.
[1:37:22] It is the single tunnel.
[1:37:24] I did that.
[1:37:26] Identifying any water resiliency portfolio as well.
[1:37:29] Yes, sir.
[1:37:31] What's that actually? That's carry. Thank you.
[1:37:35] They should be here.
[1:37:36] Good morning. Thank you for having me.
[1:37:39] So my name is Carrie Buckman. I'm DWR's environmental program manager for
[1:37:43] Delta Command. So it's my responsibility to work on all of the environmental planning and
[1:37:47] permitting for the process and try to look at the different efforts and bring them together.
[1:37:51] So we're not waiting until later to consider permit needs, but rather looking at it all in a more
[1:37:56] comprehensive fashion.
[1:37:58] Are you preparing to scope them for the project or what?
[1:38:03] So we have a team working on that, but yes.
[1:38:08] So today I'm going to go over the Delta Command's Project
[1:38:11] Notice of Preparation.
[1:38:12] I'll talk a little bit about the Delta Command's
[1:38:14] Design and Construction Authority or DCA because we get a lot
[1:38:17] of questions about the DCA and their role in the project.
[1:38:20] Then I'll talk a little bit about the types of public engagement
[1:38:22] that we're working on.
[1:38:25] So a little bit of background to your question about whether
[1:38:28] This is the same as water fix or the new water fix.
[1:38:32] In July of 2017, DWR approved a two-tonal conveyance project,
[1:38:36] California Water Fix.
[1:38:38] Then in February of 2019, governor knew some announced
[1:38:40] to support for a single tunnel conveyance project,
[1:38:43] and then issued an executive order in April,
[1:38:46] directing DWR to assess planning for that single tunnel project.
[1:38:50] As a result, in May of 2019, DWR withdrew
[1:38:53] all California Water Fix approval
[1:38:55] and environmental compliance documentation.
[1:38:57] at that point planning for California Water Fix ceased.
[1:39:02] In January of 2020, the state released a draft
[1:39:05] water resilience portfolio and DWR issued a notice
[1:39:08] of preparation or an OP for a proposed single tunnel project.
[1:39:12] So this is a new planning effort.
[1:39:14] We are using information to the extent applicable
[1:39:16] and appropriate from previous efforts is directed by the governor
[1:39:19] but we are starting at the beginning of the planning process.
[1:39:26] So these are some of the key milestones for the project.
[1:39:30] We've started the SQL process now, and mostly I wanted to highlight that we're looking
[1:39:35] at SQL now, we're looking at a draft EIR, around the end of this year, a final EIR
[1:39:41] in early 2022, and a notice of determination shortly thereafter, concurrently we're starting
[1:39:47] work on the Indangird Species Act and California Indangird Species Act compliance, and
[1:39:53] water rates, Delta Plan and Consistency and other environmental permits, these lines show
[1:39:57] periods of more intense activity later in the...
[1:40:00] The process, but we are actually starting work on all of those now.
[1:40:06] So the Delta conveyance environmental review. The purpose is to identify, analyze and disclose the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project and provide feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or reduce such effects.
[1:40:20] So we're starting now with the yellow highlighted box that is the NOP and we've started public scoping meetings on that process.
[1:40:27] And that's a major opportunity for public involvement as highlighted in orange.
[1:40:33] From after the public scoping, we will put together a scoping summary report that documents the contents that we heard during scoping, and that will help inform an agency outreach plan.
[1:40:43] At that point, we'll move into the second step on this chart where we are formulating alternatives further defining the proposed project.
[1:40:52] Developing technical reports to better characterize the technical aspects of the effort
[1:40:57] and using that as the basis for an impact in mitigation analysis. That information will
[1:41:02] be combined into the draft EIR and at that point those orange boxes indicate that's another
[1:41:07] major part of the public involvement outreach. So we will have an opportunity for the public
[1:41:13] to review the draft EIR and we will do a suite of public hearings at that point as well.
[1:41:17] Based on those comments, we will respond to comments and address them as appropriate
[1:41:21] in the Environmental Document, produce the final environmental impact report and develop a notice
[1:41:26] of determination. And the orange boxes highlight major parts of public involvement, but I
[1:41:32] did want to also highlight that you see the stakeholder engagement error sort of to the left
[1:41:36] of the numbers, that we are planning to conduct stakeholder engagement in public outreach throughout
[1:41:41] the entire process.
[1:41:46] So the purpose of the notice appropriation is to document the intent to
[1:41:49] developing EIR for the Delta Convance Project.
[1:41:53] Trigger the start of scoping, describe the proposed projects,
[1:41:57] including probable environmental effects,
[1:41:59] and provide notice about scoping meetings
[1:42:01] and how to make a scoping comment.
[1:42:03] And I did want to highlight that the NOP is not a decision document.
[1:42:06] SQL requires us to include a proposed project
[1:42:09] so that people have something to comment on and react to,
[1:42:12] but that does not indicate a decision.
[1:42:14] We are at the very beginning of this process
[1:42:16] and we won't make a decision until the end
[1:42:18] with the notice of determination.
[1:42:23] The project purpose and objectives reflect the fundamental reasons
[1:42:26] that DWI are is considering this project.
[1:42:29] So the purpose is to develop new diversion
[1:42:31] and convey its facilities in the Delta
[1:42:32] necessary to restore and protect the reliability
[1:42:35] of water deliveries and a cost effective manner
[1:42:37] consistent with the state's water resilience portfolio.
[1:42:41] And the objectives are to address sea level rise
[1:42:43] and climate change, minimize water supply disruption due
[1:42:46] to seismic risk, protect water supply reliability,
[1:42:49] and provide operational flexibility.
[1:42:55] And the proposed project area reflects areas
[1:43:00] that could have both direct and indirect impacts
[1:43:03] with within the Delta, as well as the construction area.
[1:43:06] So construction would occur within the statutory Delta,
[1:43:09] but there could be indirect impacts
[1:43:10] to rivers upstream from the Delta,
[1:43:12] and there could be effects within the areas
[1:43:14] that could receive water from the project,
[1:43:16] shown in green for the state water project service areas,
[1:43:19] and potentially also the Central Valley Project Service
[1:43:21] area is shown in yellow.
[1:43:29] So the proposed project facilities, this map, is a little bit small and some of the screens,
[1:43:33] but I believe that you also have the copy of the notice of preparation in your packets,
[1:43:37] and so this map is from the notice of preparation.
[1:43:40] So the facilities include intake facilities on the Sacramento River, and the map shows three
[1:43:45] potential sites, but we're looking to select two of those three.
[1:43:49] Tunnel reaches and tunnel shafts for the water to be conveyed from those intakes to the
[1:43:54] Delta. Four days, potentially an intermediate and a southern four-way to help manage hydraulics within the
[1:44:00] tunnel. A pumping plant to pump water from the tunnel up into the southern four-way. And convey
[1:44:05] its facilities to convey water from the southern four-way to the south Delta pumping facilities.
[1:44:13] The NOP has two potential corridors for the tunnel. The yellow corridor is similar to the
[1:44:19] old water fix alignment, and the purple corridor is further to the east to help us evaluate trade-offs
[1:44:25] between those two locations.
[1:44:27] At this point, we do not have a preference between the two,
[1:44:30] and we would only be looking to select one.
[1:44:32] We aren't looking to select both.
[1:44:38] The NOP includes a capacity for the proposed project
[1:44:40] of 6,000 cubic feet per second or CFS,
[1:44:44] combined between two intakes of 3,000 CFS each
[1:44:47] located on the Sacramento River.
[1:44:49] And the NOP also identifies that we are looking
[1:44:51] to select alternatives after we receive scope and comments,
[1:44:55] but we will likely consider alternatives
[1:44:57] that have the range of 3,000 CFS to 70.
[1:45:00] 1,500 CFS.
[1:45:05] Operations of the facility. The new diversion facility would be operated together with the existing South Delta pumping facilities.
[1:45:12] This would not replace the existing South Delta facilities. So operations would increase DWR's ability to capture water during high flow events.
[1:45:21] The initial operating criteria will be formulated to assess impacts of mitigation, but we do want to highlight that after we do the sequence evaluation, some of the subsequent permits may impose additional restrictions that we would also
[1:45:32] incorporate operations.
[1:45:37] Within the EIR, DWR will select a reasonable range of potentially
[1:45:41] feasible alternatives that meet the project objectives and have the potential to reduce
[1:45:45] impacts. And the Scoping Period provides an opportunity for the public to comment on alternatives.
[1:45:52] After Scoping, we will take the information and feedback that we've received, formulate alternatives
[1:45:56] and publicize those alternatives that we intend to include for detailed evaluation in the draft EIR.
[1:46:04] We are currently in the public scoping period, so we've conducted seven scoping meeting so far.
[1:46:10] We have our last scoping meeting next Monday, the second in redding, and comments are
[1:46:15] due on March 20.
[1:46:19] Before I leave this, I did just want to highlight that any sloping comments, if anyone wants
[1:46:24] to make comments coming so that they're made to date to the board, would not be considered
[1:46:26] as part of our scoping process, so if anyone wants to make comments, it would really encourage
[1:46:30] them to submit them to us directly, and I do appreciate that the board has submitted comments.
[1:46:34] Thank you.
[1:46:40] Go ahead.
[1:46:40] Go ahead.
[1:46:42] Okay.
[1:46:44] So moving on to talk a little bit about the Delta Convention's design and construction authority
[1:46:47] or the DCA.
[1:46:49] It was established as a joint powers authority between the participating public water agencies
[1:46:53] or PWAs.
[1:46:55] The Board of Directors is composed of elected officials from the PWAs and it was originally established
[1:47:00] to have up to seven members and currently has four.
[1:47:04] It was originally established to complete design and construction for the California Waterfix and so the purpose of that organization has had to shift as part of this effort to focus more on design during the planning phase.
[1:47:20] So the DCA and DWR have a joint exercise of powers agreement that was changed to provide design support for environmental planning, so DWR is directing the work and providing oversight.
[1:47:31] And DWR has asked the DCA to develop preliminary designs for the proposed project and alternatives
[1:47:38] when developed to avoid or minimize construction effects to the local communities.
[1:47:46] DWR's role between the DWR and DCA collaboration is that the DWR leads the environmental
[1:47:52] review and planning effort, including SQL and other environmental permits.
[1:47:56] We leave public outreach, public participation, and stakeholder engagement activities.
[1:48:00] We ensure transparency and we're responsible for managing the planning budget and planning schedule.
[1:48:06] Finally, we direct and oversee the work of the DCA.
[1:48:12] Under oversight of DWI, the DCA will conduct engineering and design work to inform the
[1:48:17] environmental review and planning process.
[1:48:19] Identify potential engineering and design strategies to avoid or minimize effects and
[1:48:24] Assistant conducting public outreach, public participation and stakeholder engagement activities.
[1:48:31] Also, the public water agencies that would receive water have a role in this effort, so they
[1:48:36] are providing technical expertise to DWR and the DCI.
[1:48:40] They're collaborating on public participation in public outreach and working to help make
[1:48:45] sure that the planning and project development meet the financial policy, technical, and
[1:48:49] long-term planning needs of their retailers member agencies and ratepayers.
[1:48:57] So the last thing I wanted to talk about was a little bit about what we're doing for public
[1:49:00] engagement.
[1:49:01] So right now we are working on scoping meetings, as I mentioned we've had seven so far.
[1:49:06] We will also have public hearings after the draft is released to have a formal public comment period.
[1:49:12] We're planning to have technical workshops where we are able to present technical information that may be of benefit to people who are interested in the project.
[1:49:20] We are working to have disadvantaged community outreach.
[1:49:23] We understand that for disadvantaged communities it may not be possible or maybe very difficult to come to our scoping meetings.
[1:49:29] and so we're working now to make sure that disadvantaged communities know that scoping is
[1:49:33] underway.
[1:49:34] They know how to submit comments and we help them in any way we can.
[1:49:37] We've also offered to attend meetings in their communities, maybe existing meetings
[1:49:42] that people are already going to to try to make this as easy as possible for them to learn
[1:49:45] about the project and understand ways to submit comments.
[1:49:50] We have the DCA stakeholder engagement committee, which I'll talk about in the next slides.
[1:49:54] And the California Water Commission is that we're planning to report regularly to the country.
[1:50:00] California Water Commission is a way to continue to make public information about the effort.
[1:50:07] So a little bit more about the DCA's stakeholder engagement committee.
[1:50:11] The stakeholder engagement committee has been formed to help identify ways to design and construct the project
[1:50:16] that would avoid or minimize effects to local communities and the Delta as a place.
[1:50:21] It has 17 members representing different key stakeholder groups in the Delta, and it has up to five
[1:50:27] at the moment, I think there are two positions that have been filled, and members do not need to agree with the project.
[1:50:34] I also wanted to highlight that when the members applied to be on the committee, one of the things that was on the application was,
[1:50:40] Crystal, would stakeholder group to represent, but also how would you take this information back to your group,
[1:50:45] how would this information be shared and go beyond just the committee, and so that's part of being on the committee's
[1:50:52] agreement to share and collect information and feedback from their groups.
[1:50:58] So the committee role as a committee of the DCA board, the topics are limited to work
[1:51:02] completed by the DCA. So it's focused on design and construction-related activities. It
[1:51:08] is scheduled to meet once or twice a month. It had five meetings so far and two more meetings
[1:51:13] are scheduled for March and it is a brown-act body so it's subject to all brown-act requirements.
[1:51:18] And it does not take the place of public involvement under sequa, DWR is still planning an extensive
[1:51:23] the public involvement effort under CEQA.
[1:51:29] So for next steps, several components of the project
[1:51:33] would require review pursuant to Title 33 code section
[1:51:36] for our late, specifically the intakes on the Sacramento River
[1:51:40] would involve the board as a non-federal sponsor.
[1:51:43] And so we're going to request approval of a no-objection
[1:51:46] letter in March, so that will be something else
[1:51:48] that you guys are seeing soon from us.
[1:51:53] And I wanted to highlight ways to stay informed.
[1:51:56] The best way to stay informed on Delta
[1:51:57] that we have an email blast, and that comes out on a regular basis.
[1:52:01] You can sign up for the email list on our Delta conveyance website.
[1:52:04] There's a button and it's pretty easy to register.
[1:52:07] Additionally, we have a website, a project hotline,
[1:52:10] DWRS Twitter account, and our project email.
[1:52:23] Okay.
[1:52:26] Who appoints this engagement committee?
[1:52:29] So it is a committee of the DCA board.
[1:52:31] So the DCA board members appointed committee, the committee members, the committee members applied to be on the board, and then the board members reviewed and selected those members.
[1:52:45] Clyde.
[1:52:46] Yeah, just two questions, Kerry.
[1:52:49] First, would the, would this connect with the Clifton Court, or does it connect to the, to the Tracy pumps?
[1:52:56] So the proposed project does not connect to Clifton Court.
[1:52:59] it has a separate southern forbe, and then it would have a direct connection to banks and or
[1:53:04] Jones.
[1:53:07] Oh, but the idea would be to put the water into the state water project.
[1:53:10] So right now, reclamation has not identified if they want to be involved.
[1:53:14] So the proposed project definitely includes a connection to the state water project facilities
[1:53:18] and identifies the potential that there could be a connection to the Central Valley project
[1:53:22] facilities.
[1:53:23] Okay.
[1:53:23] Second question.
[1:53:24] What are the advantages and disadvantages of the two alignments that you have?
[1:53:32] I mean, obviously a straight alignment kind of obvious sense in a kind of without knowing a lot.
[1:53:39] But why the second one and what are the pros and cons of each it as you identify them now?
[1:53:43] So I think it's too early for us to really know them all.
[1:53:46] That's part of the reason we want to study them in the environmental document.
[1:53:48] But the reason we started considering it is that we started to really understand that the
[1:53:53] driver for construction-related effects is accessing the major points of construction, which for
[1:53:59] this type of project include the intakes, the tunnel shafts or drive shafts, where the tunnels
[1:54:04] are launched as well as maintenance and retrieval shafts, which are much smaller, and then
[1:54:09] the four base.
[1:54:10] And so because the shafts, particularly would be in the central delta, that's a little more
[1:54:14] difficult to access from i5, for example, and also area railroads.
[1:54:19] So we wanted to look at an option of moving it a little closer to I5 to see if that could reduce the effects associated with needing to get facilities to inform construction sites.
[1:54:29] However, we haven't investigated the environmental effects yet of those areas as much, so we're not sure what we'll find yet that's part of what we're looking for in scoping.
[1:54:37] And we know there's concerns about from Stockton residents that it's moving in a bit closer to Stockton and that could produce additional effects there that we haven't fully assessed yet.
[1:54:46] Thank you.
[1:54:48] Okay, any other questions for Carrie now this is going to be before us again in March
[1:55:01] Okay, just for the four o'clock.
[1:55:08] Okay, I guess I'll turn this back to Darren, or are we going to have?
[1:55:17] Thank you, President. We also have Captain Marquez here to talk about.
[1:55:20] Now, the other fades are a different part of the project, dealing with soils investigations in the Delta.
[1:55:28] Oh, the one thing I forgot to ask, Kerry, Darren, is there going to be an EIS on this project?
[1:55:35] So, there will need to be need book compliance because the court will definitely be involved in permitting the effort.
[1:55:42] Reclamation may or may not choose to be involved as well.
[1:55:46] There is still discussion on going about the need of phase.
[1:55:50] However, when that initiates there will be a notice of intent and additional scoping on that side.
[1:55:55] Okay, so there will be two separate documents as well.
[1:55:58] That's not clear yet. I think that we would like ideally to try to have a combined document later in the process,
[1:56:03] but we don't know yet how that will work.
[1:56:06] OK, thanks, Gary.
[1:56:10] Hi, I'm Katherine Marquez.
[1:56:11] Thanks for having me here.
[1:56:13] So I'm going to be talking to you guys
[1:56:14] about the soil investigations for data collection in the Delta.
[1:56:18] This is an effort for which DWR prepared
[1:56:21] in initial study and proposed mitigated negative declaration.
[1:56:25] The project objective for this specific project
[1:56:27] is to determine the composition location
[1:56:29] and geotechnical properties of soil materials
[1:56:32] found in the Delta, which would then inform the design,
[1:56:35] environmental analysis and development of alternatives for a potential delta commands project
[1:56:40] and contribute to DWR as overall understanding of delta geology.
[1:56:46] The project location, which you'll see in a second, is pretty broad. It's within the legal
[1:56:51] delta in Alameda, Contrapasta, Sacramento, Solano, San Joaquin, and Yolo Counties.
[1:56:57] And I have on there which is pretty small to see, but the website which carry also referenced
[1:57:04] in her presentation and much larger, but specifically the environmental planning section of that
[1:57:09] website, which has all of the information associated with the ISM&D.
[1:57:17] So for the ISM&D, we went out
[1:57:19] for public comment on November 20th through January 15th. Right now we are in the process of considering
[1:57:27] all the comments that we received, including the boards comment letter. And we are reviewing those
[1:57:33] comments alongside with the proposed mitigated negative declaration prior to making a determination
[1:57:38] on whether to adopt a final mitigated negative declaration and making a decision on the proposed project.
[1:57:45] If the project is approved, decision documents and a notice of determination would be filed per
[1:57:52] and also it would be posted on our web page and an email notification will be sent out.
[1:57:58] Again, this is if you're signed up on that e-blast that Kerry had mentioned before.
[1:58:06] So, for the proposed project, I know this map is really hard to see.
[1:58:10] And what I was just trying to show you here is a general overview of the overall proposed project for the ISM&D.
[1:58:17] I will have maps later on my presentation that are much more zoomed in.
[1:58:20] There is a map associated with the ISM and D itself that can be found on our web page.
[1:58:25] This is a screenshot of the actual cams e-files, so the Google Earth files that we made available
[1:58:30] to the public during the public comment period.
[1:58:34] So we posted and noticed, we posted on our website that we would provide the GIS data
[1:58:41] or Google Earth files to anyone who requested.
[1:58:44] We did get some of our requests for that.
[1:58:48] So just to orient you here, the overall proposed
[1:58:52] project included 103 comb and penetration tests.
[1:58:56] So these are CTTs.
[1:58:57] They're about to 200 feet deep, and I'll explain
[1:59:00] in each of these steps, so no little more detail later.
[1:59:04] Just to explain on the map, the CTTs are the green circles
[1:59:09] with green triangles in the middle. The soil boring, so we're proposed to where there are
[1:59:15] approximately 100 and there were 167 on land soil borings for post. Those icons are the sort
[1:59:22] of checker board circles. About 22 of those were up to 50 feet deep and 145 were up to 200 feet
[1:59:31] deep. They were also over water borings that were proposed. Those are the blue squares on the map
[1:59:39] And those are up to 200 feet below my line.
[1:59:42] We also proposed to do some geophysical testing
[1:59:45] arrays on bold and island, which you can't actually
[1:59:48] see here, because icons are really big in this view.
[1:59:53] But the nice part about Google Earth
[1:59:56] is that you can really easily zoom in on the aerial imagery.
[2:00:00] I mean, single one of these individual sites.
[2:00:04] I think there's laser pointer. Okay, this laser pointer doesn't work.
[2:00:08] All right, so the overall project description.
[2:00:13] So I'm going to walk through the project description as opposed in the ISM and D, but sort of from the,
[2:00:20] now we have all our permits, these are the steps we would take.
[2:00:24] So the first thing, of course, is to get all the permits that we need to do the work,
[2:00:28] get all the property access permissions to access the sites during that process of working with the land management agencies for encryption permits or the land out the private land owners themselves for temporary entry permits
[2:00:41] We would then confirm the appropriate access routes and the final locations of the soil investigation sites based upon their input
[2:00:50] Once we have all of that in hand, then the field of work commences, so this would start with
[2:00:56] a site clearance, and DWR is standard practice for this kind of effort would be to
[2:01:04] sound like a lot of people, but to go out there together and sort of look at the different
[2:01:09] resource areas and perspectives at the same time so that a consensus can be made in the field.
[2:01:13] So this includes a biologist and archaeologist and depending on tribal consultation, it could be a tribal representative.
[2:01:23] The geologist of real estate representative and the drilling contractor.
[2:01:27] And the purpose for this is that they're all going to be looking for different things.
[2:01:31] So the drilling contractor might be looking for access and safety issues,
[2:01:36] whereas the biologist is going to be doing wildlife surveys.
[2:01:40] So, if, for example, a drilling contractor needs to move aside 50 feet east because of some
[2:01:48] access issue, the wildlife person or the biologists can now make sure that they're buffer
[2:01:53] area that they're surveying for wildlife also includes that area.
[2:01:57] At this point in time, they would identify also any vegetation that might need to be disturbed
[2:02:03] for this for access.
[2:02:04] This is really just minor vegetation, potentially mowing, or termina bushes, maybe a branch,
[2:02:11] but this wouldn't be done until we had approval from the landowner.
[2:02:14] And of course, surveys and everything to make sure that that vegetation is insensitive,
[2:02:20] or there's no wildlife associated with that vegetation that we would have concerns for.
[2:02:26] So after the site clearance, the location would be marked in the field with a stake.
[2:02:33] It would also be marked with a GPS unit when they come back and do the work later on prior to the
[2:02:39] Drowberg entry in the site, the environmental monitor would then survey the site again, confirm anything
[2:02:44] that any resources that were identified during the original site clearance and then make sure that no new
[2:02:51] wildlife has entered the site. Just for explanation, the ISM&D included maximum numbers of equipment
[2:02:58] and people on site, but the average born in our CPT site is really going to consist of mainly
[2:03:06] the drill rig and CPT or CPT rig, which is managed typically by two or three people from the
[2:03:12] drilling contractor, AGologists or two, and an environmental monitor. So, handful of people and
[2:03:20] a few vehicles in the drill rig.
[2:03:24] So, going into more explanation on the individual types of
[2:03:27] investigations, CPTs, these comb penetration tests consists of a one-to-two inch rod that gets
[2:03:34] pushed into the ground and it has gauges and sensors that continuously collect data throughout
[2:03:39] that process once they get to the desired depth that hold and gets grounded and that's the
[2:03:47] end of the CPT. For soil boreings, they can range in diameter from 48 inches if they're using a
[2:03:56] It's 60 inches if they're not using a casing. It's four to six inches. For on land, we're typically not using a casing.
[2:04:05] And we use mud rotary drilling, so that has drilling fluids, which are typically drilling polymers and or a bit in my clay.
[2:04:13] This is all connected in hoses to recirculation tanks. It's a contained system.
[2:04:19] And the drill cuttings themselves, if they're drilling,
[2:04:23] get collected in those recirculation tanks as well.
[2:04:27] And when the drilling is done,
[2:04:28] that material all gets put into drums
[2:04:30] and is supposed to be the landfill.
[2:04:34] Again, once the holes are done,
[2:04:36] they've gotten all the data they needed.
[2:04:38] It gets grounded and sealed that way.
[2:04:41] For overwater borings, it's the same process
[2:04:43] with the exception of the use of a casing.
[2:04:47] A casing, if you just visualize it,
[2:04:49] really just like a giant straw that they push into the sediment, the soft sediments, and then
[2:04:55] all the drilling occurs within that casing. So everything that happens is all contained.
[2:05:00] And the same process occurs.
[2:05:05] The geophysical surveys, I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about those.
[2:05:10] The purpose of the geophysical surveys is to test a handful of different non-invasive techniques that would identify subsurface conditions without any drilling or excavation.
[2:05:24] And this could be buried casings or abandoned wells.
[2:05:28] They do this with electromagnetic meters and by a small machinery that causes vibrations
[2:05:37] and sensors.
[2:05:39] This is usually handheld equipment.
[2:05:43] Things that may be decisable long-goer, that kind of thing.
[2:05:49] So for permits, we've already applied for several permits here.
[2:05:53] We submitted applications under Fish and Game Code 1600,
[2:05:57] sourced streambed alteration agreement,
[2:06:00] submitted applications for coverage under the Clean Water Act
[2:06:02] Section 401 and Section 404,
[2:06:05] along with our 404 application,
[2:06:07] we submitted a biological assessment for Section 7
[2:06:09] consultation under the Endangered Species Act,
[2:06:13] and cultural resources inventory for Section
[2:06:16] coverage under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
[2:06:20] and we are currently in the process of developing
[2:06:22] our encroachment permit application package for the centrality flood protection board.
[2:06:30] So, if the M&D is approved, the plan is to start the soil investigation field of work in the summer of this year,
[2:06:39] but the sites that are under the floodboards jurisdiction wouldn't be planned until next year.
[2:06:45] So, they'll lag by about a year.
[2:06:47] And, like I said, we're preparing that
[2:06:50] at Coachment Permit Application Package now with the DCA
[2:06:54] and it'll include a drilling program plan.
[2:06:58] And we have identified preliminary,
[2:07:00] which sites we believe fall under the board's jurisdiction,
[2:07:04] but we'd like to verify that with staff.
[2:07:07] Sometimes it's a little difficult to change this in different areas,
[2:07:10] as far as the buffers from the levees.
[2:07:12] So we would like to verify that with staff,
[2:07:14] but I do have slides showing what those areas are.
[2:07:18] The next steps would then be after following this briefing,
[2:07:21] it would be to set up a pre-application meeting.
[2:07:26] So, again, sorry for the difficulty to see the slide,
[2:07:30] but right here what I'm showing you are three CPTs.
[2:07:33] They're about, they're up to 200 feet deep.
[2:07:35] Those are, again, the circles with the green triangles.
[2:07:38] You'll see them on the deep water ship channel.
[2:07:40] If you orient yourself, highway five is,
[2:07:43] I don't know which view you're looking off,
[2:07:45] but up in that right hand corner
[2:07:47] and the deep watershed channel,
[2:07:48] sort of running down the middle to the left.
[2:07:53] So there you'll see three along that area.
[2:07:59] For on land-borns, again, sorry.
[2:08:02] CPTs, they're always on land, so these would be in the living,
[2:08:05] not in the channel themselves.
[2:08:08] For on-land-borns, this map is a zoomed in area
[2:08:12] of where most of them are gonna occur.
[2:08:13] They're a total of 25 that we think might be
[2:08:16] within your jurisdiction, this map shows 23 of them,
[2:08:21] and they run along the Sacramento River
[2:08:23] along Highway 160, sort of a little lower down on the map
[2:08:28] towards the middle that's Hood Franklin Road
[2:08:29] just to orient you.
[2:08:32] All of these are up to 175 feet deep,
[2:08:37] except for one, and I wish I could point to it
[2:08:40] but it's sort of a middle of that bottom cluster.
[2:08:46] be remaining two that weren't on that other map for on-line
[2:08:50] boorings. One is along the levee on the ship channel, which you'll see sort of
[2:08:55] toward the bottom left-hand corner here. And on that bottom tip of Grand
[2:09:02] Island Highway 12 is running through the middle of this map just to orient you.
[2:09:09] For
[2:09:09] overwater boorings, this is where the majority of the overwater boorings are occurring
[2:09:15] Again, over to the right, you'll see highway 160
[2:09:18] in the Sacramento River.
[2:09:21] There are about 10 over water borings along that line.
[2:09:25] There is an over water boring.
[2:09:27] If you're moving to the left a little bit,
[2:09:30] somewhere in the middle of that image,
[2:09:31] there's one on elk's slew.
[2:09:33] And there's one on set or slew lower down from that.
[2:09:37] And then you'll see three along the deep water ship channel.
[2:09:43] The additional ones that weren't on that map
[2:09:45] where there's two more on the deep watershed channel, and then you'll see if you hear a
[2:09:52] two more lower down on the deep watershed channel. One, I would call that, I guess, cash
[2:09:58] flew towards the end tip of gray.
[2:10:00] And I'll end two on steamboat slew if you follow that up and through the middle and then one on the Sacramento over to the bottom right of the image.
[2:10:13] So those are the same presentation.
[2:10:19] Are there any other in-depth studies that are going to be done that will inform the conveyance project?
[2:10:28] This is the story of study, and you're going to be looking at cultural resources of everything else, I guess, as you do these boring, but are there any other geological studies or other studies that have to be done?
[2:10:47] So this project is, like I said, there was a review of the data that we already had along,
[2:10:53] like we didn't see that.
[2:10:54] There was a review of the data that geotechnical data that we had as a department.
[2:10:58] We also solicited or the DCA for a solicited additional data from other projects going on
[2:11:03] in the Delta like bridge construction projects and so they collected all of that and they chose
[2:11:10] these locations based on the data gaps.
[2:11:12] So as far as Delta Geology is concerned, this is what we feel as a good amount of information to support the consideration of Delta Geology for a new design and construction project.
[2:11:28] Okay, that's what I wanted to know.
[2:11:29] So you took, these are the studies that necessary to fill the gap then.
[2:11:35] This is to fill the data gaps, and that's not to say that additional geotechnical information might not be necessary.
[2:11:40] way down the line or even a little further down the line,
[2:11:47] but any engineer, I don't do technical
[2:11:51] engineer will tell you that when you're in construction, you're going to have more closer
[2:11:58] located geotechnical data points that you might want to look at that kind of thing. So this
[2:12:02] is not the end of the geotechnical studies that might need to be done if a project is approved,
[2:12:08] But for the purposes of considering alternatives and looking at a new project right now, this is what we've proposed.
[2:12:18] Okay.
[2:12:24] Any other questions for Kathleen?
[2:12:28] Thank you.
[2:12:30] Thank you, President Agar.
[2:12:33] At your convenience, I believe there may be some comments from the audience.
[2:12:40] Any questions from the board at this point?
[2:12:42] Okay, I'll open it up to comments from the public.
[2:12:52] I'm Melinda.
[2:12:52] Hello again, Melinda Terry,
[2:12:54] Central Valley Flood Control Association.
[2:12:56] These are two separate agenda items.
[2:12:59] So I hope I am granted time.
[2:13:00] I would like to talk about them separately.
[2:13:02] Yeah, sure.
[2:13:03] So first, I'll start with the NOP for the new Delta
[2:13:09] Command's Project, the DCP, and that's
[2:13:12] to be confused with the DCA.
[2:13:14] But obviously this is the scoping period.
[2:13:16] So we really hope that the flood board is going to comment and I'm just going to bring up some things that we hope you will consider both in this scoping phase and as it moves forward in your permitting phase.
[2:13:29] But obviously the entire project has several modifications, alteration or encroachment, if you will, to the state plan of flood control facilities.
[2:13:39] on the levees, you have the in-takes, and you also have anywhere between six-nate
[2:13:45] barge facilities that they need to bring in a large of a lot of large
[2:13:50] equipments and construction materials.
[2:13:56] And in addition, so one of the things to
[2:13:58] think about when you're doing that is not only will those particularly the
[2:14:02] in-takes be a permanent encroachment into the floodflow capacity of that
[2:14:07] But each of those barges will as well.
[2:14:10] I'm not sure they call it temporary,
[2:14:12] but this is a 14-year construction period.
[2:14:15] We are guaranteed to have high water every single year
[2:14:18] and really high water at least once during that,
[2:14:21] you know, it probably twice during that 15-14-15-year period.
[2:14:26] And the coffer dams themselves prior to these being built,
[2:14:30] that will be again encroaching and reducing this floodflow capacity,
[2:14:34] which means that water level is rising, so we have to accommodate that. Are they raising the
[2:14:40] levees upstream and downstream so that we don't have overtopping in the delta? Because we haven't
[2:14:44] had overtopping since the 80s, we don't want that to come back. Or is there a setback proposed
[2:14:50] for the west side project levee? These are really things we hope you will consider and look at.
[2:15:00] The levy stability is a big issue when you have a 14-year construction project that is going to require de-watering, that could affect the material in those levees.
[2:15:12] These are every 75 feet apart. It's extensive de-watering. And then you also have vibration from that, right? Then you've got the pile driving from all these shafts that are going to be built.
[2:15:23] the end takes these barge facilities.
[2:15:25] They have a lot of other construction sites
[2:15:27] about 21 facilities being built.
[2:15:30] Some of them are going to have that pile driving.
[2:15:33] On top of that, you get the vibrations
[2:15:34] from the truck traffic.
[2:15:36] Muck trucks, I know, we're going to do eight trips per day.
[2:15:39] How many trucks are doing eight trips per day?
[2:15:42] I'm not sure of, but you've also got concrete plants
[2:15:45] and fuel stations.
[2:15:46] A lot of truck traffic that is going over these levies.
[2:15:49] So it's that cumulative impact
[2:15:51] that I would call seismic.
[2:15:54] And you've got under ground tunneling.
[2:15:57] There's a lot of vibration activity that we don't know.
[2:16:01] How's going to affect these levels that we hope you will consider.
[2:16:06] And then going back to that cumulative impacts,
[2:16:09] the cumulative impacts of that flood flow capacity loss.
[2:16:13] So you've got three intakes on the Sacramento River,
[2:16:16] plus you have eight barges that are located in different
[2:16:21] Each of them are designed to have a certain flood flow capacity, what's that loss of capacity
[2:16:27] in each of those on a cumulative basis to your system in that part?
[2:16:33] Because that needs to be analyzed and hope that you'll look at that as well.
[2:16:37] We obviously will have a change in the hydrodynamics, which could create erosion and maintenance
[2:16:43] issues on your system, that really needs to be looked at.
[2:16:48] And then finally really a big issue during a 14-year construction project is how is it going to, in fact, your LMAs being able to do their loving inspections, their annual maintenance,
[2:17:03] to get to bullets in 1952, 802, and of course their fled fighting and repair.
[2:17:12] That really all needs to occur, you know, particularly the inspections and maintenance on an annual basis,
[2:17:18] and really needs to be accommodated and can't, you know, be satisfied for any given year.
[2:17:23] So that's that one, and then I'll move on to the second agenda item, which is the Delta Drilline negative duck.
[2:17:32] Obviously, one of the things I was kind of hoping today, and it wasn't as specific, maybe,
[2:17:38] and so I don't know, it sounds like you've got a permit pending and coming, and I am hoping
[2:17:43] during your process, there can be more detailed discussion of where these locations really
[2:17:47] are.
[2:17:48] Out of that, what did she say?
[2:17:51] I think there was 25 borings in your jurisdiction that were on land.
[2:17:59] Where exactly were those were they going to go through the levy or the adjacent to the levy?
[2:18:04] I know our LMAs have different concerns on whether they're through or next to because there's
[2:18:09] Artesian Will, a well potential, but it also where exactly are those going to be so that we know
[2:18:16] or they project non-project to dealing with you and really what the condition of those levy's are.
[2:18:21] Another issue that we had raised with the DCA was the sharing of that boring information
[2:18:28] with the local LMA in if it's a project levy with you.
[2:18:32] That can be extremely useful as you can imagine for all of us to know what's inside
[2:18:37] of where the boring is occurring.
[2:18:40] At the last stakeholder engagement meeting, they did say that they don't think they're
[2:18:47] going to be able to share that information now.
[2:18:49] It might be a legal reason.
[2:18:51] So I think we need to continue those conversations and help each other in that and try to find our way around that.
[2:19:00] And the location of where these are is really important because as I said, I guess this last month's meeting when I brought this up and request this item and I forgot to say thank you for having this on the agenda.
[2:19:11] as I did ask for it, so I appreciate it, is so that we could have a better idea of, you know,
[2:19:22] where are the interference with, because we got the same interference issues in the terms
[2:19:25] of our annual inspections, you know, the maintenance, the repair, the flood fighting, what
[2:19:31] the boring.
[2:19:31] I'm not exactly sure what time of year, you know, how long it's going to be, but we really
[2:19:35] hope that through your permitting process, we're going to make sure to accommodate that
[2:19:39] conditions are set, so that any, particularly improvement and repair work that needs to
[2:19:44] occur, it's not going to be affected, and that's why these specific sites would really,
[2:19:48] really be important, because as you know, our folks kind of know what they have planned out ahead,
[2:19:52] and I don't want to have that interference.
[2:19:59] But, and as I had mentioned,
[2:20:00] At the last meeting, the M&D didn't actually have any discussion of, okay, we're going to be boring in
[2:20:07] through or, you know, next to levees and so there were no mitigations. And so that still I didn't hear that really addressed
[2:20:14] in this, what's going to happen with this final and whether that, in fact, is a plan for them to mitigate.
[2:20:20] As I mentioned last month for residential and businesses, structures, they're going to have a hundred-foot exclusion zone.
[2:20:27] Obviously, they're not if they're going to bore through one or next two, but it would be nice to know what medications they do have planned and hopefully during your permitting process that can be brought up.
[2:20:39] Finally, I just want to bring up a couple of things that relate to both of these projects.
[2:20:45] One is, I guess it relates more to the DCP itself, but they mentioned the stakeholder engagement.
[2:20:51] and it's important to understand when we do appreciate
[2:20:53] because they're actually having a level of discussion
[2:20:55] with the locals with some of the descriptions
[2:20:58] that they can at this point and we didn't get that before,
[2:21:03] but they aren't allowed to talk about any of the mitigations
[2:21:05] because no EIR stuff is allowed to be discussed at those.
[2:21:09] So it's kind of a weird place to be
[2:21:12] and locals can bring up issues but they can't bring up
[2:21:21] there is going to be a report regularly to the California Water Commission on that project.
[2:21:25] I would suggest again because there are numerous alterations of your system that it seems like
[2:21:31] there should actually be a regular thing here. That each time they are bringing some of that
[2:21:35] very detailed information forward to you. That's really specific to your the changes to your
[2:21:41] project not. You know we saw a nice overall what the project is and purposes and some general
[2:21:46] things, but I hope in the future they'll come back and really give you some more specific things related to your project and I'll end it there.
[2:21:54] Thank you.
[2:21:56] Oh, OK.
[2:21:57] Joe, really caught my attention.
[2:22:00] You said there might be some legal issue was sharing the data.
[2:22:06] I can't understand that.
[2:22:08] Yeah, I can't speak more to that.
[2:22:09] So I will let them answer that.
[2:22:12] Thank you.
[2:22:13] So, at the SEC meeting, they're talking about historical data that DWR collected on private land and so there are issues related to our contracts with those private landowners and being allowed to share that information with the public.
[2:22:28] For any effort that happens on public lands or within the specific landmen and agencies right away, we can obviously share the data with them.
[2:22:38] So, any data that was gathered would be available?
[2:22:46] Potentially, it depends on the agreement that we have with the entity who owns that property.
[2:22:57] I don't understand a legal system, but I'll defer to it later.
[2:23:05] Okay, any other questions at this point?
[2:23:07] and I think it's important that since we're obviously going to have to issue the 408
[2:23:17] per meter or work with the letter to get that corridor to proceed.
[2:23:24] Is the core involved in these meetings and so on?
[2:23:29] I'm going to have to defer.
[2:23:31] What is the carrier she's interacted with?
[2:23:33] Yes. We've been talking to the core regularly.
[2:23:36] We have a lot of coordination meetings set up at multiple levels with them.
[2:23:42] Okay, I think,
[2:23:46] well, I guess we're going to be having this discussion next month, right,
[2:23:52] where they want the court letter approved.
[2:23:55] Yeah, and they want an objection letter from the board and Andrew Buckley and her officer
[2:24:01] are working with their staff on our comment letters from the board.
[2:24:05] All right.
[2:24:07] Okay,
[2:24:11] no other questions we'll see you next month.
[2:24:14] Thank you.
[2:24:24] Okay, we're under a D,
[2:24:29] and this is Dave Wildon's project, Morning David.
[2:24:36] Good morning, President Edgar, members of the board.
[2:24:40] Jeremy Eric, my name is Dave Wildon, I'm with the Department of Water Resources,
[2:24:44] supervising engineer with Division of Flood Management. Jeremy Erick in his report on the
[2:24:50] Department's activities gave a brief introduction to what I'm going to be talking about today,
[2:24:56] the 2017 and 2019 Storm Damage Emerging.
[2:25:00] Rehabilitation program, both the state led and the federal actions resulting from those storm events.
[2:25:08] I wanted to thank Jeremy for the kind of the kudos that he mentioned.
[2:25:13] And one of the roles as program manager is to take sole credit for all the achievements of the program.
[2:25:19] But no, the reality is it was a huge effort by the department staff and all of our partners.
[2:25:26] So I do appreciate the recognition of that and wanted to reiterate that the numerous partners
[2:25:31] that we work with obviously could not have this project could not have been done under the
[2:25:37] timeframes that we did it.
[2:25:39] So I wanted to recognize them.
[2:25:41] Thank you.
[2:25:44] I as were well familiar primarily in 2017, but also in 2019 we had a historical precipitation
[2:25:52] highest in two decades, 17, we had a 26 and 2019 almost 25 inches of precipitation for that water
[2:26:00] year. The Sacramento Weir opened for the first time since 2006 and the Oraville spillway,
[2:26:09] oraville dam spillway incident also kind of captured the attention a lot of the water delivery
[2:26:15] and flood communities.
[2:26:18] But as a result of these storms, we did see significant damage to
[2:26:22] flood control, flood protection system throughout the state plan of flood control in the Sacramento
[2:26:27] River in San Joaquin River systems.
[2:26:30] DWR immediately expanded $5 million for direct assistance during the storm events.
[2:26:36] We worked with the Army Corps of Engineers while the events were happening to enact emergency
[2:26:41] repairs after the water subsided that damages were recognized.
[2:26:50] The Army Corps of Engineers opened up their PL-8499 program, where they requested reports of damages for their evaluation for repair under the PL-8499 rehabilitation program.
[2:27:04] The Corps leading that screening took a look at their eligibility requirements, determined the sites that they would repair,
[2:27:12] and then DWR also made an evaluation of those sites and the sites that were not being identified
[2:27:19] to be repaired under the PL-8499 program.
[2:27:26] The result of the reporting and the site evaluation and acceptance determined there were a number
[2:27:35] of repairs that were needed and additional areas of concern that required continued monitoring.
[2:27:40] This figure shows kind of the spatial distribution throughout the Central Valley, the state
[2:27:46] plan of flood control of where these problem areas were found.
[2:27:52] You can see a pretty high concentration of them in the Sacramento Valley, the immediate
[2:27:55] Sacramento Valley.
[2:27:57] But going as far north up into north of Chico and south of Modesto also, we'll talk about a
[2:28:05] little bit of this later.
[2:28:06] but the numbers turned out to be the core identified 45 specific repair sites as air priorities
[2:28:14] and acceptable under PL-8499 real-bilitation, DWR identified 38 other sites that we rated
[2:28:21] as critical, requiring immediate attention for repair, another 81 sites, the state identified
[2:28:28] as serious, adding to the list the repairs to be addressed after the critical repairs.
[2:28:34] And then another 235 sites where that we've identified as area of concern, essentially requiring continued monitoring by the local levy maintaining agencies to ensure or to identify any new problems that are resulting those damages.
[2:28:51] Again, in 2019 we had a significant high water event that resulted in damages.
[2:28:56] is the core, again, opened up their PL-8499 rehabilitation program and they identified five sites
[2:29:03] to be repaired as a priority.
[2:29:06] DWR did not identify any additional sites resulting from the 2019 storms, so we're able
[2:29:12] to still focus on the repairs from 2017.
[2:29:20] The core identified their sites and then put them into a prioritization process.
[2:29:25] This describes the essentially their prioritization that they use and one way to look at it is,
[2:29:32] is they looked at the severe damages first as a higher priority and then the moderate damages.
[2:29:38] And then within each of those categories looked at the urban protection and then moved on to the rural protection.
[2:29:45] So the higher priority would be the severe damages in the urban areas, the next level of priority is severe damages in the rural areas.
[2:29:53] and then moving on down with the moderate damages on the same approach.
[2:30:02] So, as I mentioned previously, the Corps identified 45 sites that were needed for repair that they were eligible for repair under PL-8499 rehabilitation assistance, 32 in the Sacramento River Basin, 13 in the San Joaquin River Basin.
[2:30:19] of the remaining reported sites, there were requested reported damage sites.
[2:30:29] There were over 300 that were determined to be not actionable by the Army Corps of Engineers,
[2:30:34] although into those categories in a minute.
[2:30:43] Similar for the 2019 Winter Stormly Corps identified five sites that were actionable under
[2:30:51] the PL-84-99.
[2:30:53] There were 46 other requested sites that
[2:30:56] were determined to be not no action
[2:30:58] under the PL-84-99 program.
[2:31:07] So after the core made their determination
[2:31:09] of which sites, they would repair
[2:31:11] under the PL-84-99 program the state.
[2:31:14] What they've noticed about—
[2:31:15] Just going back to those numbers for the 300 and the 46
[2:31:21] that were not considered how many of those were
[2:31:24] because they didn't, they were active, the reaches were active.
[2:31:30] The majority of those that were no action on the core were because they were not
[2:31:36] PL-8499 eligible.
[2:31:39] The majority of them.
[2:31:40] Yeah.
[2:31:41] Well, yes.
[2:31:43] I would say, well, we'll get into the numbers later.
[2:31:46] The numbers of sites that DWR picked up for repair, that actually would be the number
[2:31:51] that was not eligible for PL-8499.
[2:31:55] They still had damages that were severe enough that needed to be addressed, but they were not
[2:31:59] eligible under PL-8499.
[2:32:01] So that's where the department was able to come in with that transfer of funding and pick
[2:32:05] those sites.
[2:32:06] So if you look at the DWR numbers, those are the ones that we picked up because they weren't
[2:32:14] eligible.
[2:32:15] They were active, I guess.
[2:32:17] Mostly, and a very small percent were not, well, a larger percent, but DWR also evaluated
[2:32:27] the sites.
[2:32:28] A number of them were determined.
[2:32:29] They didn't have enough damage, a small number were being repaired under other programs,
[2:32:35] so a few reasons why they weren't picked up under either program.
[2:32:39] Thank you.
[2:32:44] So after the Army Corps evaluated their sites, DWR looked at the remaining
[2:32:50] balance and did a similar prioritization to how the court did it, looking at the most severe
[2:32:57] damages and then prioritizing within those severe and moderate damage sites, prioritizing
[2:33:07] those based on essentially on protected assets, urban versus rural.
[2:33:13] The critical sites are the sites that we determined were likely to fail in the next
[2:33:18] high water event, those were the critical sites that we wanted to jump on right away, so
[2:33:24] those were, we didn't have to do any prioritization because we were able to address those
[2:33:29] all.
[2:33:30] The serious sites, that's where it's coming in more into the prioritization because a longer
[2:33:35] time to get those repaired and then a number of those sites are currently not funded right now,
[2:33:43] so the prioritization of those serious sites were needed.
[2:33:47] Syria sites are defined as a site that is likely to become critical and the next high water
[2:33:51] event and then the next level down is the area of concern or the monitor sites and those
[2:33:58] are sites that the damage wasn't severe enough to be categorized as serious but they still
[2:34:03] had some damages that is likely to increase in other future flood events so the program of monitoring
[2:34:11] on the local level to identify the rate of erosion or the severity of those sites with future events.
[2:34:22] Jane.
[2:34:27] May I get to this but I was what's going on here.
[2:34:35] You might get to this but I
[2:34:36] occurred to me to ask this question in analysis of priority or sites to be repaired. Do you
[2:34:43] take any consideration locations that have failed in the past or have multiple fail at your
[2:34:50] over time?
[2:34:52] Or this assessment related to the storm damages, we essentially just looked at existing.
[2:35:01] So if they had a previous history of it, that wasn't part of the consideration, but if it was a critical site, obviously, that went into the initial prioritization and all the critical sites were addressed to begin with.
[2:35:18] But specifically, no, that wasn't something we looked at for the storm damage related prioritization and evaluation.
[2:35:23] Okay.
[2:35:26] Why?
[2:35:28] Dave, for those projects or for those repairs, which were under the PL-8499 program, were there any that the core rejected because they didn't need BC ratios?
[2:35:41] I believe there may have been just maybe one site that fell under that category.
[2:35:48] A number were rejected that were PL-84-99 eligible, but the damage wasn't determined to be
[2:35:54] severe enough, or it was identified as previously damaged before the storm, so they
[2:36:01] couldn't link it to the storm.
[2:36:02] But to your specific question about the BC ratio, the economically justified, I think there
[2:36:09] was one site that fell under that.
[2:36:11] Thank you.
[2:36:16] As I mentioned before, the definition of critical,
[2:36:18] this is a picture that shows a pretty good example
[2:36:22] of a critically damaged levy.
[2:36:24] Obviously, the erosion is into the levy prism.
[2:36:28] Another high water event would contribute
[2:36:30] to this erosion and likely cause its failure.
[2:36:34] So this is a good example of a site
[2:36:37] that has had some erosion failure
[2:36:40] that we identified as critical.
[2:36:46] Sirius, our definition is a site that is likely to become critical in the next highwater
[2:36:51] event.
[2:36:52] This is a picture that may show a little, it looks a little severe, it looks like it might
[2:36:58] be a critical site.
[2:36:59] There is a significant amount of erosion at this location, but I included this picture to
[2:37:05] show that it does meet the definition of Sirius, it's hard to see, but there is a little
[2:37:10] of a bench on this at this location, and when we did our evaluation, we took sections of the
[2:37:17] levy. It did show that the erosion was not into the levy prism yet even below the water surface
[2:37:25] elevation. So it was technically a serious site. A lot of the, you know, just a initial evaluation
[2:37:34] and just looking at it, you might think it's definitely a critical site, but further examination
[2:37:39] to show that this is a serious site, but I would say it's on the higher end of the serious,
[2:37:44] so it's taking a higher priority within that serious categorization.
[2:37:51] There were a number of no-action sites, both on the core and the DWR side, the reasons for identifying
[2:37:57] those that were not actionable. The damage was not severe enough or not observed from the report
[2:38:05] that was submitted.
[2:38:06] Damage was pre-existing to the 2017 storms.
[2:38:11] Damages were paired under another program or local action,
[2:38:14] or had a near-term plan for those repairs.
[2:38:18] And for the core, obviously, they only accepted repairs
[2:38:22] for districts that were eligible under PL84.99
[2:38:25] for their rehabilitation program.
[2:38:29] So those are some good photos.
[2:38:32] So are we using drones to get those type of photos of this?
[2:38:38] Yeah.
[2:38:38] Yeah.
[2:38:39] We did do a lot of drone use during this time.
[2:38:43] The state has a drone program.
[2:38:46] They were pretty tied up with Oraville.
[2:38:48] We used our consultant to help us out.
[2:38:50] So we've got some really good before and after drone footage of a lot of the repairs and sight.
[2:38:57] So yeah, we're definitely using that technology.
[2:38:59] It's better in the old days.
[2:39:02] The boat in the camera, yes.
[2:39:10] So for the DWR's repairs, this summarizes our 2017
[2:39:15] winter storm evaluations.
[2:39:19] So we identified 38 sites that were rated as critical
[2:39:22] in the need of immediate repair before the next flood season.
[2:39:26] 81 sites were rated serious.
[2:39:29] And then another 235 for the area of concern
[2:39:33] or monitor, and then maybe close to 70 for the no-action.
[2:39:40] And the 38 and the 81, those of the sites that we are focusing our repair effort on are
[2:39:47] critical sites.
[2:39:48] The 38 have all been repaired in 2017 and 18, and we're working through the balance of
[2:39:53] the repairs of the serious sites in the next two or three years.
[2:40:02] Quick note on the permitting.
[2:40:07] In recognition of the big effort that it would take to get this program pushed
[2:40:11] through, and based on the experience we had in 2006, we needed to have frequent and early
[2:40:18] coordination with all of our partner agencies. We put together a unified command group and got
[2:40:25] from a lot of the decision makers and managers of these not only the regulatory agencies, but also the
[2:40:34] Army Corps of Engineers and our other partners. For the state-led critical sites, we used the
[2:40:44] governor's storm damaging emergency proclamations to allow us to use emergency permitting considerations
[2:40:52] for our critical repairs,
[2:40:59] that consideration ended once we completed the critical sites.
[2:41:03] So now we're into the serious sites, and those are being permitted under normal non-emergency
[2:41:07] timelines.
[2:41:10] We also had tribal engagement throughout the program, initially according to our DWR tribal
[2:41:18] engagement policy, and then after the first year AB 52 requirements kicked in, and we're
[2:41:25] following those for the future repairs.
[2:41:34] We recognized the need to have contingency plans in place, knowing that the repair of
[2:41:40] these sites would take a number of years.
[2:41:43] So we developed contingency plans for all of the sites that didn't work being immediately
[2:41:49] repaired and for the area of concern sites also. Essentially,
[2:41:59] these contingency plans
[2:42:01] identified likely method of failure, possible emergency fixes and then notifications of
[2:42:13] of using the flood operation center, flood threat mitigation process, which kind of identifies
[2:42:23] the locals to monitor and flood fight, and then once their resources are expanded, it kind
[2:42:30] of moves up the chain, it goes to county, then it goes to state for their level of assistance.
[2:42:40] The sample of the contingency plans showing the potential flood fight methods that could be used
[2:42:46] during the emergency estimate of the material
[2:42:50] and a description of the project,
[2:42:52] a very problem and proposed solution.
[2:43:00] So this is a good table that kind of shows
[2:43:03] the overall response, where we're at to this point.
[2:43:07] And then what we are looking for in the future,
[2:43:11] as we've shown for DWR, we've repaired 38 sites
[2:43:15] in 2017 and 18, and 29, and 9,
[2:43:19] those were the critical sites I talked about.
[2:43:21] We have currently were funded to repair an additional 32 sites
[2:43:27] that we've identified as serious, starting this summer
[2:43:30] and going next year.
[2:43:33] That leaves a remaining balance on our end
[2:43:36] on the state side of about almost 50 sites
[2:43:39] that we are seeking funding to continue
[2:43:42] repair of those serious sites.
[2:43:44] For the core, the total of the 45 sites from the 2017 storms, there are plans to repair all of those to date
[2:43:58] almost 30 have been repaired and with plans to repair the remaining 15 in the next year or two.
[2:44:06] Similarly, with their 2019 storms, there are five sites to be repaired, one of them has been repaired and four more to be repaired in the subsequent years.
[2:44:17] So the court doesn't have any unfunded sites, all of the sites they've identified for repair
[2:44:25] from the 2017 and 19 storms have a plan and are funded for repair by the end of 2020.
[2:44:33] May stretch into 2021.
[2:44:39] Just a few photos here showing the work that we've done.
[2:44:42] This is a typical water side rock slope repair erosion is cutting into the levy, so the solution
[2:44:49] is to clean off the levy surface, come back in and rebuild it with the new import material
[2:44:56] rock, rock soil mixture above the wall.
[2:45:00] Waterline to encourage hydroceed in plant growth and mitigation growth.
[2:45:10] Another walk, water side rock slope protection, construction. This is a water side access by the barge. If we can use this method, we try to encourage that from our contracting, because it's a much quicker approach. It has less impact on the hall routes and the surrounding areas, which becomes a critical.
[2:45:34] issue. Oh, a little video here. This is kind of good.
[2:45:52] So you can see that the speed with which
[2:45:54] we can place this material is very advantageous to getting these projects done.
[2:46:03] How does state this? You know, I drive down the delta and down the Sacramento River and
[2:46:12] I see rock every place. Is there an end to the rock?
[2:46:19] Another, you know what I'm saying?
[2:46:20] Is our supply source for all this rock?
[2:46:25] I really don't.
[2:46:27] I haven't heard that.
[2:46:28] I haven't heard any of the suppliers, the queries.
[2:46:32] Express that concern, our construction.
[2:46:34] Side on DOE is not indicated that.
[2:46:38] But we'll be in a bad way if, I mean,
[2:46:42] well, anyway.
[2:46:43] It's likely that we'll just have to expand our reach
[2:46:46] to get this material.
[2:46:47] You know, further increasing the cost, you know, right now we take the closest available source that
[2:46:54] I'll just continue to get further away from the areas that we need them as what I would suspect.
[2:47:02] Here's a typical landside rock slope prepare in the later stages.
[2:47:06] This is after hydroceeding.
[2:47:08] There's the stakes in place to control the erosion control fabric.
[2:47:12] So just a recognition that we have rocks slope prepared both on the water side and the landside
[2:47:17] for many of the add many of these sites.
[2:47:22] Another aerial drone view of a small,
[2:47:26] erosion location that would be repaired.
[2:47:32] Looks like likely a serious site,
[2:47:35] it doesn't seem to be too impactful
[2:47:37] of the levy prism.
[2:47:40] Here we go.
[2:47:42] Dave, Dave, do you know how much that would cost?
[2:47:44] Or, you know, what would it cost to repair that?
[2:47:47] Just one like this, two, 300,000 would be my guess.
[2:47:53] We have a number of these smaller ones there, kind of on that order.
[2:47:56] The larger ones, obviously, moving into the millions in construction costs, and then you
[2:48:00] have all the supporting costs.
[2:48:03] Also, that's probably a fair assessment of that, of a small site like that.
[2:48:11] So we've talked about the number of sites that we've repaired in both of the programs.
[2:48:17] Future work will be to continue to move through the inventory of those sites, DWRs, working
[2:48:22] on the serious sites.
[2:48:24] With repairing the sites we have identified with the existing funding that we have, we will continue to seek out funding to address the remaining balance of serious sites to be repaired under this program.
[2:48:38] And of course the Army Corps of Engineers has plans and funding to complete all of their identified repairs by 2020 or 2021.
[2:48:47] The LMAs, local maintaining agencies will continue to monitor, unrepared damage sites, implement
[2:48:54] the contingency planning and follow-through with the flood operations center flood threat
[2:49:00] mitigation process as needed.
[2:49:02] We work closely with the districts for this program and other programs, so we have a good
[2:49:08] line of connection communication with them, should problems arise with respect to the damages
[2:49:14] from these storms and other storms, and other just standard levy repair issues.
[2:49:25] So that wraps up what I was here to talk about today.
[2:49:30] I just wanted to reiterate that we've had a lot of progress and success in the work that
[2:49:34] we've done to date.
[2:49:36] We still have more work to do, and as the system recovers from the storm, from the high water
[2:49:43] events of last year in 2017, some of these more serious problems are being expressed,
[2:49:51] seepage is something that is always kind of a difficult issue to address.
[2:49:56] So there is future work definitely, specifically, I definitely...
[2:50:00] We identified for the state, for these resulting from these storms, but just in general, too, as the system ages and new
[2:50:09] high water events occur, it's kind of a ever-extending target of damages to be addressed.
[2:50:18] Brian, did you have a question?
[2:50:21] Okay.
[2:50:23] Thank you.
[2:50:24] For the 49 unfunded sites, did you say what the cost of those was?
[2:50:28] We have an estimate of between 150 million to repair those with that kind of
[2:50:41] construction
[2:50:41] costs, mitigation, all the support, acquisitions, all those factors included.
[2:50:50] And I imagine you have a prioritization within that range for those sites as well.
[2:50:58] Thank you.
[2:51:00] Anything else we're doing?
[2:51:02] Thank you, David. That was a very complete report.
[2:51:06] Thank you.
[2:51:06] Thank you.
[2:51:07] Thank you.
[2:51:10] Well, members, my plan didn't work here.
[2:51:15] So I think what we'll do.
[2:51:18] President Edgar, okay.
[2:51:19] We had a public comment.
[2:51:21] Rick?
[2:51:22] Thank you. Rick, Ryan Hart,
[2:51:23] Amy Kangernears, on behalf of the Sunshine
[2:51:25] Flight Control Association.
[2:51:26] First, I want to thank the department for this repair program.
[2:51:29] It's very appreciated by our members.
[2:51:31] And I want to point out that while we didn't have a lot of members active in the PLD-499
[2:51:37] program in 2017 through the FMAP program, to the partnership with the board, many of the
[2:51:43] basins.
[2:51:44] In fact, I think I'm a majority of the basins are now submitting their letters of intent
[2:51:48] and getting active to the program.
[2:51:49] So the next time that we have a high water event and we have damage that we'll be able to have
[2:51:54] the Corps of Engineers more actively involved in these sites.
[2:51:58] A concern I have with that is we've now listed all of our deficiencies through the good work of the board and the department with the 75 flood protection plan and documenting these storm damages.
[2:52:09] We have a list of sites that have been damaged in 2017, 2019, and then we have sites that predate that are in our flood system repair program.
[2:52:17] We heard Dave say that they need about 150 million to complete the repairs of the 2017
[2:52:24] sites.
[2:52:25] That's not in the Governor's budget for this year.
[2:52:29] The bond language that is being put together doesn't have money that would be eligible
[2:52:33] for those sites as they're currently proposed.
[2:52:38] When we have another disaster and these districts are active, we're going to have a problem
[2:52:42] of having listed the deficiencies and those sites getting worse and those events and negotiating
[2:52:48] with the core, how much is the core willing to do of the correct, the new portion of the
[2:52:54] damage.
[2:52:54] So in 2021, if we have a high water event at these sites and we have a 500 foot erosion
[2:52:58] site that becomes a thousand feet and we've become active in the program since 2017.
[2:53:04] Now we've got to work with the core, how much are they going to do and how is the pre-existing
[2:53:09] problem corrected?
[2:53:10] And so getting the sites correct, corrected before the next high water event is the best thing we can do, and we need money to do that.
[2:53:17] And so the flood control association gave a presentation on Wednesday to the legislative flood caucus advocating for 100 million annual appropriation.
[2:53:27] And of that 100 million, we're saying 20 million specifically, go to storm danger parasites.
[2:53:32] And so we just want to encourage both the board and the department to pursue funding for these repairs so we can get them done and we're prepared for the next disaster.
[2:53:40] Thank you.
[2:53:41] Thank you.
[2:53:44] Melinda.
[2:53:47] Okay.
[2:53:48] Thank you.
[2:53:50] Okay.
[2:53:51] As I said, my plan didn't work here.
[2:53:53] So I think what we'll do is use the new hour for the closed session.
[2:54:01] Get that information out, come out as close to one, one, thirty as we can.
[2:54:06] take up items 11B and 11C, which we've talked about before and we'll go fairly quickly and then
[2:54:18] follow that up with the timed item and wrap up the agenda so be a little longer than
[2:54:24] what I planned but at this point we'll recess to a close session.
[2:54:46] Okay.
[2:54:48] Okay.
[2:54:49] Okay.
[2:55:27] Conditional approval of the lower-alicorn-based and levy setback project today, permit number 19153.
[2:55:36] And that is because the San Francisco division has approved the 408 and the Sacramento district is routing the letter as we speak,
[2:55:47] and they're back checking the 100% plans on the 95% plans.
[2:55:51] So, the Levy Setback project is going to construct approximately seven miles of Setback
[2:55:58] Levy and the Yola Bypass, 1,500 to 1,800 feet, used to the truly canal in the lower
[2:56:03] Alcorn Basin.
[2:56:08] So, location map and Sacramento area is we all know and the project and the upper left,
[2:56:15] The left schematic, the red is the existing levy, and then the yellow is the new proposed setback levy.
[2:56:27] So it's going to widen the sacrament on bypass, approximately 1,500 feet to the north.
[2:56:34] I'm going to degrade 80% of the YOLA bypass east levee, leaving approximately 500 foot-long
[2:56:40] segments for upland habitat about every 2,000 feet, and the existing sacrament on bypass
[2:56:46] north levee will also be degraded.
[2:56:49] It's going to improve the lower alcohol and basin interior drainage system to facilitate discharge
[2:56:56] of precipitation volumes up to the 100 year flood event, and it's going to implement ecosystem
[2:57:02] improvements in the Alcorn Basin mitigate project impacts, which will provide multiple
[2:57:09] many ecosystem benefits to the surrounding areas.
[2:57:15] So what's actually going to be included in the permit, what the board is going to be permitting,
[2:57:22] is the construction of the setback levee in the YOLBYPAS placement of discharge pipes associated
[2:57:28] with the new pump station, degrading about 80% to the yellow bi-passi-sleve degradation of the existing
[2:57:36] segment on bypass north-leve implementing implementation of ecosystem improvements in the lower
[2:57:43] alcohol and basin, and the relocation of the existing AT&T fiber lines.
[2:57:52] So the hydraulic analysis,
[2:57:53] This is a pretty robust levy, levy heights were determined by the 100-year design water
[2:58:03] service elevation, plus six feet of free board, and in plus an additional foot to account
[2:58:11] for potential future climate change and adaptation.
[2:58:15] State rejections occur in the all bypass downstream of the free-mought wear as well as
[2:58:21] and the stage reductions go all the way down to where the yellow bypass meets up with the
[2:58:28] confluence of the circumvent on bypass.
[2:58:33] So the overall stages in yellow bypass will be reduced
[2:58:37] by approximately nine miles from the areas I just explained. And then staff has reviewed the
[2:58:43] H&H information provided by DWR and their 100% design plans. And expect no adverse hydraulic
[2:58:52] impact to the Sacramento River flood control project levees and the levee is compliant with our
[2:58:59] tele-23 standards.
[2:59:04] So the geotechnical analysis,
[2:59:08] see the levees was over-designed with water
[2:59:12] crown and flatter slopes to mitigate for fat clays and soils with liquid limits over 50 and those
[2:59:20] flutter slopes, or there's four to one slopes on both sides, both the water side in the
[2:59:25] land side. The flutter slopes will improve stability, allowing the use of locally sourced
[2:59:32] barlementary that have higher liquid limits and plasticity indexes.
[2:59:39] So, the also for geo-tapped
[2:59:42] the setback-level foundation area will be over-execrated by three feet to replace an engineered
[2:59:47] fill. The bottom of the over excavation would be
[2:59:50] scarified in additional eight inches and
[2:59:53] re-compacted part of placement of fill.
[2:59:56] And like I said, the levy crown is going to be 28C.
[3:00:00] And so far, I'm not sure why, instead of the typical 20 feet, to provide resiliency against potential seasonal shrinkage cracking, and potential slope creek along the levy.
[3:00:13] And there's going to be a maintenance run on top as well.
[3:00:20] So after reviewing the geo-tech analysis and plans and specs, the Board staff has determined that the proposed project is compliant with tele-23 and no potential adverse
[3:00:31] geotechnical impacts.
[3:00:36] So the real estate requirements, as you know, we've had some resolutions and
[3:00:41] necessity that passed a couple of months on this project.
[3:00:44] And the lower-all-corn-based and levy setback project will require acquisition of
[3:00:48] approximately 2,100 acres of real estate, containing over 23 parcels and 9 landowners.
[3:00:55] And as a February, the department has acquired one parcel of approximately 67 acres, and
[3:01:01] is concluding negotiations for two other parcels and acquisitions are ongoing as we speak
[3:01:08] on the others.
[3:01:13] So our staff recommendation is for the board to adopt the SQL findings,
[3:01:24] conditionally
[3:01:24] approved, permit 19153, and substantially the form provided, pending the section for a way
[3:01:31] approval from the Sacramento District, Army Corps of Engineers, and direct executive officer
[3:01:37] to take necessary actions to execute the permit and follow the notice of determination
[3:01:43] pursuant to sequela.
[3:01:47] Okay.
[3:01:47] Questions for the Board?
[3:01:50] Excuse me.
[3:01:52] I don't have a comment.
[3:01:55] I think when you say the geographically, the levees were over-designed, I don't think you
[3:02:02] I think you meant to say they were appropriately designed to a greater standard because of the soil conditions that existed that site.
[3:02:12] We're not over designing the levy correct.
[3:02:17] I'd venture to say what you said is correct.
[3:02:33] Okay, any other comments?
[3:02:36] Okay, what's the pleasure of the board?
[3:02:41] move by, uh, from here, second by, uh, but no, Brian Johnson. Any comments from the public on this item?
[3:02:54] Okay, uh, bring it back to the board on favor.
[3:03:00] Post, okay, motion crews. Let's go to, uh, item 11c.
[3:03:05] Greg, this is your item. Yes, this is the goldfield setback, Evan.
[3:03:45] All right. Good afternoon again.
[3:03:47] It was Greg Harvey, chief of the planned implementation and compliance branch, and today we're going to be asking for approval of the setback levy for the 200 year goldfields project.
[3:04:03] So, this back levy is, see, permanent number 19463, it's going to construct approximately
[3:04:12] 2.6 miles of extension beginning at the upper terminus of the U.B. Reversal Levy. The new
[3:04:19] levy will extend the current federal levy system to high ground and provide 200-year protection
[3:04:24] for Linda, Linda, all of her stem, Plumus Lake, the project will tie in to the two and
[3:04:32] degraded portion of the existing Uberiber South levy that is currently part of the state
[3:04:36] plan of flood control.
[3:04:39] So this project was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act
[3:04:44] of 2018. The Army Corps has provided a memo stating that Section 408 permission is not required
[3:04:52] for this Congressional Authorized Project and an amendment to the 1953 memorandum of
[3:04:59] There's Danny.
[3:05:00] Between the Army Corps and the Center of the Life of Protection Board, we'll be required to include the new
[3:05:05] levy into the Sacramento Reflect Control Project.
[3:05:11] So here's a location map of the levy, the new extension
[3:05:15] levy is in the upper right, designated in yellow.
[3:05:22] And this is a schematic of the levy. See, the whole
[3:05:28] thing is the levy, but the green areas have cut off wall in them.
[3:05:33] And then the partially puttin' at the end on the right is, doesn't have a cut off
[3:05:37] all is just the regular levy.
[3:05:39] And then the blue up where we up where it ties in to the existing state plan of flood control,
[3:05:45] there's a seapage burn up there, and then there's going to be a little degrading of the
[3:05:49] existing levy to tie in.
[3:05:54] So this project, the levy embankment, is approximately 2.6 miles long, ranging in high
[3:06:00] from 2 to 17 feet.
[3:06:03] Seepers cut off wall for approximately two miles of that,
[3:06:06] and landslide berm at the tie-in of the new levy,
[3:06:11] to the existing U-brother South levy.
[3:06:14] There'll be five levy access ramps on this new levy,
[3:06:19] and in all weather patrol road on the levy crown,
[3:06:23] and continuously landslide tow access road as well.
[3:06:27] So there will be three, 36-inch gravity outfall pipes through the degraded remnant portion of the uber of our south-levy, that's up north near the tyin.
[3:06:39] And the Profi water district irrigation canal, levied penetration box, covert, relocated canal, also go through.
[3:06:48] There'll be three water side detention basins designed to store the 100 year interior drainage
[3:06:54] events and that was located.
[3:06:58] That was the blue shaded areas in this schematic and let's see the detention base in
[3:07:09] a levy penetration.
[3:07:11] There's going to be a 36 inch gravity outfall pipe through there and then up where it ties
[3:07:15] in that we're going to be degrading 1,000 feet of the upstream end of the U.
[3:07:21] River South Levy.
[3:07:25] So hydraulic analysis proposed levy heights were determined using
[3:07:29] an design water surface elevation, developed using the criteria in the Department of
[3:07:35] Water Resources Urban Levy design criteria, federal emergency management agency criteria
[3:07:41] and the Army Corps of Deterministic Approach for Freeboard.
[3:07:45] Trilias Hydraulic Impact Analysis concluded that the proposed project will have no impact to maximize water service elevations along the Uber River North and South heavies and changes in flow will be less than significant.
[3:08:02] So Board staff has reviewed the Hydraulic Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis and on the 100% design plans and determined that the proposed project is expected to result in no adverse hydraulic impacts to the
[3:08:15] second order flood control project levies and it is compliant with our title 23 standards
[3:08:24] Geotech analysis trillion provided geotech report which included project design criteria a description of
[3:08:32] Existing geotech and go conditions and geotech and go analysis to show that the project meets levy safety criteria
[3:08:39] Established by the Army Corps levy design criteria
[3:08:43] DWR's urban levy design criteria and our title 23
[3:08:46] The reporting-analyzed subservous conditions, seismic vulnerability,
[3:08:52] sea-page, substability, and settlement, and board staff has determined that there
[3:08:58] are no anticipated adverse geotechnical impacts.
[3:09:06] So, real estate requirements, Julia is acquiring the necessary real estate rights to
[3:09:11] provide access and control needs for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project.
[3:09:17] The project footprint will require approximately 100 acres of fee acquisition, including several rural residential properties,
[3:09:26] and several hundred acres between the Uba River and the New Levy are being acquired, and most of those are owned by a mining company.
[3:09:37] So, flowage easements, flowage easements are not being pursued by Trialia for the area between the Uba River and the proposed Levy.
[3:09:44] The proposed levee is more than a mile, 1.2 and further in some places from the Yuba River
[3:09:53] with a large high ground area in between.
[3:09:56] The properties on the water side of the new levee will continue to have 100 year protection.
[3:10:00] And in the 200-year event, the proposal will not result in an increase in flood damage beyond what the property is currently experienced from increased groundwater levels during an event.
[3:10:14] So this is a schematic of the project, the proposed levies in the magenta at the bottom.
[3:10:21] And you've got goldfields up to the north, and the U.B. River up north,
[3:10:27] and it's very similar
[3:10:30] schematic showing future water mining ponds, and then this is what's proposed, we've got
[3:10:41] some proposed mining in that area on the existing high ground, which has 100-year protection.
[3:10:51] So staff would recommend that the board adopt the
[3:10:57] SQL findings for this project and approve
[3:11:02] encroach from permit 1 9463 and substantially
[3:11:05] to form provided and direct the executive officer to
[3:11:09] take necessary actions to execute the permit and file
[3:11:12] the notice of determination.
[3:11:15] Thank you, Greg.
[3:11:17] Any questions for the board?
[3:11:20] Questions for the public?
[3:11:24] Okay, I'll bring it back to the board.
[3:11:25] Let's pleasure the board.
[3:11:29] Move by Ramirez, seconded by, oh, Joe, OK.
[3:11:39] All in favor, posed.
[3:11:42] OK, thank you.
[3:11:44] Thank you, Greg.
[3:11:46] We'll go back to item 11A.
[3:11:50] Joe, just real fast.
[3:11:51] OK, I just have a moment to pause and just think
[3:11:54] the last few things that happened.
[3:11:57] These are like years in the making, right?
[3:11:59] Oh, sure.
[3:12:00] And it's lots to work.
[3:12:01] And it took a lot to get to what was amount of five minutes for you to present that grade.
[3:12:06] So that was great.
[3:12:07] But I think it's worth just recognizing the years of investment from a lot of people.
[3:12:12] And these are the kind of things you want to have happen.
[3:12:15] So big thanks to the people that worked on this for years, decades, in some cases probably.
[3:12:21] It's a really great thing to see come to this point.
[3:12:24] And we didn't see much time talking about it today, but that's because there was so much
[3:12:28] going to work done for a very long time.
[3:12:29] So good to be you guys, both projects.
[3:12:32] Tim, yeah, to that point, the lower L-Core and crew,
[3:12:34] they had all their geotech, their hydro people here,
[3:12:37] their real estate people here, they've been working on it
[3:12:39] for a long time.
[3:12:40] And then also Paul Brunner and Trilia, DWR,
[3:12:45] they were all here, ready to answer any questions,
[3:12:48] but went pretty smooth.
[3:12:49] Thank you, everybody.
[3:12:52] Yeah, thanks Tim for recognizing
[3:12:55] we have to celebrate our successes every once in a while.
[3:12:58] Thank you.
[3:13:04] Okay, we're back to our time item 11A and this is an enforcement action and the board is being asked to approve the staff recommendation
[3:13:20] on which are to one adoptive proposed enforcement order order as a respondent to secure the
[3:13:31] water side levy berm by March 20th. We have prevent further erosion direct the staff
[3:13:37] to record the order. We vote three previously issued encroachments permits for the encroachments
[3:13:46] that no longer exist, and imposes an administrative penalty of $106,000 based upon the factors
[3:13:53] set forth in the water code.
[3:13:58] Now, gee, are you going to want to swear in these folks or not?
[3:14:06] I am.
[3:14:06] Thank you, Mr. President.
[3:14:08] I would ask all persons who intend to testify today, please stand up and raise your right
[3:14:16] hand.
[3:14:16] So, I can ensure the oath.
[3:14:26] Thank you.
[3:14:28] Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
[3:14:31] And these proceedings before this administrative body?
[3:14:36] Thank you.
[3:14:37] I would also ask any time you come up before,
[3:14:40] of the initially before you come up to speak to the board,
[3:14:44] confirm or I will also ask that you confirm that you have taken the oath,
[3:14:47] so it's clear for the record.
[3:14:49] So, please allow me to do that prior to you speaking.
[3:14:52] Thank you.
[3:14:55] Thank you.
[3:14:56] gee, this is the way I'd like to personally.
[3:15:00] Seed, presentation of the staff report, which I guess is going to be orchestrated by Sarah, questions from the board.
[3:15:12] And then have Mr. Meyer, who is representative, present their case. We have a staff response to their rebuttal, so to speak.
[3:15:23] We'll have questions from the board.
[3:15:28] I'll ask for comments from the public.
[3:15:31] Final comments from Mr. Meyer.
[3:15:34] Final comments from the staff.
[3:15:37] And then I'll bring it back to the board for a decision.
[3:15:42] Everybody okay with that?
[3:15:44] Okay. Yes, acceptable to ask Mr. President.
[3:15:48] Okay. Sarah, you're up.
[3:15:50] All right. Good afternoon. President Eggher.
[3:15:52] Vice President Dolan members of the board.
[3:15:54] My name is Sarah Bakas. I am staff counsel for the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
[3:16:00] Board enforcement staff is before you to request that you issue.
[3:16:05] The proposed enforcement order against the LeMIR irrevocable trust LeMIR respondent
[3:16:10] for violations that have occurred in our occurring at 79-07
[3:16:14] Garden Highway Sacramento, California.
[3:16:17] The enforcement section engineer assigned to this matter as John Tyson,
[3:16:20] and he'll be explaining the technical aspects of the violations and the history of the enforcement
[3:16:25] action to you.
[3:16:27] You will remember that this matter came before you for affirmation of the cease and
[3:16:31] the cease dorter on November 22nd, 2019.
[3:16:36] The cease and the cease dorter required that Mr. Meyer comply with its terms by December 23rd,
[3:16:42] 2019 at this point Mr. Meyer has completely failed to comply with any of the terms
[3:16:47] of the season to sister and the property is in the same or worse condition than it was at that time.
[3:16:55] So just for some background on this hearing, the purpose is to consider the issuance of an enforcement order.
[3:17:03] The staffs requested enforcement order is in your packets.
[3:17:07] According to the water code, the board may approve a man or reject the proposed enforcement order and take any of the following actions.
[3:17:16] You may order removal, modification, or abatement of the encroachment.
[3:17:21] You may order restoration of the site, excuse me.
[3:17:25] You may impose administrative penalties.
[3:17:28] You may order that the enforcement order be recorded with the county.
[3:17:33] You may initiate a civil action in the name of the state, and you may order any other
[3:17:38] action or condition that the board considers to be proper to resolve the violation.
[3:17:44] and just to note that we are not requesting it this time that the Board initiated a civil
[3:17:50] action.
[3:17:53] And this hearing would be conducted in the same manner as a normal hearing before
[3:17:58] the Board and technical rules of evidence would not be applied.
[3:18:04] So at this time, unless you
[3:18:07] I don't have any questions of me board members, I'll turn it over to John.
[3:18:13] No questions?
[3:18:14] All right.
[3:18:19] That's for me, John.
[3:18:21] I have to do in President Eiger.
[3:18:22] My name is John Tyson.
[3:18:24] I have to take in the oath.
[3:18:28] You're welcome.
[3:18:29] If you'd have to do in President Eiger.
[3:18:31] Vice President Dolan.
[3:18:32] Other members of the board.
[3:18:34] Mr. Meyer.
[3:18:35] Members of the public.
[3:18:36] Again, I'm John Tyson.
[3:18:37] with the Central Valley Club Protection Board Enforcement Section, and we're here to discuss
[3:18:43] the enforcement case number 2017-15464 public hearing for the enforcement order against
[3:18:51] the entire irrevocable trust.
[3:18:54] We have proposed board action before you this afternoon, and this slide here is a summary
[3:19:01] of board staff's recommendations which will be discussed in more detail at the end of this
[3:19:09] So a proposed board action before you is to adopt an enforcement order for the
[3:19:14] respondent that one finds the respondent violated several flood control
[3:19:19] statutes in the California water code and title 23 of the California
[3:19:23] code of regulations. The details of the California code of water code and
[3:19:29] title 23 statute violations can be found in the staff report within the
[3:19:33] one of the violation and seasons assist order attachments.
[3:19:38] The second thing is we find the respondent responsible and liable for the repair of the water
[3:19:42] side-leavy berm and other violations.
[3:19:46] The third order is the respondent to secure the water side-leavy berm for certain the title 23
[3:19:51] to prevent further water-side berm erosion.
[3:19:55] 4th item is to revoke permits no. 1, 2, 5, 3, 5, Dashe.
[3:20:00] 1, 3, 5, 3, 1, and 1, 4, 5, 3, that were previously issued for this location.
[3:20:08] These permits are recommended to be revoked, because the encroachments do not physically exist now.
[3:20:15] And five, imposes a administrative penalty in the amount of $106,000.
[3:20:21] The administrative penalty is based on California water code section 80704,
[3:20:27] and the details of the penalty are noted on page 12 of the staff report and at the end of this presentation.
[3:20:35] The violations are located north of the interstate 5, south of West El Verde Road, on the waterside
[3:20:43] berm of the left bank Sacramento River Levy, at 79-07 Garden Highway, approximately one
[3:20:50] mile, northwest of the Sacramento Airport.
[3:20:55] Here's a close-up aerial view of where the violations are located, the Sacramento River
[3:21:01] is to the west of the property, the Sacramento River left bank Levy is to the east of
[3:21:09] There's a short snippet of all the applicable laws of regulations that are in detail, noted in the staff report, specifically within notice of violation and cease and cease and
[3:21:21] disist order attachments.
[3:21:24] These can be gone over in detail of the board's so desires.
[3:21:29] Please note there are a total of 16 violations of Title 23 and board encroachment permit conditions.
[3:21:36] only two of these violations have been remedied at this time.
[3:21:42] We do have an easement here.
[3:21:47] The California, the Central Valley Public Protection Board, through the Sacramento and
[3:21:52] San Joaquin drainage district, has a joint use agreement with and easement with reclamation
[3:21:57] district 1,000.
[3:21:58] That covers the entire property where the violations occurred, including the garden highway.
[3:22:03] This map is from the DWR Division of Engineering Geodetic Branch and is noted as Exhibit B in the Staff Report.
[3:22:16] Now we're going to go over the background.
[3:22:20] In June 2009, Ms. Peggy and Mr. Chen Xiang purchased the property.
[3:22:26] In January 13, 2011, Reclamation District 1,000 Staff was made aware of water side bank subsidence by Mr. Chen.
[3:22:35] R-D-1,000 staff advised you in June to obtain the services of a California registered professional civil
[3:22:42] engineer to develop a plan and address the subsidence.
[3:22:46] However, no such plan was ever submitted to R-D-1,000 or the board.
[3:22:50] If you could look at the picture on the left, you can see where the subsidence is and we
[3:22:54] made a reference point for the steps of the picture on the left.
[3:22:59] So, those pictures have approximately six years
[3:23:03] difference between that.
[3:23:05] It should be noted at the Waterside
[3:23:07] Burm at this location consists of sandy soils.
[3:23:14] On January 4, 2018 board and already 1,000 staff,
[3:23:18] along with other local public agency representatives,
[3:23:21] visited the site to further assess the Waterside
[3:23:24] Baker Ocean and discuss issues with Miss Hew.
[3:23:27] Miss Hew was advised by Board staff to investigate
[3:23:30] into an engineered solution to save for property at that time.
[3:23:35] On March 6, 2018 Board Staff issued a notice of violation and OVE to Mr. Chiang, who received it
[3:23:42] on March 10, 2018. On April 17, 2018 Board Staff received a written response to the NOV from
[3:23:50] Ms. Yves Attorney, Mr. Brian Manning, which included a request for more information and more
[3:23:55] to respond, however his response did not address the NOV corrective actions.
[3:24:01] On May 11, May 11, 2018, Board staff conducted a water-side inspection of the property
[3:24:08] to determine the extent of the observed water-side burn erosion.
[3:24:13] And here we have a photograph from the water, where we observe the erosion occurred in the
[3:24:20] water-side burn area behind the dwelling.
[3:24:24] There's a picture of the property to the north, where we found it had not experienced erosion.
[3:24:31] The property line between the property to the north and 7907 is approximately where that large clump of trees are with the telephone pole sticking out through the top.
[3:24:43] The south end of 7907 Garden Highway only experienced minor erosion.
[3:24:49] That's what we saw from the water.
[3:24:53] So, on June 11, 2018, Board staff provided the information requested by Mr. Manning in his April.
[3:25:00] 17, 2018, N.O.V. response letter. On June 22, 2018, Board staff received a public records act request for
[3:25:08] Mr. Manning, asking for all documents related to 79,07, Garden Highway. Board staff provided
[3:25:15] the requested information to Mr. Manning on July 9, 2018. On February 22, 2019, Board staff
[3:25:25] sent the letter to Miss Yi and Mr. Manning and forming them due to their lack of response to
[3:25:30] the NOV, even after all the additional request and information was provided, and by default
[3:25:36] had received more time to respond that the board would be moving forward with this as a
[3:25:41] forcement process.
[3:25:45] On June 12, 2019, Board staff had the phone conversation with the respondent,
[3:25:51] regarding the NOV because he had received a copy of it from Miss Yi, and had questions about
[3:25:56] corrective actions and title 23 compliance requirements if he purchased the property.
[3:26:02] On June 14, Board staff sent an email to the responded documenting this June 12th conversation.
[3:26:10] On July 16, 2019, Board staff met with the respondent at the Board's operations as branch office
[3:26:16] and provided him with a hard copy of both the NB and title 23.
[3:26:20] I mean, the respondent was informed if he purchased the property, he would have to comply
[3:26:26] with the NOV and all of its corrective actions, which included a this middle of a stabilization
[3:26:31] plan, prepared by a California licensed civil engineer to address the water side bank
[3:26:37] erosion and other non-compliant encroachments.
[3:26:42] On September 14, 2019, the respondent notified Board staff he had purchased the property.
[3:26:47] He had also provided board staff with a copy of the grant deed on the same day.
[3:26:53] Three days later on September 17, board staff notified the respondent via email that he needed to provide response to the NOB by October 7, 2019.
[3:27:05] Since board staff had talked and met with the respondent about complying with the NOB corrective actions and Title 23 prior to his purchase of the property,
[3:27:13] It was determined a three week notice of violation response timeframe would be appropriate.
[3:27:19] On October 7, 2019, the respondent did submit a document titled Stabilization Plan
[3:27:26] Dash Compliance to Board Staff.
[3:27:29] We started calling it the plan.
[3:27:32] On October 11, 2019, Board Staff notified the respondent that his submitted plan was received
[3:27:37] that the plan did not comply with the notice of violation because it did not include
[3:27:41] the stabilization plan with design documents and a project schedule prepared by a registered
[3:27:46] California Professional Engineer and that board staff would be moving forward with its
[3:27:51] enforcement process.
[3:27:53] On October 22nd, 2019, the executive officer upon board staff recommendation issued a
[3:28:02] season to sister to the respondent.
[3:28:05] We call a season to sister or a CDO.
[3:28:07] Board staff also scheduled a CDO meeting as part of the Board's regular monthly meeting until I,
[3:28:13] I'm sorry, on November 22nd, 2019.
[3:28:17] On November 22nd, 2019, the Board unanimously affirmed the CDO and required the respondent to comply with it by December 23rd, 2019.
[3:28:28] The respondent did attend and speak at the CDO meeting.
[3:28:32] On November 25th, 2019, Board staff sent a letter to the respondent,
[3:28:36] Notifying him of the Board's CDO meeting decision and required actions.
[3:28:41] On December 20th, 2019, the respondent filed a Public Records Act request asking for
[3:28:47] a copy of the November 22nd Board Meeting Transcript, Board staff provided the respondent
[3:28:53] a copy of this meeting transcript on the same day.
[3:28:57] On November 23rd, 2019, the respondent did not comply with the CDO as directed by the Board.
[3:29:04] staff notified him via email of this non-compliance, and that board staff would be moving forward with his enforcement process.
[3:29:14] January 24, 2020, board staff prepared a notice of public hearing package,
[3:29:19] had sent it to the respondent via overnight mail, certified mail, regular mail, and email
[3:29:25] with a link to an electronic document drop box. On January 28, 2020,
[3:29:31] Board staff serve the notice of public hearing package to the respondent by posting it on the
[3:29:36] respondent's front door porch at 7907 Garden Highway, which met our statutory 30-day advanced
[3:29:43] notice requirement. Staff also received confirmation of the overnight mail delivery of the notice
[3:29:49] of public hearing package on the same day. On January 29, 2020 Board staff sent the respondent
[3:29:58] email with a service supposed
[3:30:00] Judging Declaration for the notice of public hearing attached and requested his knowledge of the receipt. We did not receive any acknowledgment.
[3:30:10] In February 13, 2020, no statement of defense or other evidence was received by Board staff from the respondent 15 days before the public hearing, per title 23, section 25, and the notice of public hearing document.
[3:30:25] On February 19th, 2020, Board staff sent an email to the respond with a copy of the February
[3:30:32] 28th, 2020 board meeting agenda letting him know the public hearing for this enforcement case
[3:30:37] would be held at 1 p.m. on February 28th.
[3:30:43] We also called the respondent on February 21st and left a message for his mail message to let
[3:30:48] him know the public hearing would be heard at 1 p.m. on February 28th.
[3:30:53] Now, we're going to go through the staff analysis of
[3:30:56] encroachments and activities that we observed at the property.
[3:31:01] This portion of the presentation will highlight the activities
[3:31:04] and encroachments which may have contributed to the water
[3:31:06] side-broom erosion.
[3:31:08] All of the following images for this portion were obtained
[3:31:11] from Google Earth Historical imagery.
[3:31:15] First item that we saw was the non-compliant
[3:31:18] unauthorized retaining wall, which was installed along the
[3:31:23] The picture on the left shows you the retaining wall in May of 2009, the picture on the right shows you the retaining wall, as it looked in February 2018, with part of it missing and part of it still there.
[3:31:38] The next item we saw was a non-compliant unauthorized pond, south of the main dwelling and east of the non-compliant unauthorized retaining wall, which was installed around August 2009, soon after Missy and Mr. Chiang acquired the property.
[3:31:52] This unauthorized pond was removed by April, April 2015, approximately six years after its installation.
[3:32:02] The unauthorized pond may have contributed to the over-saturation of the water-side levy berm,
[3:32:07] making this area more susceptible to erosion.
[3:32:13] This here is, we observe some water-side berms of science,
[3:32:19] one of the first photos you saw in this presentation.
[3:32:22] So this waterside berm subsides occurred east of the unauthorized retaining wall and west of the pond and the
[3:32:29] retaining wall itself subsided and this was observed by RD1000 staff in January 2011.
[3:32:37] RD1000 staff met with Mitch Missy when this subsided and secured and recommended to her
[3:32:42] that she contacted California Professional Engineer to develop a plan to address the subsides.
[3:32:49] However, no such engineer plan was ever submitted to RD1000 or the board for review and approval.
[3:32:56] Now, you can see the picture on the right shows how this is a downstream southern view of what happened there.
[3:33:05] And the picture on the left shows the downstream view of what happened in the picture on the right shows the northern upstream view of what happened there.
[3:33:14] And I would like you to take note of the many trees that are leaning over the waterside
[3:33:20] berm over the water right there, because in the next slide, we're going to talk about that.
[3:33:26] In 2011, large trees located north of the pond in west of the non-compliant retaining wall
[3:33:32] fell into the Sacramento River due to lack of proper waterside and landside tree maintenance.
[3:33:38] These up on these underlaying upended root structures of these collapsed trees,
[3:33:42] Along with the trees themselves, lying in the water, may have contributed to the water-side
[3:33:48] room erosion.
[3:33:49] The picture on the left, you can see the tree is standing out.
[3:33:54] There's a large shadow of the tree on the water, and in the picture on the right, you see
[3:33:59] the trees lying in the water, right there.
[3:34:06] Also in this picture, if you could write where the arrows come out of the text boxes, you
[3:34:12] You can kind of see where the boat dock dislocated.
[3:34:15] And we're going to talk about the boat dock at the next slide.
[3:34:18] An authorized boat dock that was permitted fell into the state of
[3:34:21] just repair from the lack of regular maintenance.
[3:34:28] And in 2011, it appears to have washed away into the Sacramento River.
[3:34:32] So in the picture on the right is when the boat dock is, we first have a good
[3:34:36] or third of each of it, and in 2011 is when the Botak has disappeared.
[3:34:45] The next item was part of a permanent deck on the west side of the dwelling was removed in 2013
[3:34:50] without obtaining authorization from the board.
[3:34:53] So you can see the deck on the left picture in 2012 and the deck on 2013 is reduced.
[3:35:00] On the right picture, the removal of the deck and the underlying deck support structures may have contributed to the waterside Burma erosion.
[3:35:10] The next items are, an author, an author, I structure was erected near the south east, dwelling corner in 2012. This 2012 structure was removed by January 2013. The other structure was erected west of the dwelling in 2013.
[3:35:28] and that structure was removed by April 2015.
[3:35:34] The erection and subsequent equipment removal of these unauthorized structures may have contributed
[3:35:40] to the water site berm erosion.
[3:35:44] The next item here is based on historical aerial imagery,
[3:35:48] non-compliant unauthorized large bushy plants were grown
[3:35:52] and then removed over a large area on the water site berm
[3:35:55] West in South of the Dueling for four years, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016.
[3:36:04] This repeated type of agricultural activity may have contributed to the over-saturation
[3:36:08] of the water-side levee burn, making this area more susceptible to erosion.
[3:36:14] In the picture on left, 2012, approximately 60 large bushy plants can be seen.
[3:36:20] The picture on the right, for 2013, approximately 90 large bushy plants can be seen.
[3:36:28] And here's the pictures of 2015 and 2016 in both pictures approximately 80 large bushy plants can be seen.
[3:36:39] Our board staff conclusions are as follows.
[3:36:42] There are numerous violations of the California Water Code, Title 23, and previous the issued permanent conditions for at 79 or 7 garden highway.
[3:36:51] The previous property owners' actions may have contributed to the Sacramento River, Left Bank,
[3:36:57] Levy, Waterside, Burm Erosion. The lack of regular maintenance on permanent
[3:37:01] encroachments and the property in general, the unauthorized removal of permanent encroachments.
[3:37:08] The installation of non-compliant unauthorized encroachments, and the unauthorized agricultural activities
[3:37:14] over many years on the Waterside Burm are the main observed contributing factors to the
[3:37:20] control the water side burn erosion at this location.
[3:37:23] The respondent has the new property owner being fully aware of the property's condition
[3:37:28] before purchase, is now responsible for the repair of the water side burn erosion.
[3:37:36] Our board staff recommendations are as follows.
[3:37:39] To adopt the proposed enforcement order, number 2020-01, and as noted in attachment A in
[3:37:46] the staff report, for the respondent which holds him both responsible and liable for the
[3:37:51] repair of the water side burn and other violations.
[3:37:55] And, orders that we respond it to secure the water side
[3:37:57] levee burn by March 30th, 2020, to prevent further
[3:38:01] water side burn erosion.
[3:38:04] Second, direct support staff to record this enforcement order
[3:38:08] with the office of the County Recorder for Sacramento County
[3:38:11] to ensure that any potential future buyer of this property
[3:38:14] is fully aware of the enforcement action
[3:38:16] and it's required corrective actions.
[3:38:21] 3, revokes that the 3 previous issued encroach from permits for the, sorry, revokes
[3:38:29] 3, previously issued encroach from permits for encroachments that now no longer physically
[3:38:34] exists.
[3:38:36] Permit number 1, 2, 5, 3, 5, 8, issued to retain an existing corral fence, redwood decking
[3:38:42] and spawn.
[3:38:43] Permit number 1, 3, 5, 3, 1, issued to install a boat dock anchored by cable and concrete
[3:38:50] deadmen.
[3:38:51] Permit number 1, 4, 5, 3, issued to a place rip wrap on the water side berm south of the dwelling.
[3:39:01] And the last item in the order is to impose an administrative penalty of $16,000, based
[3:39:07] upon the five factors set forth in section four of the staff report, and also identified
[3:39:13] in California water code 80704 and is determined as follows.
[3:39:19] Violations 5 and 6 were assessed the highest administrative penalty at $50,000 each because
[3:39:25] of their severity and high risk of damage to the floodway.
[3:39:29] The remaining violations were considered low risk of damage to the floodway and therefore
[3:39:35] assessed the minimum administrative penalty at $500 each.
[3:39:39] Please note that violations 8 and 11 have been corrected and we're not included as part of the proposed penalty calculation.
[3:39:49] In conclusion, Board staff has been in contact with respondents since May 2019.
[3:39:55] Board staff has attempted to achieve compliance with the previous property owners.
[3:40:00] And the respondent, at the lowest possible level, level, over the past two years. Unfortunately, this
[3:40:06] is not occurred, the being staff with no other option, but to proceed with our enforcement
[3:40:11] process in order to preserve the safety of the responded and the public. It should be noted
[3:40:18] that the respondent has made past statements to board staff leading them to believe that he would
[3:40:22] comply with the NOB and the CDO corrective actions.
[3:40:27] Respondent also indicated to the Board itself
[3:40:30] at the November 22nd CDO meeting that he would comply
[3:40:33] with the corrective actions.
[3:40:35] This is not occurred at this time.
[3:40:41] And that concludes my presentation.
[3:40:43] I'm available to answer any questions.
[3:40:45] The Board members may have regarding miscades.
[3:40:48] Question from the Board at this point of Mr. Tyson.
[3:40:57] OK, thank you, John.
[3:40:58] Thank you.
[3:40:59] There does, do you have any other people?
[3:41:03] No, not unless the board has any questions at me.
[3:41:08] Don't hear any at this point.
[3:41:09] So we'll have the responded, make it case, please.
[3:41:21] I'm going to have another gentleman speak after I get done.
[3:41:27] In your, excuse me, I was under oath.
[3:41:30] And if you could all say, or if you'd like to,
[3:41:32] I'd like to thank you for the rest of me.
[3:41:35] Mr. Meyer, if you could also please state your name for the record as you begin your
[3:41:40] presentation.
[3:41:40] Thank you.
[3:41:41] Thank you.
[3:41:42] Thank you.
[3:41:43] Okay.
[3:41:44] Approximately May, I took the initiative to contact the Central Valley Flood
[3:41:49] because Peggy E told me of some existing problems.
[3:41:54] They didn't come after me.
[3:41:55] I went to them.
[3:41:56] I went to John's office, sat there with him for several hours.
[3:41:59] He gave me title 23.
[3:42:01] It's extensive and it could be a career move on its own, but at any rate, I reviewed it.
[3:42:07] And then I start reviewing a few things, most of the violations that are listed there
[3:42:13] that were from years back well before May when I came on the scene.
[3:42:19] Okay, so these things did occur, but I didn't do.
[3:42:23] There is a stipulation in the permit from 1964 when the property was originally constructed,
[3:42:30] that says that the homeowner will maintain.
[3:42:33] So I looked up the definition of maintenance and it says existing items to be kept to their
[3:42:42] standard of their original construction.
[3:42:45] So we're not looking at, and I'm focusing primarily on the riverside.
[3:42:49] We're not looking at a maintenance, we're looking at a new construction.
[3:42:54] So from the very beginning, I said to John, normally, as an example, if somebody smashes into
[3:43:01] your car, you define who did the smashing, and then you say, hey, you need to fix my car.
[3:43:09] You don't go looking for some guy on the curb and say, oh man, that other guy just took off.
[3:43:14] Now you got to fix my car.
[3:43:16] So first of all, I'm not liable based on the new owner or successor based on maintenance,
[3:43:22] because there's no maintenance. It's gone. I read the class action lawsuit. There were over
[3:43:31] almost 2,000 victims of this high-water event. And even in the violation, John says,
[3:43:38] this occurred due to high-water event of February 12 through 14.
[3:43:46] That high-water event is directly related to oral-filled end.
[3:43:51] The case class action lawsuit has many litigants, many attorneys, and every one of them
[3:43:57] say that the liable party from the high-water event is the lack of maintenance by the department
[3:44:04] of water resources.
[3:44:06] So it has been my position from the beginning that I'm not the guy who should pay to repair
[3:44:11] this. I should not be the guy named in the violation. My assistant here, David, read a deal that
[3:44:18] says that it is the duty of the Department of Water Resources to determine liability. And from
[3:44:25] the very beginning, there never was any effort to determine liability. It was just year the guy,
[3:44:31] year there, you bought the property, you got to fix it. So I'm not trying to give anybody a hard
[3:44:37] I'm just a busy guy. What I do for a living is I design medical analytical equipment things that save lives
[3:44:44] I'm a 20-hour a day guy, so squeezing in all of these things is challenging. In addition, every attorney that I spoke to
[3:44:53] would not
[3:44:54] Let me hire them because they said they all worked for you and they don't want to cross you guys
[3:45:00] And the Department of Water Resources to represent a private party. So I went to the self-help, this and that. I wrote my own activities, my own actions. I did my own efforts. And basically, when you have two parties. And they can't come to any kind of reason of all understanding. You guys are saying not you, but your group. You know, are saying, you bought the house, you're liable. You got to fix it. That was even just one thing.
[3:45:30] on statement here a few minutes ago.
[3:45:32] Yes, I did buy the property, but I didn't do the damage.
[3:45:36] And as far as things like plants growing there
[3:45:39] and potentially weakening something,
[3:45:42] I can hire some physicists and some people.
[3:45:44] And if we have to get down to the needy gritty,
[3:45:46] I'm not concerned about those things.
[3:45:48] I'm also not concerned about the 2011
[3:45:52] when Peggy E called in and said some dirt fell down
[3:45:56] at the south end of the property.
[3:45:58] It did do that.
[3:45:59] And I'm happy to fix it.
[3:46:01] But the problem here is liability, liability, liability.
[3:46:06] I didn't do it.
[3:46:08] The Department of Water Resources did.
[3:46:10] There's a hundred other lawsuits.
[3:46:12] City of Chicos, sued, the Department of Water Resources
[3:46:15] just won a $13 million lawsuit for flooding their streets
[3:46:19] and wrecking them, the Ramsey, the District Attorney
[3:46:22] of Bute County, sued the Department of Water Resources
[3:46:25] for dumping, encroaching, dumping dirt and debris
[3:46:28] to the river. It was so occluded that they had to net the fish and relocate them to save the
[3:46:34] salmon. So here I come along and I buy a house and the Department of Water resources did
[3:46:42] the damage. So John tells me, okay, we come to the last hearing and I said, you know, I'm on
[3:46:47] your side. I want this thing fixed. It needs fixed. But I continue to say, I am not the
[3:46:54] Iowa Party. So, that has been a big impact. John told me what would be a good show of effort
[3:47:02] to fix the thing would be to hire a new engineer. I did a stabilization plan and what
[3:47:09] I did is I accumulated all the existing documentation. I got MBK's engineering report
[3:47:15] where they asked for emergency permit clear back in 2018. I asked John was that emergency permit
[3:47:21] ever issued?" He said, no, I don't know why. It should have been issued. It should have been
[3:47:26] fixed March of 2018. Why wasn't that permit issued? Anyway, I contacted MBK and they said
[3:47:34] they're not geotechnical. I then called 100. I'm literally telling you. I called the University
[3:47:40] of Colorado Engineering Department asked for references to get a geotechnical engineer. Nobody
[3:47:46] will work for a private citizen. I finally found the guy named, I hope I get his name
[3:47:51] right, Todd Thomas Rius and over in woodlands. And I talked to Nolan and attorney over there
[3:47:58] who's in the class action lawsuit against the Department of Water Resources and he told me
[3:48:02] about Todd. And I said, Todd, you know, John, John, he said, yeah, we used to work together in the
[3:48:09] city. And so I said, good, do you know what's required to come up with a stabilization plan?
[3:48:14] said, yeah, we do that kind of thing. I said, good, I need to hire you. So I said, the way I do
[3:48:20] things and maybe you can talk to me about this, if I have a broken car, I take it in and I
[3:48:27] say, look it over and then you tell me what we're going to do to fix it. And if it's too much
[3:48:32] or whatever, then I decide my plan. So that's what Todd and I did. Todd wrote a contract for
[3:48:39] stabilization plan to proceed with an initial site review to determine what work,
[3:48:45] what drawings, what engineering plans needed to be done. But he said, this was the
[3:48:50] middle of December. And by the way, I, so I just bought the house in September. I
[3:48:55] did contact John the minute that I started looking at it in May. So then, we get down to
[3:49:02] Tom Rice, and he says, I'm busy, man. You're calling me here, and you're asking me to
[3:49:09] until January the 10th.
[3:49:12] So I said that to John, I can't do anything without the engineer to come out here and do
[3:49:17] the drawings, do the soil surveys or whatever you want to do.
[3:49:22] And in the meantime, Todd sends me a contract signed, I signed it, send it over to John.
[3:49:28] And then a short time later, I get a note back saying, we're not going to accept this.
[3:49:33] You didn't show any good faith, you didn't show any effort.
[3:49:35] All I was trying to do was review the situation and then have him come back and say, okay, we need 5,000 for some kind of an engineering review.
[3:49:45] We need 5,000 for this, we need 2,000 for that and then I'd say, okay, we're going to do it.
[3:49:50] How are you going to do it and we'll talk to John? I never got that for it.
[3:49:54] Because John pooped it before it even got that far.
[3:49:57] So it isn't a lack of good faith on my part.
[3:50:00] I feel like I'm in an adversary situation. I have spent most of my life working to fix things, what I, and the machines I design for medicine are things that nobody else can figure out how to do.
[3:50:12] And I resolve it and people let me do it. I said to John, if you get off my back and let me fix this river bank, I'll go out there with a bulldozer and I'll bring in the rock rip wrap and I'll get this thing done and I'll do it with an engineer.
[3:50:23] Oh, no, no, we can't do it that way.
[3:50:27] So maybe I'm not trying to be hard.
[3:50:30] I'm not trying to cause a problem.
[3:50:33] I found a property in May.
[3:50:34] I bought it in September.
[3:50:36] And now you're telling me you're considering demolishing
[3:50:40] my house.
[3:50:41] That's what his report says, possibly demolished the house.
[3:50:45] What?
[3:50:46] Is this America?
[3:50:47] I mean, anyway, I'm so emotionally hostile by this thing
[3:50:52] that I have the other gentleman Dave Cumm, he'll talk for a minute.
[3:50:56] I'd like to figure out how we can work together and get this done,
[3:51:00] but you cannot tell me get an engineer and I have the engineer lined up and give a sign
[3:51:04] of contract, but we're going to do it in steps, which is the way you do everything that comes
[3:51:09] out right, and then you smash it before it even gets off the ground.
[3:51:13] Your organization has done that every step of the way.
[3:51:17] Peggy even told me at one time they John told her,
[3:51:20] Well, we can get you a 3% loan and it only cost a couple hundred thousand to fix this
[3:51:26] saying and then she said, then they came back and said, oh no, it's going to cost a million
[3:51:31] and there is no loan.
[3:51:33] That's why Peggy gave up.
[3:51:35] So, I'm running into the same stuff as debating the carrot.
[3:51:39] They keep, come along, just do this, just do that, everything's fine, I do it and I start
[3:51:45] with it and then, no, you can't, we're not going to do that.
[3:51:48] So I am getting the impression that somebody must just want my property for nothing they want to condemn it and just steal it from me.
[3:51:55] That's the way I feel. So again, I'm too emotionally involved in this thing. I'm ready for war, but I'd rather have peace.
[3:52:04] Work with me and fix this. I don't owe you a hundred thousand dollar fine. I didn't do anything. I just bought a property.
[3:52:10] I'm not trying to resist you, I'm trying to find a pathway to a solution, but you've got to quit stepping on my face every time I try to do something.
[3:52:19] So I'm going to let Dave talk to you.
[3:52:21] I've had all I got to say.
[3:52:29] Members of the board, my name is David Taylor and I give a old to tell the truth, the old truth.
[3:52:35] I noticed David Taylor.
[3:52:37] Taylor.
[3:52:38] Thank you.
[3:52:38] David, David, that's Taylor.
[3:52:42] I noticed this is a testimony that Mr. Taylor before you speak. Could you please for the record explain if you're representing?
[3:52:51] I'm interested in part of the Irrevocable Trust.
[3:52:57] Sarah mentioned that the property is the same or worse condition.
[3:53:00] And for me, a lot of things I find a lot of holes in the explanation that was presented or served to John Tice at his home, events occurring prior to 2018 is not in their report that was admitted to us, so we're not able to defend what they presented today, which was exceeding that notice.
[3:53:28] To do certain events that happened even earlier today, you guys are witness to the strain
[3:53:33] on available resources to fix the water problems in California.
[3:53:38] As you notice, a lot of the engineers are already backed up and you guys yourselves are
[3:53:43] not able to fulfill the reconstruction of sites that are delegated and already associated
[3:53:49] funding to do so you guys are not able to meet certain deadlines.
[3:53:53] And I feel that that burden put on to this private citizen who has been showing good faith in trying to get some remedies with equality to the situation.
[3:54:04] It hasn't been met or addressed.
[3:54:06] And so I just want to bring that to attention.
[3:54:08] So, however, you guys can give some equal review in the situation itself.
[3:54:14] There was a request that was made, and that was stipulated in this report.
[3:54:19] is also testified here that a request was made for a copy of the transcripts for the November
[3:54:27] 22nd I believe hearing and that it was the transcript was given to the respondent same
[3:54:35] day and there is no evidence of that. There was a response stating that you have to follow
[3:54:42] a somewhat a procedure but that no transcripts were provided and I do want to bring that to note
[3:54:47] that that's something that was inconsistent with the prosecution's relationship with the defendant
[3:54:55] and good faith. There's a couple of things in the time.
[3:55:00] That have caused the perception to be that efforts being made were not being considered.
[3:55:08] It wasn't even given a resolution as to resolve issues that may complete a resolution.
[3:55:14] It was just flat-out rejected, primarily without clear explanation as to what was rejected.
[3:55:21] They state that they put everything in their response, and I'm still trying to review and look for remedies to the efforts that the respondents has made.
[3:55:29] And I have yet to find clear reference to how to make this process equitable for the fixing in the repair.
[3:55:40] When permits are rejected, emergency permits are rejected.
[3:55:51] The structural plan requests, the stabilization plan requests that was submitted due to an engineer that you guys represent.
[3:56:02] And who also spoke here today, who's illustrating the same issues of there's some funding and
[3:56:07] resource issues that's going to have a time constraint on the repair that that was rejected.
[3:56:13] And seeing these inconsistencies as far as just a prima facia administration of requests
[3:56:19] and the requests for repairs has skewed.
[3:56:24] We did have conversation prior to this meeting and to this appointment of time in the minutes
[3:56:28] with the prosecution that their request, which has now been disclosed to us.
[3:56:35] Now, what is, if we had placed some retention,
[3:56:42] risk-winged plastic, that that would help resolve the immediate issue.
[3:56:47] And we're like, that's fine, but even in consideration of the requests,
[3:56:53] you notice in the report, even though the last two violations on the request was already resolved,
[3:56:58] But it was still included on there.
[3:57:01] And by mission and I appreciate John's truthful testimony in that it was not an issue.
[3:57:07] He didn't state when it was resolved.
[3:57:10] As soon as the respond it was aware of it, he addressed it and things that weren't requirement
[3:57:15] permits and geological reviews and other constraints.
[3:57:22] He addressed it immediately and had it resolved.
[3:57:25] And he continues to intend to resolve the matter, according to you guys' standards, but certain
[3:57:31] standards has to be disclosed so that we can respond accordingly, not keep hitting
[3:57:35] the ball.
[3:57:37] You know, doing what was requested, oh, that's not good enough, well, there's no, do notice.
[3:57:42] You know, there's no clarity as to what the request is and that's a way to avoid a vagueness.
[3:57:48] And for the most part, that's kind of our position that we are willing and we'll try to resolve
[3:57:53] the matter that's equitable to the situation and that there is some violations that are
[3:57:59] have been occurring on the prosecution side as far as notice.
[3:58:05] Thank you.
[3:58:05] Thank you.
[3:58:20] Thank you.
[3:58:20] Good afternoon, President Edgar.
[3:58:22] Members of the board.
[3:58:23] Angela Salisa board, enforcement staff, Section Chief.
[3:58:27] I did take this far in this morning or before this hearing.
[3:58:30] I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to rebutto a few items.
[3:58:33] Mr. Meyer in his, the other person with him, Mr. Taylor is the stated in there, a few
[3:58:41] clarifications that I'll like to point out. The, the, the, let's start with the easier, let's
[3:58:48] see going through my notes here. The plans that were submitted by Mr. Meyer or he's indicated
[3:58:52] by December 23rd. The reason for that's the middle that was deemed inadequate by staff is
[3:58:57] because the agreement that was submitted to staff that he filed with the consulting firm was
[3:59:03] to do a site visit. It was not to develop a stableization plan which was required by the board
[3:59:09] when it affirmed CDO at the November 22nd board meeting. So therefore, the board had requested that
[3:59:17] Mr. Meyer may significant progress to address the issues with the CDO. We felt that based on that
[3:59:23] agreement that we had received a copy of a site visit really fell short of meeting the intent of
[3:59:29] And that is why we submitted that response to Mr. Meyer.
[3:59:33] The order before you today does not require, is not asking that the board
[3:59:37] demolished the home as Mr. Meyer stated.
[3:59:39] Rather, the order before you is asking for Mr. Meyer to stabilize a site to protect
[3:59:44] his home and protect the erosion from continuing to get worse at the site.
[3:59:52] Mr. John Tyre's can speak to his conversation with Mr. Meyer or Mr. Yee's, we've got an
[4:00:00] I can tell you that organization is not in the business of doing loans, so that holds no truth.
[4:00:07] Regarding the request for Mr. Meyer for the PRA that was submitted, we do not have a copy of it in the staff report.
[4:00:15] That's correct. But what I do have in front of me is a copy of the email from staff that provided the board meeting transcript to Mr. Meyer.
[4:00:26] And if you allow me to, I can read it off the email that was submitted, that was provided to us by Board staff.
[4:00:33] So, this email is from Hunt, a data hunt who is a Board staff, and it's dated January 9th, 2020, a two-a-one PM.
[4:00:42] And what she says in her email is, is, hi, and fill is pre-request on December 20th, 2019.
[4:00:48] Mr. Lee Amire called Data Hunt, public records are public records act coordinator for the board.
[4:00:56] Mr. Meyer requested a copy of the CVFPV transcript for the November, this one's a type which is November 11, 2019 board meeting.
[4:01:05] Later that morning, data provided a copy of the transcript to Mr. Meyer through the Department of Water Resources Government QA system.
[4:01:12] The government QA system is how the PRA's requests are officially transmitted to the
[4:01:18] request, due to an issue with the original email address provided by Mr. Meier,
[4:01:24] that I followed up with an email attached, informing Mr. Meier where he can access the
[4:01:29] information requested. And what she attached to the name was a December 20th email that
[4:01:36] is sent to Liam Myers, L-I-M-L-I-A-M-M-E-Y-E-R-15
[4:01:44] at MSN.com, and that was on Friday, December 20, 2019,
[4:01:49] at 1050-A-M, and the email goes on to say,
[4:01:53] Dear Mr. Forward slash, Ms. Meyer.
[4:01:56] Thank you for your interest in the public records
[4:01:58] of the Central Valley Flip Protection Board.
[4:02:00] This is in response to your December 2019,
[4:02:02] pursuant to the California Public Records Act,
[4:02:05] government code section in 6250 to the Central Valleful Protection Board meeting required
[4:02:10] request in records for the Central Valleful Protection Board transcript for November 22nd, 2019.
[4:02:19] It has been determined that the CVFPV maintains the records a responsive to your request
[4:02:24] to express and electing them and reviewing the records and they can be made available to
[4:02:29] this number 29.
[4:02:32] What did I explain is that in that email that was sent to Mr. Meyer was sent
[4:02:37] on the 20th of December at 10.52 a.m. And it included a copy of the attached transcript. And I'm
[4:02:47] sorry I don't have a way of connecting the my laptop to the presentation here. But if you like
[4:02:52] me to I can print out copies of this email and provide them to you for your reference as well.
[4:02:58] So the answer to the question is, after all of that, he did get a copy of the transcript, did that come back.
[4:03:11] So.
[4:03:13] Even in our testimony, say that the committee, I'll talk to you.
[4:03:16] I'm not having a test of the chair here.
[4:03:19] Even in our testimony, stated that they are going to be compiling it, and that they
[4:03:24] expected to be ready by December 29, 2019, is that correct?
[4:03:30] Well, Mr. President, I would ask that if respondent wishes to respond to
[4:03:36] finish allowing staff to present their rebuttal and then take other
[4:03:40] and so they're not talking over each other?
[4:03:43] I understand,
[4:03:45] the question is, did they get the transcript or not?
[4:03:49] We don't have an agreement on whether they got that or not, I don't understand that.
[4:03:53] What I would say to that Mr. President, is that Dettahant, who's the coordinator for the board
[4:03:58] for such requests, indicated to me that she provided that to Mr. Meyer, I don't know if
[4:04:03] she received the confirmation from Mr. Meyer for such receipt.
[4:04:07] As far as the email that she submitted to me, she was under the understanding that he received that information.
[4:04:13] The same day he requested it.
[4:04:15] Okay.
[4:04:16] Fine.
[4:04:18] Thank you, Anglees.
[4:04:24] Okay. At this point, I think we'll ask the board if you have any questions.
[4:04:30] Mr. President, I believe Mr. Tyson was going to come up and respond to some of the other.
[4:04:40] Okay.
[4:04:44] Mr. President, Madam Vice President, Members of the Board.
[4:04:48] When we served Mr. Meyers, I'm sorry, when we serve Mr. Meyers with the notice of the
[4:04:56] hearing and the staff report, etc. We also indicate-
[4:05:02] The title 23 required if he intended to respond and file written response that he should do so 15 days prior to the hearing.
[4:05:11] We didn't receive anything. So there was never any formal response, not to say that the board can't consider.
[4:05:19] However, it's difficult for staff to be able to respond to claims such as that we're just
[4:05:27] made without having that type of formal, formal notice as to what's going to be presented.
[4:05:34] So I just wanted to point that out, John.
[4:05:40] John Tyson with the Central Life, well, protection for enforcement section.
[4:05:44] And no time did I tell Ms. Yee, she could get a loan from the state to help prepare a property.
[4:05:50] That did not happen.
[4:05:54] Thank you.
[4:05:56] Okay.
[4:05:56] I'll bring this back to the board for a minute.
[4:05:59] Questions for the board for the staff or the respondent?
[4:06:09] Nice.
[4:06:09] Somebody to speak to the 2017 request for him became the site.
[4:06:15] It's in the packet as well.
[4:06:17] And it was brought up, something that wasn't issued or addressed.
[4:06:22] And I don't recall if it came to us or not,
[4:06:24] just what's staff, but if you could just elaborate on what happened to that.
[4:06:29] Yes.
[4:06:30] Thank you, Mr. Rumors.
[4:06:31] Angela Scalesoge and Board staff.
[4:06:34] The, so we do have a copy of the December 2017 request that was submitted by MBK,
[4:06:39] we're asking for an emergency authorization to proceed.
[4:06:44] You know, I was not present at that time,
[4:06:46] we don't have any records that that was actually granted or processed, so not sure where the
[4:06:54] what happened with that request, but that request was submitted to our office, but it was never
[4:06:59] responded to or confirmed as a deemed it an emergency to allow it to perceive as an emergency action.
[4:07:09] Thank you.
[4:07:11] I
[4:07:18] think this is the staff and maybe to Mr. Meyer what has been done out there to respond to any of these since Mr.
[4:07:32] Meyer acquired the property or maybe I'm not pretty precise about the date.
[4:07:37] But we're he's on this property for five months.
[4:07:40] What has happened out there?
[4:07:43] say again to quite please. Mr. Mire has owned the property for five months. There's been
[4:07:50] this long dialogue with the prior owner and now with Mr. Mire. Correct. What has changed
[4:07:56] on the property since Mr. Mire acquired the property relative to what the staff has been
[4:08:02] set.
[4:08:07] The two-on authorized structures have been removed.
[4:08:13] The number. That's probably a good thing,
[4:08:16] Right, that's a good thing.
[4:08:20] And the name change, yes, the name change of applications
[4:08:24] were submitted at October 7th, as part of his response
[4:08:29] to the newest violation.
[4:08:33] When Mr. Meyer moved into the property,
[4:08:36] he brought a lot of vehicles, a lot of his belongings.
[4:08:40] They were on the lower water site berm
[4:08:42] on the south part of the property.
[4:08:46] He's since moved a lot of that material out.
[4:08:48] There's still some there.
[4:08:50] However, that's not on the northern property that
[4:08:53] is not owned by a Mr. Migra.
[4:08:55] It's owned by a relative of Missy and Mr. Chiang.
[4:09:02] The property erosion has seemed to stabilize.
[4:09:05] Had to go out there many times over the past couple years
[4:09:08] to look at it.
[4:09:09] It seems to have stabilized to where it's at now, but it did get a little worse when after
[4:09:16] I first initially saw it in 2017.
[4:09:25] I can tell you that the Sacramento County Building Department did at the time when the
[4:09:31] this erosion happened, did issue a occupancy restriction for this property for only daytime
[4:09:37] occupancy.
[4:09:38] And that was imposed on the Yees, my last check with Sacramento County on about that is that that restriction still applies to this day.
[4:09:55] So, maybe if I could ask Mr. Meyer, if you would.
[4:10:00] At correct, or would you add or subtract anything to that? Yeah, I'll add a few things. First of all,
[4:10:09] and completely capable of engaging people without skill and equipment to repair the river bank. I have said, I'll do it.
[4:10:21] It's trying to answer my question rather than what is your specific question?
[4:10:26] The question is, you've owned this property for something on the order of five months.
[4:10:31] There's been a dialogue between the prior owners and the board staff about the property.
[4:10:38] There's been a dialogue between the board staff and you.
[4:10:41] My question was, what has changed on the property in the last five months since you've owned it?
[4:10:48] Okay, specifically, but it requires an additional comment, specifically, all of the shrubbery
[4:10:52] and bushes that were between the fogline of the road and the fences of the property,
[4:11:00] to the front of the property.
[4:11:02] Those were an issue of violation.
[4:11:03] It's all been trimmed, the trees, overhangs, are all taken care of.
[4:11:10] I could not do the river bank because I don't have a permission from the Central Valley.
[4:11:15] So I have been working on that.
[4:11:18] I would have had it done by now,
[4:11:19] or had it done in the first month.
[4:11:22] The other issue at hand,
[4:11:24] all these things from the past,
[4:11:27] some pond that was there.
[4:11:30] It was gone long before I came.
[4:11:32] I didn't do it.
[4:11:33] Plants that were there.
[4:11:35] They were gone long before I came.
[4:11:37] They're not there.
[4:11:37] There's nothing to fix.
[4:11:40] The sidewalk that's there,
[4:11:41] I call it the building department.
[4:11:43] And I said central valley's trying to tell me
[4:11:45] that that sidewalk along the edge cannot be there, because it doesn't have a permit.
[4:11:51] And I was told by the building department, you do not need a permit for a, I forget
[4:11:57] the exact term, but for something that covers the surface of the soil, that is not
[4:12:02] load bearing.
[4:12:03] If it was a driveway, it would have to have a permit, but because it's a sidewalk, you
[4:12:07] have to have a permit.
[4:12:08] So it was built.
[4:12:09] So it's not in violation.
[4:12:11] I don't know.
[4:12:12] I don't know.
[4:12:13] They're not talking about a board permit, an encroachment permit.
[4:12:18] They're talking about a building permit.
[4:12:21] See, this is my problem.
[4:12:22] That's my problem, too.
[4:12:24] I don't know these things.
[4:12:26] Listen to me.
[4:12:27] I'm going to
[4:12:31] be honest.
[4:12:32] They in you've admitted it yourself.
[4:12:35] You're a professional.
[4:12:37] You do things for other people of a medical background and so on.
[4:12:43] You've not done this.
[4:12:45] To be honest, and I don't know any other way to say it, and I don't think you know what you're doing.
[4:12:53] I don't know. I don't know what to say that.
[4:12:57] This is a project that probably from my conversation with other engineers is a project that will cost about $2 million.
[4:13:08] And of that $2 million, a half a million is soft costs, engineering costs, geological costs,
[4:13:19] hydrological costs, permitting costs, whatever.
[4:13:23] That's what it takes.
[4:13:25] I don't think you have a clue about that.
[4:13:29] Now what we're trying to say, and maybe John hasn't explained it clearly enough,
[4:13:36] is we're less interested in, although we are interested in cleaning up all the old permits
[4:13:43] and all of that stuff that need to be done and you've done some of that.
[4:13:49] We need to be clear on what the target is, what we're trying to achieve, and that takes
[4:13:58] a plan.
[4:14:00] I'm sure.
[4:14:00] What the target is, I'm saying that this is a project that's going to cost you
[4:14:05] about $2 million.
[4:14:08] And, you know, that's just based on experience
[4:14:10] talking to various engineers.
[4:14:12] I'm like you, I'm not an engineer,
[4:14:15] but I, you know, have talked to them.
[4:14:17] And what we need from you,
[4:14:20] he calls it a stabilization plan.
[4:14:22] That would be a subsidiary to what I'm talking about.
[4:14:26] I'm talking an overall plan for the property
[4:14:29] that includes a neurology, real estate,
[4:14:37] Stabilization work, all of those things included in that plan, and the plan is probably
[4:14:43] cost you a couple of hundred thousand dollars.
[4:14:47] Now are you prepared to do that?
[4:14:50] What we've been talking about so far are little tasks taking out bushes, cleaning up
[4:14:56] that's not that's that's that's that's that's they're insignificant
[4:15:01] We need to be on the same page as far as what the target is. What you're trying to do here?
[4:15:09] Well, the only thing is, and it's going to cost you a lot of money, and I don't think you're prepared to pay for it, and I don't think we're talking target here.
[4:15:16] What about liability? Why hasn't anybody done something to determine who did the damage? Is it because there were a couple of plants growing on the soil? What is it? Was it the river?
[4:15:28] I don't care about that.
[4:15:30] I do, because that's the liability,
[4:15:32] who does what I think or what I care about is knowingly,
[4:15:36] you came in, you put just the property,
[4:15:38] you knew that had problems,
[4:15:41] you knew you were gonna have to spend
[4:15:43] some money getting it squared away,
[4:15:45] but we have yet to see what conceptually,
[4:15:51] overall you plan to do with the property.
[4:15:55] That's what we need,
[4:15:56] and it's gonna cost you some money to get it.
[4:15:57] I can't do it for you, it's very true.
[4:16:00] It's an ear, probably could do it for you, David, but it's going to cost you some money.
[4:16:06] Well, there's many ways of approaching things.
[4:16:08] I developed it.
[4:16:10] Yeah, I know there are, but that's not the way it's done here.
[4:16:14] Well, I'd like to come to a reasonable and equitable pathway here to resolve this.
[4:16:19] I'm not spending $2 million.
[4:16:22] I can fix the property for much, much less.
[4:16:24] And I can get an engineering certified plan.
[4:16:27] However, you seem to just dust under the table,
[4:16:30] who did this?
[4:16:31] Who's liable?
[4:16:32] The water department is liable and I intend to prove it.
[4:16:36] And in the meantime, I'm going to put a hold on everything here,
[4:16:39] if I can.
[4:16:40] It doesn't matter.
[4:16:42] What matters is you're given due notice of what the problems
[4:16:46] with the property are.
[4:16:48] You were totally aware of it.
[4:16:50] And you're coming in trying to do this on a task.
[4:16:54] by task basis. We don't work that way. We can't. This is a project that's, you know, has
[4:17:06] some real problems. John Tyson alluded to it, it may have been the other owner. I don't know,
[4:17:13] but you were put on notice that this problem has property. Now, the way we work here is that we
[4:17:23] I'm not going to make up this, make it up as we go long.
[4:17:27] We don't work that way.
[4:17:29] And I think that's the misunderstanding here.
[4:17:32] I think we're possible.
[4:17:33] You've got to make a decision whether we're going to work together or not, but the first thing is, you've got to tell us what you're trying to do.
[4:17:44] Okay, you want us could do a ABCD conclusion. You want a stabilization plan signed by an engineer.
[4:17:51] I went to MBK. They did, uh, what's your name? Angelace said,
[4:17:59] it wasn't a stabilization plan, but he even asks for a permit to do the emergency work.
[4:18:05] Okay, so if it was deficient, simply say, we need a site plan, we need to this plan,
[4:18:11] need of that plan, and then it will be effective instead of saying, out the door, we're not going
[4:18:17] to look at it. You didn't do it right. Goodbye. That's how it's been in the whole way through. So,
[4:18:21] it isn't step by step. It is logical. You evaluate and then you begin to design a plan to produce.
[4:18:30] So, I called to my SNW, decided he'd come over January 10th and evaluate, and they wouldn't even
[4:18:35] let him get out the door. They say, oh, you don't have a whole engineering thing, hydrology report.
[4:18:40] We would have had it, but we weren't going to do it until we needed to do it by the definition of the engineer who was going to come and do that on January 10th.
[4:18:49] You never came because I told him we can't work with John, tell me what you want.
[4:18:54] Let's go. Let's go. Let's go. Let's go. Let's go.
[4:18:56] I thought I just did. I thought I just did. You're telling me you want a plan. Stabilization plan.
[4:19:05] And then you want to know how the overall property will be repaired.
[4:19:10] The only question that I have to put into that equation, again, is why am I paying for it when I'm not liable?
[4:19:18] Liability in law is a big issue.
[4:19:21] This is going nowhere.
[4:19:22] Bernie?
[4:19:23] This is going nowhere.
[4:19:25] Mr. Armstrong.
[4:19:25] Tell me what you want, because I can't work with being shut down.
[4:19:30] I really didn't.
[4:19:32] You really didn't.
[4:19:32] Oh, I'm sorry.
[4:19:34] You and I are.
[4:19:35] I think I understand the concern as far as knowing projection,
[4:19:42] what is the intentions of the property itself, right?
[4:19:46] And it's addressed to the immediate concerns
[4:19:48] as far as the erosion and stuff like that,
[4:19:51] which I believe is subsequent to an engineer
[4:19:53] actually analyzing it with intelligence that's needed
[4:19:55] for your guy's requirements to assess what,
[4:19:59] .
[4:20:00] Repairs is needed outside of what his plans are, right? Because he made decide to put a circus there or something, right?
[4:20:07] I'm just, I'm just signing up.
[4:20:09] Depending on his plans, he can develop what's appropriate for, in addition to the repairs that you guys are seeking, correct?
[4:20:15] So my, my thing is that if, if the prosecution is willing to allow the Woodland engineer to evaluate this, assess it,
[4:20:24] Because the notice to give into him was like we're not going to accept this person.
[4:20:30] And that's where he was like, if they're not going to accept this engineer, this engineer
[4:20:33] coming to assess the property and to develop the stabilization plan, it kind of was a
[4:20:38] mute point.
[4:20:39] And that's where the resistance I felt was miscommunicated to allow the progress.
[4:20:43] The two guys are looking for as far as the repair of the property and the erosion.
[4:20:48] Am I in the ballpark or?
[4:20:50] Well, I don't think our staff vetoed it in Geneva,
[4:20:55] at least I hope they didn't.
[4:20:57] That's where, I don't know he's not.
[4:21:00] I know, I know, but in certain things can be blown up
[4:21:02] especially when you feel, yeah, I think we're Mr.
[4:21:06] Meyer and I start getting sideways here.
[4:21:10] Is we want to know what's going on overall
[4:21:14] and have the engineering, the Gatech, all of that confirmed
[4:21:19] So we know it can it's possible to do it and it's going to be a I tell you it's going to be a big number
[4:21:26] He doesn't think so it will be right and that's where if given the opportunity he will comply
[4:21:32] I don't make that decision that yeah, it's too high
[4:21:35] But at least allow in that opportunity to do so that's my thing is that that opportunity doesn't seem to be a present
[4:21:42] Okay, is your brother?
[4:21:50] I'm really confused. The only, the board staff asked for an engineer's report on stabilizing the bank.
[4:22:03] And that's all it needed to be done to comply was to provide that plan and then a discussion of how you're going to implement that plan.
[4:22:12] You haven't heard you say that you've had an engineer's report on how to stabilize the bank and you haven't submitted it to the staff.
[4:22:23] Why not?
[4:22:24] The communication with the staff was that they did the show progress and in that progress was to get into contract with the engineer to establish that.
[4:22:33] When he entered into a contract whether it was to their purview of level, it wasn't communicated.
[4:22:39] And that's where there's a void of vagueness that was established when he entered in contract with this engineer to review the site and get things going because of the backlog of engineers.
[4:22:50] He wasn't available till January 10th.
[4:22:53] When he submitted saying, hey, I got to engineer his in contract. He's going to review it. The sentence to him, he says, we're not going to accept that. That's what was presented to him.
[4:23:00] He was like, well, what do I do?
[4:23:01] And that's where I felt it may have been not
[4:23:04] been clear to Mr. the respondent of what his intentions were like,
[4:23:11] okay, continue on and produce this, something's that effect,
[4:23:15] but just to say no, we're not accepting that effort is kind of misleading.
[4:23:21] To what your guys' intentions are presented today.
[4:23:23] I would say it would be unheard of that the staff would say that registered engineers,
[4:23:30] not acceptable to us. If that happened, I would like to hear from staff why.
[4:23:43] They interpreted my contract as if it was just a sight review. It was not just a sight review.
[4:23:50] It was sort of like come over and we'll look at the place. He didn't even see the property before.
[4:23:56] Come over and let's look this over and I'll see, evaluate it, let's talk about it,
[4:23:59] and then we'll decide what we're going to do first. How we're going to come up with drawings.
[4:24:04] If you got to do hydrology, we were going to do that.
[4:24:07] And, instead of John saying, well, thank you for your initial effort showing us that you're getting an engineer on board, what are you going to do from here out of it? You didn't do that.
[4:24:16] He just said, door closed. No good. You didn't do it right.
[4:24:20] Again, would you take your car in and say to somebody, here's a blind check. Let me know how it goes.
[4:24:26] When you say, tell me the problem, tell me what's involved, where the parts, what's the labor, and if you don't want to fix it, you push the car out and a ditch and give it to the
[4:24:35] The way I understood you to say is that you had your engineer come over to the site to look at him.
[4:24:43] He wasn't.
[4:24:44] Well, let's what you wanted to have happened.
[4:24:47] To have him come over and lies the site, see the site.
[4:24:51] And then go back and give you an estimate of what the plan would be.
[4:24:55] And you could say yes or no.
[4:24:57] Most attorneys, for example, you call him up.
[4:25:02] I understand that. I don't think the staff vetoed the engineer. No, they didn't veto the engineer. They vetoed that that was an inadequate maneuver. They wanted a complete stabilization plan.
[4:25:16] Well, they do too, but I'm not going to get it on day one and I can't get it if the guy's on vacation for.
[4:25:23] I'm not a hard guy to get along with.
[4:25:25] I want to do this and I, you want it fixed.
[4:25:27] I am going to proceed and find the liability issue resolved.
[4:25:33] But I'll go ahead and get it done if you let me.
[4:25:36] But again, like John said, well, Mr. Meyer contacted us three, four months ago and you're
[4:25:42] just, we're going to give him three weeks.
[4:25:44] Come on, man.
[4:25:44] I got stuff to do.
[4:25:45] You got stuff to do three weeks.
[4:25:47] I can't even call up anybody and get him over in three weeks.
[4:25:50] So, if it's right now, it looks like this is a mild year.
[4:25:54] John told me in a conversation just a few minutes ago,
[4:25:58] put some bisqueen out there, put some sandbags,
[4:26:00] I suggested on top to hold it so that there won't be any more erosion.
[4:26:05] Let's take a few months, let me get you an engineer,
[4:26:08] signed off stabilization plan,
[4:26:10] and then who determines, who does the work, that's my game.
[4:26:14] If I want to hire 16 illegal from Guatemala,
[4:26:18] Well, I don't care. That's my job.
[4:26:20] But I'll get it done. Please don't.
[4:26:24] Anyway, I'm just trying to be lighthearted because this is serious.
[4:26:28] Honestly, in the paperwork, it says right in there.
[4:26:31] Even clear back to 2018, Paul Devaro.
[4:26:35] Oh, well, my hat to remove the house.
[4:26:38] What? Come on.
[4:26:42] Okay,
[4:26:45] let's, Sarah, you wanted to make a comment.
[4:26:47] But thank you.
[4:26:48] I asked if we could restore order and have the hearing format back so we can try to
[4:26:53] resolve this.
[4:26:54] If I could make a quick point or two, the notice of violation was issued in 2018.
[4:27:03] Mr. Meyer was provided with a copy of that when he was looking at the property in May.
[4:27:10] And that, notice a violation said, submit a plan with a project schedule, et cetera.
[4:27:18] When the board issued the cease and desist order in November, it adopted that NOV.
[4:27:25] In other words, that has always been what was required, submit a plan with a project schedule,
[4:27:32] et cetera, prepared by a California Registry Professional Engineer, and submit a plan with
[4:27:38] project schedule,
[4:27:41] it's a name change application that said a rest.
[4:27:45] So this is never, this is not a brand new thing and it's not like we're
[4:27:50] springing, there's staff has been springing anything on Mr. Myers or not.
[4:27:54] The reason that staff rejected his submission in December was because it did not do
[4:28:02] that.
[4:28:02] It did not submit a stabilization plan.
[4:28:04] That's what Jill was saying, and so far, and that's what we're interested in, Clyde.
[4:28:11] Yeah, I'd like to sort
[4:28:18] of, I'd like to put this in some perspective of kind of what we do,
[4:28:24] and what the Department of Water Resources and Orville Dam is all about.
[4:28:28] I'd like to just put that in perspective.
[4:28:33] This is the flood board.
[4:28:35] this is the levee board. Our job is to protect the levees. Our job is to protect all
[4:28:42] those people behind the levee, all the people in your area, all the people out in
[4:28:46] Thomas. So, this property was allowed to be developed, but there were conditions on it.
[4:28:55] You have to get, you want to do things, you have to get permit for them. It's not like living
[4:28:58] in the city where you want to put in some concrete patio. You can do that without a permit.
[4:29:04] You know, you don't need that.
[4:29:05] You want to do it on the levy?
[4:29:06] You got to have a permit.
[4:29:07] You got to do that because people have to.
[4:29:10] So when you come and you get a permit, you get a permit from us and you get approval from
[4:29:15] the core of engineers.
[4:29:16] The federal or federal partner and us.
[4:29:18] So the thing that we're concerned about is I look at the levy out there and look at the
[4:29:23] pictures.
[4:29:24] I have not been on the site.
[4:29:25] I look at the pictures and I go, well, that's got looks like it's got a lot of sand
[4:29:28] in that levy.
[4:29:30] And as we all know, sand is very erotable.
[4:29:35] And so high water comes along and it might further erode that property.
[4:29:40] And then maybe that threatens the house.
[4:29:43] Maybe the house falls in the river.
[4:29:44] That goes down and jams up the bridge and that causes water back up.
[4:29:49] And it's kind of one of these things.
[4:29:51] Or we get an erosion side and it starts to peel off the levy.
[4:29:56] So our concern here is to protect.
[4:29:59] Thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next video.
[4:30:00] The levy and the levy system, and all of that that goes with that.
[4:30:08] Now, so we want it stabilized, and you want it stabilized, so that it doesn't take out the house,
[4:30:16] doesn't make the house, doesn't fall in the river, and it doesn't go.
[4:30:19] You need one, we need one, and you want to do it relatively, you know, appropriately and quickly.
[4:30:24] The issue of oraville dam and causing if you want to litigate, if you want to litigate against them,
[4:30:35] let's see, is that going to get resolved by June?
[4:30:40] Now, is it going to get resolved by the June of your following?
[4:30:45] Who knows? Might be five years?
[4:30:51] So, it's going to take a long time. And if we have to wait for that to be resolved, that's
[4:30:57] between you and the department, it's going to take a long time and the house may not be there
[4:31:03] then. Okay, so if there are separate issues, we can't wait for, you know, some resolution
[4:31:11] of who is liable for this, this needs to get fixed to protect all the people behind the
[4:31:16] that's the point. You're very wise and you articulate effectively. Mr. Edgar does too.
[4:31:24] We're all on the same page. The only bump in the road here is the issue of liability,
[4:31:30] which you don't even want to concern yourselves with. I have already written a lawsuit filed it.
[4:31:35] I got one in federal court naming the Department of Water Resources. You're right. It's going to take
[4:31:40] a while. The class action lawsuit people told me they were supposed to go to trial in January
[4:31:46] And I'm talking about farmers that lost 200 acres of walnut trees and 10 years worth of income,
[4:31:52] $3 million dollars' loss, and the Department of Water Resources got $837 million from FEMA
[4:31:58] to help pay them off and get them gone, and they kept on the money.
[4:32:03] So I know what I'm up against, but I will litigate and I'll get it.
[4:32:07] In the meantime, let me have three months to stabilize, get a stabilization plan.
[4:32:15] I'll try to do it in less if I can do it in two weeks I will.
[4:32:18] Let me get an engineering stabilization plan.
[4:32:21] Do not do anything else.
[4:32:23] Let me work with John.
[4:32:24] I like John.
[4:32:26] And let me come in here under three months.
[4:32:29] We're not going to have any unless we have earthquake.
[4:32:32] Nothing's going to happen.
[4:32:34] It's a little we're already two feet below water level in the river.
[4:32:38] There's no rain in sight.
[4:32:40] A sprinkle Sunday may be.
[4:32:42] So let me have time to get, I will get a complete stabilization plan.
[4:32:49] I'm not going, I guess I don't even know why I'm supposed to give John a copy of my contract with the engineer.
[4:32:56] How the engineer and I work is really not, I just did that as a good faith effort to have him see, I'm hiring a guy.
[4:33:05] But rather, the guy takes, does things in steps, reviews the property, then gets some scientific analysis, and puts it together.
[4:33:15] How we go about getting that stabilization plan is our business.
[4:33:19] You can't give me three weeks. That's ridiculous.
[4:33:22] Even now, I'm a 20-hour day guy.
[4:33:25] I went to bed last night at 8 o'clock.
[4:33:27] I got up at midnight. I had to take a sleeping pill to go to sleep.
[4:33:30] And I've been working on my lawsuit for two months.
[4:33:34] I just filed one in the spirit court here.
[4:33:37] And I'm going to probably pull that.
[4:33:39] I've got the federal lawsuit and an injunction
[4:33:43] to stop everything in everybody.
[4:33:45] So I mean, this you talk about litigation costs
[4:33:48] and every other thing.
[4:33:50] There's, you know, I find me 100,000.
[4:33:52] I might cost you two million in litigation.
[4:33:55] So, us work together.
[4:33:56] I don't hate you.
[4:33:57] I don't, I, you're not, you're not, you're not.
[4:33:59] want to do what you do. Okay, let's let's be clear. Your proposal is if we
[4:34:05] give you three months and I'll have a stable position plan. Wait a minute. We
[4:34:09] give you three months. You will come back here with a and approved or
[4:34:16] recommended stabilization plan with a registered engineer that meets the
[4:34:21] requirements of the board. Yes, I can't say they'll accept it because they
[4:34:25] haven't accepted anything I've done, but I will do it and I'll do it to
[4:34:29] standard. And if they won't accept it, I'll give it to you and you find
[4:34:32] some of you. Well, you're not going to give it to me. But what you can do is work with John
[4:34:44] to make sure the reason he wants to see the contract is we have to do our due diligence to make
[4:34:50] sure the engineers registered engineer and so on. That's the required. Yeah, the guy he knows
[4:34:55] the guy working well. Okay. Okay. All right. But that's.
[4:35:00] That's the reason. We're not trying to torture you. But that's what we need. And as Joe said, we've
[4:35:07] been asking for that. And we haven't been getting a reason you didn't get it. It is because
[4:35:13] of me being sideline without if somebody, let's say I'm marching along here and I'm having
[4:35:21] an engineer come. Great. Nice you're having an engineering come. What are you going to do next? Well,
[4:35:27] he's coming on January 10th and we're hoping to have drawing stabilization plan every other
[4:35:33] thing within three weeks. Then what are you going to do? We're going to do this and that.
[4:35:37] I'm have fallen his leap. But I cannot say I'm not going to write a buying check for 20,000
[4:35:43] bucks to some engineering guy because the flood people are forcing me to come up with a certified
[4:35:50] engineering plan. I'm going to take it a little easy here because well, it's got to be an
[4:35:57] have a contract for 20,000 bucks with an engineer?
[4:36:02] What do you got to have?
[4:36:06] Yeah, we need a stamp plan.
[4:36:08] He needs to put his engineer stamp on it.
[4:36:12] Well, I'm going to get that, but
[4:36:18] you got a job
[4:36:19] ties with the enforcement section.
[4:36:21] What we asked Mr. Meyer to do to possibly avoid getting to this point.
[4:36:28] This season's sister was issued, and affirmed by the board, was to show us substantial
[4:36:34] progress that you're going to comply with the season
[4:36:38] to sister ruling at the board gate.
[4:36:41] And we considered that substantial process progress
[4:36:45] would be a sign contract with the engineering firm
[4:36:49] to produce a stabilization plan.
[4:36:52] What you see on your screens is the detail of the contract
[4:36:56] between log and iron nickel and Mr. Meyer.
[4:37:02] It says, consultant agrees to perform the following scope of services, perform a site visit
[4:37:08] to assess the possible stabilization plans for repair of the levy damage at 79,000,000
[4:37:15] garden highway, not to exceed $2,000.
[4:37:20] We read that and we thought, this is a first site plan.
[4:37:23] This is for a site visit. This is not a stabilization plan.
[4:37:29] That's what it says.
[4:37:31] That's what it says.
[4:37:31] Yeah, that's not what you're after, but you...
[4:37:34] No. That's why we considered it at that point in time when we got this.
[4:37:39] Right before December 23rd, 2019.
[4:37:43] This was not a substantial process, a significant progress,
[4:37:47] to resolution of or compliance with the season
[4:37:50] to sister order that you all affirmed.
[4:37:53] So at that point, we decided to move ahead to this point,
[4:37:57] Here we are today.
[4:37:59] Mr. Taylor, you understand what we're talking about.
[4:38:02] I think that when he submitted the contract,
[4:38:09] it was under the impression that that was the stabilization contract,
[4:38:13] which that was one step towards it,
[4:38:15] which I think was miscommunicated.
[4:38:18] As he responded to him that this is not it,
[4:38:20] and he's like, what do you mean?
[4:38:22] I'm just feeling rejected.
[4:38:24] I see how it was developed and I think it was,
[4:38:26] is a communication gap that cause, can you, what's your opinion of a three month delay
[4:38:37] creating a, to be honest? I don't know what the normal processes for stabilization plan
[4:38:43] you guys probably know what will be appropriate lead time to get something for your own
[4:38:48] projects, that's where I would say he's trying to present a good faith offer to
[4:38:56] give some time for him to produce it.
[4:38:59] We do have an engineer that's been identified and willing to work, which is a good step, and
[4:39:04] it was a lot of effort on the respondent.
[4:39:07] And I think that knowing John's position as far as what he was expecting to receive as a
[4:39:13] contract, that it was a communication gap as far as him just so I'm in process.
[4:39:19] I wanted to let you in the loop, this is my, and this is what the expectation is.
[4:39:23] So that way, people know that, hey, he's serious about getting a result.
[4:39:28] I think goodwill is there, it's just a matter of taking off whatever assumptions were made,
[4:39:37] and sitting down, okay, this is the guidelines.
[4:39:39] And likewise, when it comes to stabilization plan, that there should be some due, some expectation
[4:39:44] of due.
[4:39:45] And that's where it's not clear when is this due?
[4:39:47] Is it due in 48 hours?
[4:39:49] is to do when is the expectations met by the prosecution
[4:39:53] it was not established.
[4:39:54] And that I think added to a bit of confusion
[4:39:57] with go how long's it take to do one of these.
[4:40:00] Well, it's never going to happen in three months.
[4:40:04] But the fact that before he bought the property, he had noticed that this was needed.
[4:40:10] It's sort of ridiculous that this point and say, well, how? I didn't know one of my going to do it.
[4:40:17] You knew before he bought the property, and there's been no action toward the report.
[4:40:22] That action towards the report is evident that he
[4:40:26] injured into consulting with an engineer as prescribed by the sealed.
[4:40:30] And I think that itself is should be reflected in your statement.
[4:40:35] The effort is there, and the intentions are there.
[4:40:38] Guidance is not something he has experienced in.
[4:40:42] And he is looking for, and it seems like John is willing to say,
[4:40:46] okay, these are the steps we're expecting in three weeks to have.
[4:40:49] at least this level completed by this engineer,
[4:40:52] something to that effect, it gives him some guidance to say,
[4:40:55] okay, he's just, I give, I commend him just finding
[4:40:59] somebody based off of what you guys experienced earlier
[4:41:02] today as far as the needs of the state
[4:41:04] and finding credible engineers to resolve issues
[4:41:07] as far as this and create a budget and plan stuff like that.
[4:41:10] So, how much does a stabilization study usually cost?
[4:41:16] You know, I'm not going to offer, no, I mean, it would be substantial cost.
[4:41:26] It's not going to be a $5,000 contract, they'll come up with this plan, so you know,
[4:41:32] you're, you're, for sure, talking more than $50,000.
[4:41:36] So, uh, yeah.
[4:41:38] Yeah.
[4:41:38] And we appreciate that feedback, because that way, allow us, in negotiation with the
[4:41:42] to make sure that it's a fair, not in a way to make it.
[4:41:46] Wait a minute, we've got some board members who want to talk here.
[4:41:51] Jane.
[4:41:56] You know, I really am trying very hard to appreciate that board members and others are trying
[4:42:05] to provide a tutorial for a property owner who has responsibilities to repair violations on
[4:42:13] his property.
[4:42:14] And I keep coming back to our responsibility, and now I see it as a board member of this
[4:42:23] ANC.
[4:42:24] Is that we are to determine if something needs to be done.
[4:42:31] And, well, I understand this property owner is confused.
[4:42:35] I don't think we caused a confusion.
[4:42:39] And I look at all of this information that's been provided.
[4:42:42] And what we've heard in reading transcripts, from 2018, of course,
[4:42:48] funds to award hearing in 2019 to now 2020, I come to these questions.
[4:42:57] Devilations on this property exist that are potentially dangerous to the State
[4:43:02] Planet Flood Control, and I say, yes, has the property owner been appropriately notified,
[4:43:10] And I say yes many times, even in his response, he provides attachments of the two notices
[4:43:17] that he received that very clearly indicate what needs to be done.
[4:43:22] Not exactly how, not exactly who's supposed to do it, and not how much money he's supposed
[4:43:27] to spend, but what needs to be done to correct the violations is that the action I think
[4:43:34] is specified to the extent that a public entity needs to appropriately provide it to a private
[4:43:40] property owner for his private property.
[4:43:44] And I think that that should be corrected.
[4:43:47] And I think the way that they will be corrected
[4:43:49] is to adopt a force in order.
[4:43:52] And if you want to listen to the other board members,
[4:43:55] you obviously can do that and should,
[4:43:56] but that's the motion that I'm prepared to make.
[4:44:00] Tim, I don't think we're ready for motion yet.
[4:44:03] But we'll start with the act of the board, Jim.
[4:44:05] Yeah, that.
[4:44:08] OK, I think we've heard enough at this point.
[4:44:10] have we? Yeah, hold on. No, I'm not. We get to. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jane.
[4:44:23] Thank you. We'll take this at the board at this point. And having said that, I do have a question.
[4:44:28] I'd like the response to answer.
[4:44:34] Let's just assume hypothetically that it isn't three months and there is a plan whatever
[4:44:39] you guys come back and it says it's going to cost a million dollars to fix it.
[4:44:43] Are you going to do it?
[4:44:45] No, no, but.
[4:44:48] I will presume that we'll present that to you guys and the decision will be up to the property owner as to what will be possible solution that you guys would accept or you guys can reject.
[4:44:57] I'm asking if you guys are going to pay for it.
[4:45:00] I'm assuming that he's willing to make right with the property, that's why he purchased it.
[4:45:05] Can you come in that?
[4:45:07] First, I want to clarify the other.
[4:45:09] No, I just want to question, yes, no. Will you pay for it?
[4:45:12] I will pay what is required to get a stabilization plan. Your number is, no, we have to implement the plan.
[4:45:20] I will implement the plan.
[4:45:21] You'll pay for it to be built to fix.
[4:45:24] Whatever the plan costs, whatever the plan says, it's going to cost more money to do it.
[4:45:29] I'll get it done.
[4:45:30] If you give me a permit to do it, I'll get it done.
[4:45:34] Thank you.
[4:45:36] I wanted to ask that question because I'm with Jane.
[4:45:41] There's no doubt that there's risk.
[4:45:44] It's been there for years.
[4:45:46] I don't know that you knew all the things you bought when you bought the property.
[4:45:49] But you bought the history.
[4:45:50] No, I did not.
[4:45:51] But there's a bit of paper.
[4:45:52] People along to you.
[4:45:53] This is not a question.
[4:45:55] Three months.
[4:45:56] This is not because I want three months.
[4:45:58] I didn't ask a question.
[4:45:59] I know, but I got to tell you, maybe you could just go set on for a second, because it's not a back and forth. Sorry. It's just not. Okay. So,
[4:46:09] I'm worried that it's not going to get done.
[4:46:12] And I'm worried that if we adopt what's been recommended that it's not going to matter.
[4:46:19] That said, if we think collectively as a group, there's a path that might lead to a result of it being fixed, then I'm happy to consider that.
[4:46:29] But frankly, we heard this two months ago.
[4:46:31] This is the same discussion we had in November.
[4:46:34] Give me time.
[4:46:34] I'm going to come back.
[4:46:35] I have a plan.
[4:46:36] We talked about the exact same things.
[4:46:37] We talked about the exact same words.
[4:46:40] And nothing's happened except somebody
[4:46:42] agreed to go out to a site visit, which hasn't happened yet.
[4:46:45] So I'm sorry that you're in the situation,
[4:46:47] but as the landowner, we do care.
[4:46:50] And we do have to work together because you
[4:46:52] are working with us because of where you own your feed title.
[4:46:57] So the plans that you pull together, we have to see, we have to approve, we have to understand.
[4:47:04] That's just how it works.
[4:47:05] You can't do it at vacuum, you can't do it by yourself.
[4:47:08] We have to be part of that.
[4:47:11] So I want to hear what my colleagues think about this,
[4:47:14] but I don't want to hear any more about what happened.
[4:47:17] I want to hear about what's going to happen.
[4:47:19] I want people that commit to something.
[4:47:22] Because even then, whether it rains this year or not,
[4:47:25] We're in a spot where it's highly unlikely anything will get built before next winter.
[4:47:29] We'll be in another winter when things are going to be just like they are now or worse.
[4:47:33] So maybe there are some things to do to shore it up before our permanent fixes in place,
[4:47:38] but I'm well concerned and where Jane is about water perspective,
[4:47:42] our responsibility and the risk that exists in getting something done.
[4:47:46] I speak now.
[4:47:48] Is it my turn?
[4:47:49] No, no, no.
[4:47:50] No, no.
[4:47:50] The better it the board now, Mr.
[4:47:53] Mario, William, we're dealing with it now.
[4:47:57] Thank you.
[4:48:02] Clyde?
[4:48:08] If I didn't win Ryan over there.
[4:48:11] Clyde.
[4:48:12] Oh, did you want to?
[4:48:14] Did you take your name off?
[4:48:16] I think my name off.
[4:48:17] OK.
[4:48:19] You don't want any part of this.
[4:48:26] I'd like to respond to Jane and Tim and just sort of put it in perspective as how I think about what our resolution says.
[4:48:39] And our resolution says something has to get fixed.
[4:48:43] We've said that in the three times before either the staff has in the board of firms.
[4:48:50] So we've been saying that all along, this needs to get fixed.
[4:48:54] So pass that part.
[4:48:57] Then there are two items in the board's resolution.
[4:49:02] The first one, and I'll just read it.
[4:49:05] It's three lines long.
[4:49:07] If I, I'm sorry,
[4:49:12] just read this.
[4:49:14] If the respondent does not secure the water side,
[4:49:16] levied berm according to requirements, you know,
[4:49:19] our requirements.
[4:49:20] The board shall secure the berm for the remainder
[4:49:22] the 2019-2020 flood season. I think we've, it doesn't take a lot to think that, that is not
[4:49:32] going to happen in the next 30 days, where he secures it. It didn't go to happen. So therefore,
[4:49:38] it triggers that it says, we will do it. And then the other, so that's element one number one.
[4:49:45] You have to do something within 30 days, which can't be done in 30 days. So therefore, the state
[4:49:51] will do it, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, and somebody is fixing it for you
[4:49:56] keeping your house, and then the other one is the hundred and six.
[4:50:00] So, I think those, you know, that's kind of what passing this resolution really means. So, and I sort of like, okay, so that's my comment there. And the other thing I think that we have to really do are make sure is that this can get done before at least the next winter.
[4:50:26] That's we really have to get so it's kind of it can't be something that gets dragged out.
[4:50:30] It has to be enough time here.
[4:50:32] And I think if Mr. Myers is going to give us a plan, it has to be a plan that you've worked out with the engineers over here that you've talked about it with the Corps of Engineers.
[4:50:44] You've got that all bald up.
[4:50:46] So by the time it gets here, you've got a something that you can stand behind.
[4:50:50] And you've got sort of the institutional support that does that, but, you know, whether, I don't know.
[4:50:58] I'm okay with three months, but I want to make sure that it gets done.
[4:51:03] If it does, if you're not here with a plan in three months, then I think this board just has to exercise what's in this, in our staff report.
[4:51:13] And that is the state will do it because we can't have your house fall in the river and go down there and screw up the bridge and take out a
[4:51:20] like that. Can't have that. That is not allowed. Can not threaten the people in
[4:51:26] the Thomas. That is not allowed. So, that's my view. Mr. President, can I just
[4:51:31] jump in first? It should be clear to everyone that if the state does it, that will
[4:51:37] be a reimbursement back to the landowner. That's not a freebie for the state.
[4:51:41] Right. Just make sure.
[4:51:47] Okay. Okay.
[4:51:52] I've had a little bit of experience in this kind of
[4:51:55] where we've done this in Old Sacramento, and what would happen is that we would try to get
[4:52:03] compliance with these kinds of things. Owners would drag on, drag on, wouldn't do anything,
[4:52:11] would drag them up before the commission, and they say, give me 30 days or give me 60 days,
[4:52:18] and I'll fix them or I'll bring back up better solution or whatever. We give them that,
[4:52:24] and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but I think the boards in a better position
[4:52:31] to allow the person he's committed in three months to bring back a contract with a stabilization
[4:52:41] plan, a time play table, and a commitment to pay, like Tim said, and if you're committing to that
[4:52:50] today that you will do that in three months.
[4:52:54] And it comes back and it's done well, good.
[4:52:57] If it's not, you're in a lot of trouble.
[4:53:03] OK, that's the issue before the board.
[4:53:06] As far as I'm concerned, Jane, are you on here?
[4:53:12] I am.
[4:53:12] Yeah, OK.
[4:53:16] The leads yourself, Jane.
[4:53:17] There you go.
[4:53:18] I didn't touch it.
[4:53:21] What you requested is not what I am in favor
[4:53:25] of moving, and April 6, 2018, and notice the violation was issued, April 6, 2018.
[4:53:35] In two short months, that will be two years of very clear information to the property owner
[4:53:42] what needs to be done.
[4:53:44] Didn't say do something three months.
[4:53:46] It said submit a plan and a projected schedule, and then go to there what needs to be done.
[4:53:52] submit a plan with the project with a proposed schedule and how to repair the notice of violation,
[4:54:00] submit a name change, and submit an encroachment from it.
[4:54:05] Didn't say you had 10 days to do it, didn't say that, and you need to submit a plan.
[4:54:10] After something less than two years came a memo or an email to the board and an attached contract
[4:54:18] to set up a site visit.
[4:54:22] So I appreciate, I have a little bit of experience in these kinds of hearings myself, maybe that's why I don't, I think you need to say it have to do it.
[4:54:32] I sat on a local government board for 32 years that did these things and got pretty sympathetic with people early on and then found that being sympathetic means you're just sympathetic 30 days later in your sympathetic three months later.
[4:54:49] These violations need to be done.
[4:54:51] Property owners have due diligence to act upon their property.
[4:54:57] For me, my due diligence is to support.
[4:55:00] What has been brought forward to us in very comprehensive fashion that these need to be corrected, and an order needs to be issued?
[4:55:08] I understand.
[4:55:13] No.
[4:55:14] The matter is before the board at this point where we've closed public hearing.
[4:55:19] Well, I'm going to surprise tonight. I'm going to see how this goes.
[4:55:22] I moved at this board to adopt the enforcement order resolution as recommended by staff.
[4:55:34] So a second?
[4:55:39] Okay. Call the roll please.
[4:55:41] All the way. You know
[4:55:51] when this property was purchased is irrelevant. A notice was given in 2018.
[4:56:02] If the person at sold this property didn't properly notify the buyer, then the buyer can go back and sue the
[4:56:12] original person. I don't know. My understanding is that he was notified of this requirement.
[4:56:20] And if he wasn't, then I think he's got a good solid claim against the seller of the property.
[4:56:27] For not properly notifying him of the restrictions that were out there and ongoing.
[4:56:34] So,
[4:56:36] it just doesn't sell with me that it's like, oh, I'm not given any time.
[4:56:43] It's since 2018,
[4:56:46] I can't fathom any reason why this engineer's report has not been
[4:56:53] provided on how to fix this property and move forward.
[4:57:01] people like to live out there next to the river, and they say they're willing to accept
[4:57:07] the risk of living there, because they like to have the river there, and etc.
[4:57:14] Well,
[4:57:16] if you want to live next to the river, you have to live with the costs of maintaining
[4:57:21] it, because rivers move, and rivers cause erosion, and especially if you have unapproved
[4:57:29] features like that flood wall that was put out there that may have exacerbated this situation.
[4:57:36] So I feel that, you know, we should move forward with this and I intend to vote in favor
[4:57:45] of the motion.
[4:57:48] Other speaking?
[4:58:03] Okay.
[4:58:04] Okay,
[4:58:11] I guess I'm going to vote against it because I think that, yes, the staff is
[4:58:18] done properly, the evidence is there, all the information and material.
[4:58:25] But at this meeting, we have the property owner committing to the board that within three months,
[4:58:34] He's going to have what we've asked for and committed to, and it's his word if he doesn't come up with it
[4:58:42] Well, there's no question about it
[4:58:45] If he does is able to fix it then
[4:58:48] Then good
[4:58:50] Can you say you fix it?
[4:58:51] What do you mean?
[4:58:52] You come back and with a plan that meets the staff requirements
[4:58:56] Fix it physically
[4:58:57] No, not physically
[4:58:58] No, he told me that that couldn't be done
[4:59:01] Yeah
[4:59:01] So, you know, that's, yeah, so that's kind of where I am, but it's not, you know,
[4:59:10] it's not a slap at the face of the staff.
[4:59:12] It's just, I think we're in a better position to do that.
[4:59:16] Well, can I ask, for you, if it's the time, provided that's most important,
[4:59:23] or the fine that's involved or both?
[4:59:25] It's the fine and the fact that we're taking a final action
[4:59:29] when he has publicly indicated that if you give me three more months, I'll come pull up.
[4:59:36] And I, I mean, or I didn't think I would see what happens.
[4:59:42] So I'm going to go off the tracks here, I don't know if I can do this, but if I can't,
[4:59:46] she will tell me.
[4:59:48] And maybe make a friendly amendment to my second, which is that we adopt the staff recommendation
[4:59:55] and with the condition that the fine wouldn't take effect for three months.
[5:00:00] And if the staff is satisfied with the plan has been submitted by that time, then the fine would not be included in the order. Is that possible?
[5:00:11] The board has a discretion to amend the proposed order, so yes, that is possible.
[5:00:16] As an agenda item.
[5:00:18] As an agenda item, made it, I want to make sure that Jane.
[5:00:20] Yes, I know, and I, you know, he's an attorney. I'm someone who actually certified to teach parliamentary procedure.
[5:00:27] I accept that. I actually feel a little note here for a further time that I would accept
[5:00:32] staying in position of the administrative penalty for three months and a report from staff
[5:00:40] of what is submitted is appropriate to determine that there will be movement forward to correct the actions.
[5:00:48] Okay, thank you.
[5:00:49] Because I would like to see that money go into the plan.
[5:00:52] And that gives us a better breathing room and maybe we get a vote from Bill.
[5:00:57] And there's a second verse so you agree with it?
[5:00:59] Well, could I ask for a second?
[5:01:01] I'll read the second note.
[5:01:02] Could I just get clarification that the it that you're talking about is a certified
[5:01:08] engineer's report, stabilization plan with specific timelines and actions that will be done.
[5:01:14] Is that what we're talking about?
[5:01:15] But our staff agree.
[5:01:16] Yeah.
[5:01:17] It makes those conditions.
[5:01:19] It will not be implemented, but it will be submitted with a time table and an action
[5:01:26] plan.
[5:01:27] Yeah.
[5:01:27] That's what we're talking about.
[5:01:28] Okay.
[5:01:29] And if that is done within three months, from today, accepted by the staff, the enforcement
[5:01:35] order is still in effect, except there would be no fine.
[5:01:40] Is that what I'm understanding?
[5:01:41] And if that is not done in three months, then the enforcement order with the fine is.
[5:01:46] That's right.
[5:01:47] I would propose we don't hear it again.
[5:01:49] That's just how it works.
[5:01:51] That three months see their staff for satisfied and we hear about it.
[5:01:56] Or they're not.
[5:01:56] In which case we also hear about it.
[5:01:58] But either way we don't need to hear it again.
[5:02:01] Thank you Executive Office for clarifying and giving us complete sentences to add to this motion.
[5:02:08] So as to make her the motion I agree with that.
[5:02:10] Okay, that's a good amendment.
[5:02:12] I think that we, whether you, whether you have the
[5:02:16] hundred.
[5:02:17] I like this amendment.
[5:02:18] Yeah, the amendment's good.
[5:02:21] All right.
[5:02:22] So we have a motion.
[5:02:23] I just got us.
[5:02:24] Oh, climb.
[5:02:25] Oh, climb.
[5:02:26] This is a technical point for the maker of the motion in the second.
[5:02:31] The going back to that sentence.
[5:02:34] I read two, four.
[5:02:36] Yeah, dealing with the March 30th.
[5:02:38] In other words, if Mr. Meyer doesn't come back with a complete plan, that by March 30th,
[5:02:46] then the board would do that.
[5:02:48] That would be clarified so that if he, in three months, if he's not here, there'd be that the
[5:02:56] state would take it over and do it just as it is in the plan if that's where.
[5:02:59] But it would be May instead of March.
[5:03:02] It would be just, if he misses the date, it's triggered.
[5:03:06] So that's, so that March 30th date is May.
[5:03:09] Be modified.
[5:03:10] I was April.
[5:03:11] For the record.
[5:03:12] I was not proposing to modify that part of it.
[5:03:14] For me, that's unrelated.
[5:03:16] That's the, oh my god, we need to do something now.
[5:03:19] We need a long-term plan also.
[5:03:20] But I read this to say that.
[5:03:23] What do we make that with a long-term plan?
[5:03:24] We still need people to go out and do something today.
[5:03:27] This winter to stabilize it.
[5:03:28] If you want to change that date, that's fine.
[5:03:31] I was not proposing to change that date.
[5:03:33] Now, the current resolution says that if he doesn't complete the work within 30 days,
[5:03:44] the state will do the work.
[5:03:46] So now we're going to have it.
[5:03:48] So we're shoving this forward.
[5:03:51] Does the date go forward?
[5:03:53] I mean, what it really ought to be, if he does this work, nothing happened.
[5:03:56] If he does it, comes back, everything gets done.
[5:04:00] But if he doesn't do the work, then the guillotine ought to come down, and no 30 days just
[5:04:07] just have to stay through the work.
[5:04:10] That clear.
[5:04:13] Clear?
[5:04:16] Yes.
[5:04:17] I think that they ought to be, everything ought to be three months for the organization
[5:04:23] of the actual action, of the penalty and of the, of the, of the, of the, of the,
[5:04:29] So, now I'm curious because I was interpreting the March 30 date as some sort of emergency repair and not the long-term effects because this is further remainder of the 2019-20-20 season.
[5:04:48] So, I guess that's a question for Sir Dyson.
[5:04:50] on tight portion section. Yes, the way the portion order was written was to get that.
[5:05:09] I'm not sure. I'd have to talk to DWR maintenance, flood maintenance office to see if that could truly be done. Talk to RD1000 if they have resources to do it. Get it done.
[5:05:23] Well again, though, those are all items that would be charged back to the homeowner if those were done.
[5:05:28] So we give him 30 days to do it, if he doesn't do it, and we step in and do it, and then we have to
[5:05:35] kind of jump down and it's, can he get it done? Like he couldn't do a stabilization, implement a
[5:05:41] stabilization, you know, planet in 30 days, but he can, can he do the emergency work in 30 days?
[5:05:51] Like I said, President, I'm not, I'm not sure it would probably be possible. It may not be possible.
[5:06:01] Is it an emergency though?
[5:06:05] Technically no, because when the Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the situation to see if
[5:06:11] it was going to be a public law 84-99 site, they came back and said no, because the erosion
[5:06:18] had not impranged upon the levy prism at that point in time.
[5:06:24] It's still there was still enough water side levy berm to a road before it got to the levy prism.
[5:06:29] And that's why the Army Corps of Engineers did not
[5:06:32] designate this site as a public law 8499.
[5:06:35] We per site.
[5:06:36] So it's not an emergency.
[5:06:39] OK, then Mr. President.
[5:06:41] Why wouldn't we just postpone the March 20th through the three
[5:06:44] months date?
[5:06:46] I think that's what the proposal was.
[5:06:49] Well, I know James said she wanted, or Brian said.
[5:06:53] Does he?
[5:06:53] Brian asked the question.
[5:06:54] Or Brian asked the question of whether this was an effect.
[5:06:57] He did the emergency.
[5:06:58] We're getting the implication that it's really not an emergency as court defines it.
[5:07:04] That's as the court finds it.
[5:07:05] It was not my intent to modify that date, but I get the impression that people would like to have a modified.
[5:07:11] So if that's the case, that's fine also.
[5:07:14] I think the same three month window would be fine, which takes it to what was the May 30 date.
[5:07:23] We would be looking at if we if we did, you know, three months we would be looking at May
[5:07:31] 29th. Okay. Friday, May 29th. Yeah, that's right. That's that's that's another change.
[5:07:36] Thank you for finding that. We'll have found that. Brian helped me understand it. And I'd be
[5:07:42] find to make that change as well. So it lines up with the date we talked about for the fine.
[5:07:47] Yeah, so if it isn't done in through months the staff has the authority to go ahead and impose the order
[5:07:55] As if for the fine and also for the the work that would be there and right away in the field that would be
[5:08:02] Without coming back to the home one eventually. Okay, then I need to add something to the original
[5:08:07] I think you have it and I also have a follow up. I'm just gonna look at suggestion but I think that's make
[5:08:12] for the motion I needed that date change.
[5:08:15] Okay, Brian, you had Mr. Mayor.
[5:08:17] Mr. Mayor.
[5:08:19] Just to clarify, then, because my interest is making sure
[5:08:22] that it gets fixed before next year,
[5:08:24] to clarify that there wouldn't be a way to fix it
[5:08:29] and reduce any remaining risk for this year anyway,
[5:08:31] and that May is fine for next year.
[5:08:34] That that leads to 2020-21.
[5:08:37] 2019.
[5:08:38] 2020.
[5:08:39] May 2019.
[5:08:40] Yeah, in between that period for the emergency
[5:08:42] repairs that that works if it comes back to to awesome we have to do that work.
[5:08:49] Should and I feel like you're going to have to have another like we have a through I think G in here by ordered that.
[5:08:58] You're going to have to have another you know big paragraph describing what you want to do right now.
[5:09:04] Well we just explained it.
[5:09:06] I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
[5:09:08] Now, possible, we'll be able to clarify that.
[5:09:10] We can modify the language to apply, I just want to make sure
[5:09:13] that we are pushing all of the dates then.
[5:09:18] The May 29 would be for the emergency repairs or the stabilization
[5:09:24] of the site, if we're not calling them emergency repairs.
[5:09:28] The stabilization plan for the more long-term fix.
[5:09:31] Correct.
[5:09:32] Is that what we're talking about?
[5:09:34] Well, we're talking.
[5:09:35] That's not done to the staff's approval by the 29th and the imposition of fines and whatever
[5:09:41] other staffs we have to take to get the work done at that point.
[5:09:43] That's true.
[5:09:44] Okay.
[5:09:45] If I may speak, it may be cleaner instead of trying to massage the current order to include
[5:09:55] all these additional things is just adopt the order and suspend.
[5:10:00] It's implementation for the three months, the 90 days, and if it's not done, then the order becomes effective.
[5:10:07] Then you're not having to change anything in the order itself.
[5:10:11] I like that.
[5:10:12] Actually, that makes sense.
[5:10:14] We would just still need to modify the dates.
[5:10:17] Yeah, but there's John is saying there may be some other things within the order that would be out of sync,
[5:10:25] so they suspension sounds.
[5:10:26] Okay.
[5:10:27] it makes sense.
[5:10:29] So now your motion would be to adopt the order and hold it in a game for three months.
[5:10:41] I would offer that substitute motion.
[5:10:44] Should I second it?
[5:10:45] Yes.
[5:10:46] I'll second it.
[5:10:48] Thank you for that.
[5:10:49] I think that's what we did, but it makes our attorney feel better.
[5:10:52] I'm happy to do a substitute motion.
[5:10:56] That's a good solution to you.
[5:10:59] Yeah, because then doesn't have to come back here and we've committed to give the property owner
[5:11:07] chance.
[5:11:08] He's committed to do that and we'll see what happens.
[5:11:14] Call the roll please.
[5:11:17] This was a motion articulated by our executive officer, moved by
[5:11:24] Vice President Dolan, seconded by Tim Ramirez, call the roll please.
[5:11:32] Board Member Johnson, Board Member Ramirez, Board Member Countryman,
[5:11:38] Board Member McConnell, Vice President Dolan, President Edgar, yes,
[5:11:47] thank you,
[5:11:53] okay we're
[5:11:56] to tell where we appreciate your patients.
[5:12:01] We're now moving back to our item 12.
[5:12:08] We have our regular reports that we normally have
[5:12:13] or there are any questions on any reports that are
[5:12:16] talked about in item 12.
[5:12:18] The administration operations plan implementation
[5:12:22] or environmental services and land management.
[5:12:24] Lastly, do you have any comments you want to make on those?
[5:12:28] Okay. Any more board members?
[5:12:31] Okay. Item 13 were on board comments and committee updates,
[5:12:37] Clyde, Jane?
[5:12:39] I'm not going to dare to lengthen this meeting.
[5:12:44] Joe?
[5:12:45] No.
[5:12:46] Tim.
[5:12:47] And Brian.
[5:12:52] Item 14, let's do, do you have any specific dates you want to
[5:12:56] I do yet. There are no dates on there just to remind everyone that we have canceled the March
[5:13:05] and April workshops. So please remove those holds that you had on your calendars for both
[5:13:11] of those. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is March 27th. I have gotten a message from our
[5:13:26] town meeting and is unable to make that if Mr. President, we don't have reappointments at that
[5:13:34] date. We will not have a quorum at that point. So I will be sending out a message after
[5:13:40] Sunday. If I don't hear anything from the Governor's office about whether that meeting
[5:13:45] perhaps will be canceled as well. But for now it's on the agenda. It's on the calendar.
[5:13:50] I am not going to be here for that meeting.
[5:13:53] I've been called to a director's convening down in Los Angeles.
[5:13:57] So, my gripe will be sitting in for me for that meeting as well.
[5:14:03] I have a question concerning.
[5:14:05] My understanding is, at least with my status, and I think the other two members is, after
[5:14:11] this meeting, we're no longer authorized to represent the board.
[5:14:17] Sunday, Sunday is the last date and I have an indication that there is perhaps still a decision coming by Sunday, which is why I don't know yet.
[5:14:27] But if it didn't for some reason, we really couldn't need to represent the floor.
[5:14:33] Your terms will expire. You're in your holdover status now and your terms will expire on Sunday, if not reappointed.
[5:14:40] Okay. Thank you. Yeah, and we would barely have a quorum left at that point and that's why
[5:14:48] Brian's absence from that one meeting would mean we don't have a quorum. And that just applies
[5:14:53] to board members, Ramirez, McDonald and John, and, uh, uh, countrymen. Okay.
[5:15:00] Okay, members, thank you for your patience today, is a long hard meeting. I appreciate it. I am 15, is adjournment and without objection, this meeting is adjourned.