August 7, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting

1. Call to Order and Meeting Procedure Review
2. Approval of Draft Review Summaries for December 12, 2022 (PDF) and April 10, 2023 (PDF) Meetings
3. Staff Update
4. 1301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development Project, City of Belmont, San Mateo County; First Pre-Application Review (PDF)
   The Design Review Board will hold its first pre-application review of the proposal by Four Corners Properties to redevelop a 6.91-acre site with a life sciences campus at 1301 Shoreway Road in the City of Belmont, San Mateo County. The project proposes to demolish the existing four-story office building on site and construct two 7- to 8-level office/R&D buildings and a 9-level parking garage. The project proposes both on-site and off-site public access improvements, including constructing a new sidewalk along Sem Lane to provide public access from Shoreway Road to the shoreline, widening the Belmont Creek Trail, and refreshing the landscape with seating areas and trail serving amenities.
   (Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Exhibits
5. San Leandro Shoreline Development Project, City of San Leandro, Alameda County; (Fourth Pre-Application Review) (PDF)
   The Design Review Board will hold their fourth pre-application review of a proposal by Cal Coast Companies, LLC and the City of San Leandro to redevelop the San Leandro Marina and surrounding land. The proposed project would include a waterfront park, hotel, restaurant, residential and condominium buildings, and a commercial building. The project has undergone significant design and land use changes since the second review in 2016.
   (Jessica Finkel) [415/352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Exhibits 
6. Adjournment

Meeting Transcript

DRB Meeting Room: Okay, are we ready to go?

Okay. Good evening. My name is Gary Strang. I am the vice chair of the B. C. DC. Design Review Board. I’m going in tonight for just into the can who could not be here. But she sends her regards, especially to the new Board members

who are joining us tonight for the first time, Leo Chow, and

DRB Meeting Room: and so

She wish she could be here. But she is following along.

DRB Meeting Room: we are located at the Metro center in San Francisco, and our meeting will include participants who are here and those who are participating online. Our first order of business is to call the role board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. So, Ashley, please feel free to call a roll

acting chair, strain. present board, member or not present board member, Chow.

board, member leader here. board, member Pellegrini present.

Bcbc. Staff attending tonight, or myself, Ashley, Tamerlan. Kerry Jewett, Kathryn, Pan Shutti, Sinha, and Jess Sinkle.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay, thank you, Ashley. We have a quorum presence. So we are duly constituted to conduct business.

and I appreciate everyone’s patience as we go through some protocol for everyone online and in the meeting room, please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise

for board members. If you have a webcam, please make sure that it is on, so everyone can see you for members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period. That is part of an agenda item, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways.

First, if you are here and with us in person, we’ll ask you to form a line near the podium. If you wish to make a public comment. Speaker, cards are available at the door. You asked to come up to the podium one at a time, and to state your name and affiliation. Prior

providing comments during the meeting. After all of the individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely the second way, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform, please raise your virtual hands in the zoom.

If you are new to zoom, and you joined our meeting, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised.

DRB Meeting Room: Finally, if you are joining our meeting via phone. You must press Star 9 on your keypad

to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. you will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised.

DRB Meeting Room: After you’re called on you will be unmuted so that you can share your comments.

Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of the remark. Remember, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining.

DRB Meeting Room: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We’re here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us.

but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. It will not tolerate hate, speech threats made directly or indirectly, and or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines, or who exceeds the established time with it

without permission for public comments. If you’re attending online. Please note. we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled.

DRB Meeting Room: If you’re attending the medium. The meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists. Audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced to individual panelists. Videos.

DRB Meeting Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties, list to be notified of future meetings

concerning these projects. Please call her email Ashley, Tom Orlyn. His contact information is on the screen or is found on the Cdc’s website.

DRB Meeting Room: Finally, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting post Yuri, our Bctc. Staff

are acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us if it’s needed.

DRB Meeting Room: So the next order of business is to approve the

the minutes from the previous 2 meetings or

DRB Meeting Room: and so board members. We’ve all been given draft minutes of our December twelfth

2,022 meeting and a draft summary of our April the eighth, 2,023 meeting. Are there any comments or corrections that anyone would like to make?

DRB Meeting Room: I would appreciate?

Yes.

DRB Meeting Room: okay, so let’s go ahead with comments. this would just be for the board members who attended those meetings. Obviously.

DRB Meeting Room: Stefan.

anyone else? No, comments.

Cf, I so since I had a comments minor comment, crafting some language. see?

DRB Meeting Room: Okay. She gave me a comment. But I’m not sure which of the meeting notes

first 2. She had made a general statement

DRB Meeting Room: chair. Mccann mentioned that this was very sad. I think we were saying goodbye to

Andre. At this point she said,

DRB Meeting Room: She mentioned that this was a very sad evening for everyone on the Drp. And she stated the Graphic that you have shared, and she lined out

and replaced it with clearly shows

DRB Meeting Room: the incredible impact that you have had on the Dr. B’s work. So minor. But

it’s important to crop that line.

DRB Meeting Room: If you didn’t get that, we can catch up on it.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay.

So like to make a motion to adopt the minutes, then can someone make a motion

DRB Meeting Room: move to the

okay, and if there are no no issues with that, then the minutes will be approved and amended as noted.

DRB Meeting Room: And now the Board Secretary will provide staff update.

DRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Chair.

I’m going to keep this brief tonight. Thank you. To the Board members who attended the July 20 sixth they adapt Briefing staff, found it to be an incredibly rich conversation, and we look forward to working with the boards as the projects develop

for newly reopened public access. Foster City Phase 2 is now open, and Phase 3 is on track for opening later this month. This time there are approximately 4 and a half of the 6 and a half miles available for public use.

DRB Meeting Room: The picture shown is one of the levy access trails.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, September eleventh, and will be a hybrid meeting here at Metro Center we will be holding our third review for the India, based in Shoreline Park and our first review of the proposed office development site in Oakland.

That concludes the B. Cdc. Staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board.

DRB Meeting Room: All right.

there is none. So we can move on to the next item.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay, the next item is public comments for items not on tonight’s agenda. We’ll start with those members of the public and our headquarters building here today. Please form a line near the podium. If you have a public comment.

After all, the individuals who are present make their comments. We’ll call on those participants who are attending remotely.

Okay.

DRB Meeting Room: seeing no comments here in the room. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment.

please raise your virtual hand. Remember, if you’re joining our meeting via phone, you must press, star 9, and your keypad. Raise your hand to make a comment to mute or unmute press, star 6. It will be called on. Your your hand was raised, and you will have 3 min to speak

here. You will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your comments

DRB Meeting Room: just mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties, list to be notified to future meetings.

Please call or email. Actually.

DRB Meeting Room: we have no public comments here.

DRB Meeting Room: In that case we can move on to the first review of

proposed Project 1,301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development in the city of Belmont. in San Mateo County.

DRB Meeting Room: The first review

and just to remind everybody of how the meeting is scheduled, they’ll be

DRB Meeting Room: Dcdc. Staff introductions.

A project proponent presentation followed by clarifying questions from the Board. A period of public comment

DRB Meeting Room: which will then be followed by a board discussion and summary.

and then an opportunity for the project proponent to briefly respond.

DRB Meeting Room: And so with that. DC. DC, permit analysts.

Introduce the project. 50.

Thank you. Acting chair Strang, and good evening board members. My name is Shutti Sina. I am a permit analyst at BC. DC. The first project for review tonight is a Life Sciences Redevelopment project in Belmont, proposed by 4 Corners properties

DRB Meeting Room: before we discuss the project, we would like to begin by acknowledging that the majority of the land in this area was once water in historic tidal flats located near lantern, the unseeded ancestral homeland of the ramitous Olone.

We offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay Area.

DRB Meeting Room: 1,301. Shoreway is a 6.9 one acre site at 1,301 shore road in the city of Belmont, San Mateo County, just outside the Redwood Shores waterfront Community.

The project site is bounded by Sam Lane to the northwest Shoreway road to the southwest. a Pg. And E. Substation to the south and the Belmont Creek to the east.

The site shares the Belmont Creek shoreline with 10 twin Dolphin and 200 twin dolphin, both recently reviewed by the Drb. In 2 in 2,022

Shoreway road is adjacent to, and runs parallel with Highway 101.

DRB Meeting Room: The existing permit for the project site

B. C. DC. Permit number M. 1,981 point 6 4 point 0 2 was originally issued on May eighteenth, 1,982, in association with the construction of

a 48,000 square foot building, which is now a medical offices building. The permit was amended once for construction of a private sports court and the overall public access requirements of the permit include

appropriate landscaping a 10 foot wide, pedestrian path, no fewer than 3 benches. no fewer than 2 public access signs and an 8 foot wide connector path on the north side of the tennis court or the Sports Court.

DRB Meeting Room: This is a Google Street view capture of the site from Shoreway Road. To this, to the right, you can see the vehicular entrance of the site, and a 4 story.

DRB Meeting Room: Sorry

this. This

capture is taken from Highway 101, which runs parallel to show railroad.

DRB Meeting Room: This is another Google Street view capture of the site from Semlene to the right you can see the parking lot of the 1,301 Shoreway campus. To the left is the pedestrian entrance to the the trail from Sam Lane.

DRB Meeting Room: This is a photo of the Belmont Creek at the site from a staff visit

last year. The building on the left is the existing building on the former oracle campus across the creek.

DRB Meeting Room: This slide provides some regional context for parks and public access areas. The existing Bay trail alignment is shown as a green line. The Belmont flew as a light blue Line

Highway 101 and Highway 82 as dark blue lines, Cal. Train as the pink line and nearby parks in green.

DRB Meeting Room: With respect to the social setting of the project location. The area is largely dominated by office buildings

and B. Cdc’s vulnerability mapping tools shows the project area as having moderate social vulnerability associated with lower contamination vulnerability. In this area, the social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile are for people with no vehicle, people with a disability. People of color, people with limited English proficiency, and people with very low income.

Note that there is some. There is an area to the West that has a higher social vulnerability. Vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile. For this area includes children under 5 people over 65, and alone, people with no high school degree people with limited English proficiency, and people who are not Us. Citizens

DRB Meeting Room: moving on to sea level rise.

I note that Belmont Creek is a tidal waterway and using current site elevations. This map, with the projects I outlined in red shows that shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remain unchanged

for the medium to high risk aversion. Scenario 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level, which would also not cause any flooding on the site.

DRB Meeting Room: and this map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site if unchanged.

Here the project site is outlined in yellow, but the medium to high-risk aversion scenario 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the 100 year storm at mid-century, and mean higher high water in the year 2,090,

DRB Meeting Room: and you can see that there is inundation throughout the site.

DRB Meeting Room: To conclude this introduction, we’ve summarized the Bay Plan policy and guideline questions that apply to this project. In addition, we have also included some questions by staff that we would like the Board to consider.

Please note that the staff report had identified the proposed courtyard as publicly accessible. However, the project team has indicated that the courtyard would, in fact, be private.

Does the Board have any clarifying questions at this point?

DRB Meeting Room: It’s like no questions.

DRB Meeting Room: All right. With that I will hand it over to rich Ying of 4 Corners properties to present the project.

DRB Meeting Room: Hello, everyone board members and staff. My name is rich in the 4 Corners representing Project ownership.

Rene here, will go through to the presentation on me. I’m just going to give a pref and trump

DRB Meeting Room: with me in person. Here are Renee Connor and Daniel, from SW. A.

Craig, from Dga. Raquel, from Bkf. Villa, from Moffat Nichols.

DRB Meeting Room: and I think joining us remotely, is Karen and Dj. As well.

DRB Meeting Room: So before I turn over to Rene, who will go into the project details, I just wanted to give a brief overview of who we are. So 4 corners started almost 20 years ago.

And since inception we’ve been Bay, area-based and B area focused.

DRB Meeting Room: you know, our ownership. History

has solely been concentrated on the Bay Area from San Francisco to San Jose. In fact, one of my partners and I are both barrier born and very raised. So you know, we have a pretty

deep commitment to building high-quality projects in our backyard

DRB Meeting Room: for context. We purchased the property back in December of 21 with our capital partner. and since then we’ve been working with the city

and B Cdc. Staff on the design and necessary approvals for each relevant component and I just wanted to note that while nobody from the Sbca, I don’t think is on tonight. Remotely, we did forward a letter to staff

from Sbca. Endorsing there. support for our

DRB Meeting Room: proposed improvements.

And with that I’ll turn over to Rene.

Thank you.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay, if I got that part Russian, easy

Good evening. Distinguished Commissioners, board members, and BC. DC. Staff. My name is Renee Bian, managing partner of SW. A. San Francisco

studio.

DRB Meeting Room: it’s an honor to present the 1,301 Shoreway project this today. This evening.

I represent one small part of a team that I think has a very deep bench in this area. And if questions get technical later on, we may have to call some of those

to the mic. I’d also like to give a warm shout out to Shrew T. And Ashley, who’s been great thought partners for us over the last several months and highly professional in guiding us through this process.

13 or one sure way, I’ll try to not be too redundant with the overview that Truty gave. But It’s in the city of Belmont, and it’s adjacent to the Belmont Creek site as shrew teeth navigated

the site, although our site itself is fairly small, I think it combines beautifully with both the 200 twin dolphin site and the 10 twin dolphin site kind of, you know the parts adding up to a a bigger whole.

super. Important to recognize that. Our site is, in fact, the on the creek side, and it does not correct. Connect directly to the larger bay trail system. However, with the advantage of 200 twin dolphin and 10 twin dolphin, it will connect through those those sites.

DRB Meeting Room: also. to note that. the site, the DC DC jurisdiction area is only half owned by our client. 4 corners. The other half is owned by Sbc. A. And as Rich said, they’ve been very supportive. And albeit last minute they did draft a very supportive letter today.

other kind of important contextual things is that to the west some lane is a private street owned by the city of Belmont. To the east is the Pg. And E. Substation quite an unsightly mess.

and then we have both the one one freeway and shoreline to the south. As Shruti mentioned, the site was originally approved in 1,981, and then in 1,985, a modification to add up a tennis court adjacent to the site.

again, the trail head for our site begins currently at the end of Sam Lane. There’s a small sign and a

trailhead. However, there’s no public walkway that connects from Shoreway to the trail head itself. The site will eventually, as I said, connect to the north side of the creek itself, and from the north side will have connections both through the 200 twin Dolphin and the 10 twin dolphin projects.

DRB Meeting Room: oops.

DRB Meeting Room: Sorry. existing condition of the site. You know. I’m just gonna be frank. It’s not great. the in addition to the 101 freeway and Shoreway Road. There’s a 70 foot wide. Utility easement to the south side of the site. The Pg. And e substation is is currently

onerous, to say the least. Some lane only has one access into the existing surface parking lot. And again, the current access to the actual trail head is is not great.

images from the 101. There are no indicators that there is, you know, a a water body, natural system from the 101 itself

as you get in a little closer to one I want sure way. same thing. You know, it’s about 5 to 600 feet from Shoreway to the actual trail itself, and there are no visible indicators that really show you, you know.

Go here, so to speak. the site itself in the upper right that is the trail head and the sign. But again, no public access to that trail head

The creek is. The condition is currently. you know, pretty much in disrepair, with the benches and the trash and the other amenities overgrown. And even that vegetation, you know.

DRB Meeting Room: implemented several decades ago, is not, is not great. the. It’s also, I think, a little bit of an incoherent Site plan in terms of There are not enough indicators to help clarify. You know, the directionality of the path. How do you get from one place to the other. the shaping of the spaces. Everything feels just a little bit hunky, Tonk, and maybe not, as on par with the other amenities that we see in the Bay area for this this level of of site.

DRB Meeting Room: this is the flood map and we covered that briefly. But I want to give my oops.

Sorry, a quick indicator of numbers here and again, if there are specific technical questions, we can come back to that. But the creek. Yeah. The creek trail itself

currently meets a resiliency standard to mid-century based on a king tide of 7 9 plus 2 feet sea level rise. So worst case scenario 9.9.

The Belmont Creek is currently at 11 to 11.8 feet in elevation, which exceeds the 9.9 the trail can be adapted to handle the 1 100 year storm event.

and for good measure we’re proposing to raise it to 12.2, so existing building is it 15. Existing elevation of the shoreline is 11 to eleven-five, and the trail fluctuates from 10.9 to 11.5 in its existing condition.

So we’re going to switch a little bit to talk about flood adaptation, and how we intend to address that both short term and long term. first of all along the creek itself, as I said, for good measure.

we’re going to raise the trail to 12.5 from its current standard of 10.9 and 11.5. The building elevations will be set at 12 per the city of Belmont and we’re also going to do some shaping to the berm that I’m gonna get to here.

DRB Meeting Room: So left to right, I’m I’m sorry. In the upper right hand corner you’ll see some section keys, and if you follow the those through the series of sections, it should be pretty clear what we’re doing. So building pads are going to elevation 12 existing curb and gutter to remain at 10.3 and then the trail and the planted area, and the

head of the berm itself will raise to 12.5 at the high level

DRB Meeting Room: next section. Cut a little bit further down as you’re into that proposed courtyard itself. the again. The berm will be elevated from it’s currently at 11 2 to 12.5.

The Graphic is a slightly off on on this one. If you read the the actual numerical at 12, it should be 12.5. It looks a little bit higher than that. I apologize. But

DRB Meeting Room: Then the section at the garage itself, again elevating the levy to 12.5, and keeping the building at 12 and existing courtyard fluctuates with that flow of the grading itself.

long term, and for that 2,100 mark we feel that there’s plenty of room to build up to the high, high level of. We have about 50 feet to deal with, and which gives us enough time enough room to burn up, to get the access to the site, and then to return back before we hit the downslope to the creek itself.

DRB Meeting Room: So, switching now to a program and kind of the amenities package, so to speak.

starting back at Shoreway. we are proposing to add a 6 foot wide sock sidewalk. with proper signage at the intersection of Sam and Shoreway.

The walk continues all the way down to the site itself, where you’ll meet a improved trail head, 10 bite parking stalls, 3 vehicular parking stalls, and then a series of both passive and active seating nodes along the trail itself at a rhythm of about 100 150 feet each.

DRB Meeting Room: so the signage again, both pulling it out to Shoreway Boulevard. I think, particularly for hotel guests in the adjacent room. That’s where they’re gonna want to kind of see it and kind of pick it up and go down to it, and then improving the signage and bringing more of an informational signage to the trail, head itself at the creek.

So existing condition. where then? Not a through street sign is to the right will be the new walkway to the left, at the hotel that walkway does not continue all the way down.

so it would be 6 foot high side walkway. And again the informational graphics

DRB Meeting Room: and a planting buffer between the walkway and the proposed building.

DRB Meeting Room: once you get to the trail head itself. As I said, there’s a series of different nodes. One is kind of to build on that existing athletic program nodes. So a bicycle repair station, obviously bike parking, but also kind of high quality exercise stations in half of the nodes that are being provided.

The other half of the nodes will be more passive seating node for bird watching. Or you know, quiet phone calls You know, we want this to be a a trail and an amenity that’s for people of all ages and all economic groups. we want it to be inclusive. So we’re we’re proposing as much variety as we think is kind of reasonable on the the site here.

But also, you know, the nodes aren’t one-liners. Obviously, if there’s exercise stations, it’ll be paired with a quality seating that gives people good orientation, not just to the creek, but to the to the surrounding landscape

DRB Meeting Room: again, you know just a so simple and accessible node next to the adjacent path, and looking down the the slew itself.

DRB Meeting Room: and then the fourth node is slightly larger, and it would include, obviously, community, more community style tables and chairs where people could have meetings or

have their launch, or, you know, do something that’s a little bit more socially engaged

DRB Meeting Room: just a slight blow up of these areas again that as you’re looking at it 3 new designated parking stalls, there are 0 now. 10 class 2 bike parking. There are 0 now, a new walkway to connect to the trail head and improved educational signage. and then which kind of brings you around to the first

seating burning node there.

DRB Meeting Room: so the existing condition again. No parking, no bikes, no connectivity

to the proposed condition. I should also point out that to the left, here in the center of the screen. That’s the official bay trail. we’ve also included a secondary trail adjacent to the parking structure, so that there’s 2 ways to kind of navigate through the through the project itself.

A slight blow up of both that active node, the fitness node above, and the more passive trail seating below.

DRB Meeting Room: and then finally the largest node at the end. It’s it would be a fitness node a meeting node to the center or above the the tennis court, and a fitness node below. So the 2 nodes combine, and there’s an additional seating node in the back, which is a part of the existing

walkway system behind the courts themselves.

Blow up looking you’re looking across at 10 twin Dolphin drive the future 10 to the dolphin drive. and an example again, of the scale and the materiality of of these nodes.

DRB Meeting Room: existing vegetation. Again, it’s not great. The trees are listed in either every tree is listed either as poor or extremely poor conditions. Several are already dead, very few natives, and we would be replacing that with a more

indigenous. plant pellet. We’re clearly wanting to complement and build off of the plant palette that both 200 twin dolphin and 10 to involve and have done for a bigger, larger ecological impact

to the Overall creek itself. hopefully. the material palette looks familiar to most of you, but this would be the look and the scale that we’d be looking for.

DRB Meeting Room: and then the ground covers.

DRB Meeting Room: And that’s a presentation. Thank you very much.

DRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much, Renee, for that very clear and comprehensive presentation and and graphics that are really easy to comprehend. So we’ve got a we’re going to take a moment here to see if there’s any questions from the board, clarifying questions on the proponents. Presentation.

DRB Meeting Room: If you have a question, please.

on your mic.

DRB Meeting Room: yeah. Nice presentation. this is a new, newly constructed parking day along the

he’s in the creek. Are there a. C. 3 stormwater requirements they handled in there somewhere.

DRB Meeting Room: for the the development itself, for for the, for the parking strip that’s within the yeah, that that will all drain to the private development itself. Yeah.

right, Raquel.

that

DRB Meeting Room: that I I will say that for the private development we’re using pretty much the same plant palette and the same strategy kind of tying the 2 ecologies together. So the the C 3 requirement is actually kind of a feature of the

a private courtyard.

I had one question about just to make sure I was reading the illustrations correctly. The adaptation zone for a future as well as the nodes that you were showing.

Do those fall outside of your client’s property. Ownership

DRB Meeting Room: is that within the other property ownership that you established at the beginning of the presentation?

it’s really designed as as one zone. The nodes are within the twelve-five adaptation area, though, if I understand your question.

DRB Meeting Room: so they’ll be above twelve-.

Okay, is that was that the question. the question is more about the property lines.

DRB Meeting Room: Yeah, that’s a that’s

good question.

DRB Meeting Room: Got it. So that property line is indicating everything east of it is the Sbc 8. Okay, thank you.

DRB Meeting Room: Anyone else.

Yeah. maybe 2 questions. If you could help us with one. Is you heard the question from Staff about the the quality of publicness of the central court.

So it’d be great to hear a little bit more about the thresholds

DRB Meeting Room: entering and exiting that court, and how that is made to feel welcoming.

And then maybe the second question is. there’s a larger cluster seating adjacent to the court, which perhaps reflects the current condition.

Is there any thought about how the changes to the uses on the land side effects where people are more likely to gather or not?

Yeah. So your first question is, how are we making it more public the court, the making it welcoming for the public to move through the court, because my understanding is that that is considered part of the public access. Oh, the private court, as a part of the development.

DRB Meeting Room: I think the question the question is, how is the courtyard with what’s your attitude on the publicness of the courtyard that’s being created by the 3 building? If I could Just clarify that there are 2 things that might be. we’re being referred to as a court. There is an inner court yard which is part of the proposal. and then there is a

sports court, which is a an existing feature on the site both of which are are private and intended to remain. So.

Okay.

DRB Meeting Room: maybe you can handle the

touch on the the gathering by the private court, the the sports court. Okay? Why, there’s a larger one there. Given the changes on the land side. Okay? so in on the

that

DRB Meeting Room: more or less, this is it.

that’s the largest area right now. And if you look at the Site plan, I mean one of that one of that I think benefits to the to the greater public is that this parcel line kind of triangulates in front of the Pg. And E substation.

So the planting and the landscape that goes there will help screen that at least from short way drive. And so there’s there’s benefit there that larger gathering space there is about the size of the existing gathering space that’s currently there. So there’s a larger space there. The other nodes are distributed. I guess they would add up to allow a larger space.

But I’m trying to.

DRB Meeting Room: Your question is, why? Why? Why is the big space where it is now? Versus later? Yeah, I think it has more to do with the geometry and the fact that there’s more area to work with there because the space can pull in adjacent to the to the Sports court.

I mean, if there was a desire to make one of the other nodes larger, we could. I mean, there’s nothing precluding it. This is not a trail that currently gets a lot of use because it it’s somewhat dead ends on some lane. So we don’t want to over scale these spaces. We want it to feel comfortable.

but the the largest space is adjacent to the tennis court, just because there’s more flat landmass to to deal with there.

DRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much for the presentation.

have a

DRB Meeting Room: couple of questions, and then I think, as some clarifications would be helpful about something in the staff report.

maybe we could start with that. There’s the discussion I have a levy

DRB Meeting Room: and the justification for why the levy improvements are sort of outside the purview of this project. and I would love it if you could provide us some more context as to where that levy is

DRB Meeting Room: and in its relationship to what’s actually being improved.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay, can I? Do you mind just killing your microphone?

Can someone else help me with that one?

Go back to the see my map.

DRB Meeting Room: Hi, my name is Rachel Phones. I’m from Bkf engineers. so the actual creek is outside of the property.

in. we are basically just enhancing it. since it’s outside of our property.

DRB Meeting Room: I know if that answers your question, and it’s about maybe 30 feet away from the property line.

DRB Meeting Room: But there is a levy on the

on the inland side of the creek. The you know. It’s a berm. It’s not technically a levy in in in the staff report, and this might be a question for staff.

The discussion of this levy is, is that what you are referring to? Yes, the trail, the Belmont Creek trail on both sides, on the 1,301 Charlotte Showway side, and on the 201 dolphin intent on dolphin side. are both on a what we’ve understood from those projects to be a fema, certified Levy. So the the trail

the pedestrian trail. They are actually on top of the levy and From those the the prior projects we’ve learned that because it is there on a a fema certified levy. any changes

to to the those those areas would require action from several other agencies and municipalities.

DRB Meeting Room: So the strategy is to have the individual property owners gling the 2 that we’ve previously seen, and this one to improve to a new base plot elevation outside of the physical levy.

and that sort of further down the road there could be a agency-driven fled control project within the creek corridor.

But yeah, but but the idea is that we’re just looking at the per view. I see. Actually, you’re not in your head. Okay, yeah, I just want to make sure that we sort of understood that in the context of what we’re sort of talking about, Stefan. I also would like to add that I think the levy that you may be referring to should also mentioned. It’s that dash black line. Yes, that is on the other side. Yes, that’s

on the other side of the quick, which is not part of this improvements. Okay, yeah, thank you. So in that context. And this might be a question for today. again. But we’re talking about the sort of connectivity and synergy that can come from

this project in the context of the twin dolphin improvements. So for someone to actually access the trail and cross the creek corridor.

can you provide some guidance for actually how that actually would happen for a production, either on this side to reach the bay trail side or from somebody on the twin Dolphin side to actually come over to this side of the creek.

So currently the trail head starts here. and continues and connects to the north side. Here it’s sure way. So you come here. There’s no bridge or structure that goes over the creek until you hit shoreline, so then you would follow shoreline to the north side of the creek, and either you know, cross here to the bay trail or come down to this end

to hit the bay trail.

and the

DRB Meeting Room: context that are providing additional connectivity between these sites in this location

is due to the fact that the

DRB Meeting Room: creek is lying outside the jurisdiction.

That’s really what we’re looking at like. If, for example, like a pedestrian bridge or something that would create synergy or provide opportunities for these amenities to be more easily accessed between sites. It’s this jurisdictional issue.

DRB Meeting Room: I’m sorry I don’t understand your question like why you couldn’t propose like a pedestrian bridge across the creek that actually would provide a more direct connection between where the improvements are actually happening.

For example.

yeah.

DRB Meeting Room: yeah.

DRB Meeting Room: So the creek, it’s not part of our property. And I mean it’ also trigger all their agencies like you, said Fema. And they are out of our control. Yeah, right? Yeah. I mean the the context for my questions is, if it, the access to this portion

of the jurisdiction is is still pretty challenged. And so I I just try to sort of address that. And then Have you had any discussion with Staff about

any

DRB Meeting Room: shared use happening in the adjacent

open spaces to the public access. For example, either the Sports Court or the Larger Development Court. Has there been any discussion about potential for shared use, maintaining privacy on those sites but opening them up under certain terms

or uses or activities to the the broader public.

DRB Meeting Room: because of that nature of the building itself is like science security is definitely an an issue, and the owner is kind of adamant that the court itself, although visually accessible and ecologically accessible, not be physically accessible.

And then this force that goes for the Sports Court that’s adjacent to the trail as well. Well, I think the preference would be to keep the it’s it’s not as hard line. But I think the preference would be to keep the sports chord private. Okay, thank you very much for the additional contacts. Appreciate it.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay,

a couple of questions I have. So the 12.5, the berm or the levy whatever calling it when you get to the ends. Is there any indication of, you know connection at the at the ends or

you know. I guess we’re always interested to, you know, when you look at it in section. It looks like you have protection when you look at it in plan, you know. Not as much protection until you know the levy continues.

DRB Meeting Room: so is a question that when you get to the end, do you know, work to go? Where to continue? Well? Does it? Does it close off, you know. Does it turn back on the property lines to protect or or is it? Is it only effective when the adjacent properties complete the the thought, and

you know, related to that also is just the the finish floor of the existing building set at 12, you said, which was by the city, the set by the city. Yeah. Okay. And I was just curious where you know the what, what sets that? What are the guidelines they’re going from or the the

I don’t know. The criteria that sets that when those guidelines were written, perhaps is is maybe more to the point.

DRB Meeting Room: Well, maybe someone else has a better answer. But I think they use the fema guideline, the city of Belmont.

Did you know

DRB Meeting Room: I actually just did it here. So the city of Belmont required us to. We’re on flat Zone X, which there is no a specific base, flat elevation, but the city of a Belmont. they said that they would like us to set it at 12, just because.

we’re right next to the phone, ae, with base flight elevation 10. And they wanted to make sure that we are accommodating for the 24 inches, probably the sea level rise. So then, they said, please set it to 12. So that’s where that came from.

DRB Meeting Room: Yeah, yeah. And I I guess my question is, you know, was there any consideration about going higher, or what is longevity of the 12 So we’re trying to make sure that we’re able to conform to the streets because the streets same lane and also the short way road. So I think based on the guidelines the city gave us. That’s probably the most so we can go right now, otherwise it will be hard for us to create more challenging to confirm to the assistant streets that are not going to be raised.

Yeah, thank you. It’s it’s pretty much maxed out right now.

DRB Meeting Room: just for accessibility on the, on the issue about what happens at the end of the trail. I don’t have the history of when it was proved, but the adjacent property adjacent to Pg. And E. Seems to have had a recent

improvement, and it’s pretty nice when you get there. You know you feel like you just continue on in terms of the feel of of the nodes themselves on on our property. They’re intended to be able to look 360, not just like, you know. Look there, and we’re turning the back on that on the project itself.

DRB Meeting Room: Great, thank you. Yeah, I realize it’s a regional problem. But I was just curious. Any thoughts you have on how you how it transitions into the future. Yeah. The the other thing I thought I heard you ask, but I think it’s an important point. Any is that we’re not dependent on 200 twin dolphin or 10 twin Dolphin to have a successful project because our loop goes to Shoreway. when when our project is built in our trail is, you know, it’s kind of a standalone piece improved. Obviously, when the neighborhood improves but not dependent on it.

DRB Meeting Room: because because the whole property is raised, you’re protected. Yeah.

got it? Thank you.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay. If there is no further questions, then I think we can move on to

public comments.

DRB Meeting Room: like to open the meeting to the public. Any member of the public attending. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to make a comment. if you do, does it look like you have comments. If so, I’ll read the instructions again.

DRB Meeting Room: There are no comments online here.

Okay. okay, hold on. We did receive one letter of support from the project or for the project from the Redwood Shores business agency.

Regarding the proposed shoreline trail improvements. The comments have been forwarded to the Board and will be included in the meeting summary.

Okay, thank you. Then, at this time we can have a board discussion. I think this is, oh, did you have something?

DRB Meeting Room: Yes, quickly. I would like to

correct something I told in. I I said in response to board member Pellegrini’s question about the levy I just spoke with dillip survey of mafia and nickel which is consulting the applicant.

The the project team on sea level rise and and flooding assessments. and I’ve just been told that

this side of the the the Belmont Creek the

DRB Meeting Room: it is not a fema certified levy. It is on the twin dolphin side, but not on on the 1,301 sure way side, not on the side that this project falls on

so presumably this means that it can it it.

DRB Meeting Room: There is a possibility of

placing, fill, or or or conducting other activities on this side of what is basically a berm

DRB Meeting Room: which would not have been possible without agency.

Further agency action on the other side of the creek, on the twin dolphin side. So I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you.

DRB Meeting Room: Great. Thank you. Troy. So yeah, we have an opportunity to bring forward any comments that the Board has at this time any advice.

And

DRB Meeting Room: what we can do is

I think we want to answer the questions in the context of the

DRB Meeting Room: the issues that we are asked to address as a board. There are 7 objectives for public access.

Make the public access. I feel public, make it usable.

DRB Meeting Room: provide, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and the shoreline.

maintain and enhance the visual quality of the day. Shoreline and adjacent developments provide connections and continuity along the shoreline. take advantage of the base setting

DRB Meeting Room: and ensure that public access is compatible with wildlife through citing design and management strategies. So those are those are issues that we’re asked to

address for every project. And then, in addition to that, there’s a few other more specific comments that are coming to us from staff.

DRB Meeting Room: How does the project proposal result in the public spaces that feel public?

And does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people.

DRB Meeting Room: Proposal includes both passive and active public spaces along the shoreline integrated with campus-oriented uses.

like the sports court and parking does. The sighting of these public and campus-oriented programs enhance and activate the shoreline in a manner that is inviting to public users

DRB Meeting Room: what additional improvements could enhance the public access experience from the publicly accessible courtyard

to and along the shoreline

DRB Meeting Room: and that I believe that’s not correct, right? It’s not a publicly accessible courier.

So I say that again, what additional improvements could enhance the public experience from the

DRB Meeting Room: courtyard 2. And along the shoreline. And this is referring to the large courtyard. Correct? And I could I ask if we do? We have a an enlargement of that area since that’s one of the main questions. I think that would be helpful to

put that up as possible. given the increase in scale and size of the buildings on site. That’s the proposed design. Provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike pedestrian networks

to draw users into and through the site. The Belmont Creek trail and shoreline.

DRB Meeting Room: and finally, are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adapted to sea level rise

in balance with ensuring high quality, public space. public access, opportunity. So I know that’s a lot. we can come back to those if if needed. But maybe we’re just

so we just start at the end of the table there. Stefan, and we’ll work our way.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay, I’ll try to do my best to go first.

DRB Meeting Room: I think in a I’ll start by saying in the context of the other projects that we’ve seen in this area.

I think that just

DRB Meeting Room: from a starting point. The idea that there is new development that’s happening that actually can enhance the public realm is like a huge positive

because the sort of the previous generation of development that happen in this area. It’s it’s ready for some renewal. And so I think that actually is really positive.

that there’s an opportunity to enhance the sort of public space in this location, and particularly when there’s multiple projects that are adjacent to one another.

so I I’m that’s I think that’s a big plus sort of a benefit. Here.

DRB Meeting Room: I’m gonna look at the rest of my my team members here. I the this one, I think, is a little bit tricky, because the

DRB Meeting Room: as I mentioned, like the access in this

location, this is sort of not great. It’s not well connected. It’s sort of shoe horned in between the freeway and the other amenities that are basically on the other side of the waterway in this location?

and so I think, trying to sort of understand or look at it through. That context is important, like, what are we trying to do by maximizing public access in this location?

DRB Meeting Room: I guess one thing that’s going through my mind is that the way that it seems to be set up is that it’s looking at

assembling as a enhanced access point for the community that you basically can find your way onto the site with bike and the the 3 public parking spaces

at the entry where you actually enter into the project that’s enhanced, you have better signage. It’s you’re directed into that location. And then you could sort of get off of your vehicle or your bicycle at that location and find yourself basically into the the larger public network.

so I think that’s sort of a positive it is potentially sort of better connected to the network than you would the situation that you have today. but I’m sort of curious or sort of looking at it through that lens of

if this does become sort of a enhanced gateway for this neighborhood to get into the Bay trail system. How much public access do we need?

And so that’s I don’t know if I have the answer to that. but it does seem like that’s just sort of my context as sort of how I would look at that. Look at this in this location.

I think.

so on one hand, like clear signage. clear understanding of where you are, what you can get to. that getting to the amenities in this area. You still have to take this kind of roundabout way

to get there. But this idea that you’re passing through nodes to get you from 1 point to the next, I think, is actually very positive. there’s improvements on the Pg. And that we talked about. That’s also positive.

Some things I’m sort of wondering about is To what extent can you benefit from

DRB Meeting Room: having visual connections to the larger open space network, even if they’re not going to be publicly accessible.

And so I’m just curious about that like can the landscape? To what extent can the landscape continue across the parking lane. can you sort of visually be in a space? What’s the edge of the public courtyard like

that? You can clearly, visually access that you would not be allowed to sort of go into And those things, maybe.

DRB Meeting Room: they’re not well communicated by the really great set of design that we have sort of in the proposal. So I’m curious about that.

The Sports Court seems like a great opportunity to sort of enhance public access in that location.

DRB Meeting Room: it’s a fairly prominent site. It’s elevated.

There’s an opportunity for habitat, probably some views in that location. and I’m just curious if there’s sort of a way to kind of push the envelope there and

DRB Meeting Room: and get some increased public access.

in that location. So I’ll stop. Yeah, thank you

DRB Meeting Room: please see on

yeah. Actually, maybe 2 parts. one. Stefan, in terms of your question about general accessibility and connectivity to the broader district.

DRB Meeting Room: I didn’t. I didn’t hear it. I didn’t know if it’s a possibility that there is signage at the end of some lane

where there could be something as simple as a trail map, indicating all the trails in the area. So at least there’s raising the awareness of what the public amenities in the district are that people could access.

and I think with that kind of simple

DRB Meeting Room: amenity, would help people really maybe become aware of and encourage, and perhaps spread the word any. And then the second

thing it is, I guess I I was asking the question about the larger seating area next to the court sports court in part, because

DRB Meeting Room: in its original condition, that it was at the end of a

a driveway from Shoreway Road, and so it felt pretty connected back out to Shoreway Road.

DRB Meeting Room: I think, in its current configuration, where that of parking on the east side of the property is really a dead end loop now

starts to feel more remote and perhaps less available to to folks. So I just wonder if maybe that

DRB Meeting Room: seating could be spread out more. Perhaps there’s a a node that is closer to the actual entry point. Now, because I think

the configuration really shifts all of the entry to the north end.

Thank you. Okay.

thank you for the presentation. I I agree with stuff on your framing and understanding of the context. And Gary, as you read off

the goals of the lenses through which we’re viewing this, it’s interesting that the visual connection aspect to the bay or the regional connectivity are sort of limited by conditions outside of the

control of this project. And there’s lots of limitations. And so acknowledging that the focus of this discussion primarily becomes the publicness of the trail. And

I think that’s really where a lot

DRB Meeting Room: of the comments that I’m hearing and where I’m going to is

the tennis court is a real opportunity to create something that is an anchor for public shared use, as you know, in your presentation running. You even describe this isn’t necessarily a popular or doesn’t see the levels of use that you might expect. So having

something that signals to visitors or pastors, by that this is intended as a place for public use or rest. and it could maybe even paired with something as simple as a water fountain. Or you know, I mean drinking water fountain or something that’s an amenity for a public user.

I think, and create that signal quite successfully. I really appreciate and enjoy the concept of the fitness, nodes and the idea of thinking of this is a cohesive trail, and you encounter these moments, that kind of reinforce that witness theme.

so I think those are really successful, and, you know, can add an element of playfulness. It is where I’m getting caught, too, is a lot of this is.

DRB Meeting Room: you know, what could be perceived as

behind the building. Kind of, you know, we’ve all been in places that feel like it is designed publicly, but still gives you cues that you’ve chanced upon something that maybe you’re not supposed to be there. So

think with

DRB Meeting Room: signage or way, finding that even

along Semlene. earlier on, before you get to the trail to be able to have these signals. That gesture towards there is a public amenity back there and encouraging people. could go a long way. So

really I I guess the

DRB Meeting Room: majority of my comments are about the power of the small moves of way finding or small public amenities, and embracing those aspects more fully. But thank you for the presentation.

I think it’s a pretty straightforward project. I think it’s well handled. I just have 3 comments just to add on top. I think number one is, I think the tree would be nice at the trailhead. We come down Sam Lane

to have a

DRB Meeting Room: a clear explanation. How in the world are we going to get to the

DRB Meeting Room: vitriol from here? It’s it’s quite circuitous. So

some may have explained that it was going to be a long way. Maybe a drinking fountain would be nice. Is it going to get the receipt by time to get there? And I also. I believe I’m not sure if the crosswalk

coming over from private courtyard it’s a traffic table, but I think that’d be beneficial.

DRB Meeting Room: And the third thing is, I I just think this

private sports court

DRB Meeting Room: not very nice idea. I think it should be.

I think the applicant should strongly consider the the benefit that would accrue to them by making that public. especially if it’s surrounded with fitness, equipment. These are things. But you can’t. But why can’t I go in there? Well, it’s private, you know it.

It doesn’t disintegrate message, and I think it’s not a big deal. Don’t let the public use that thing as well.

Okay, thank you. Thanks all for your comments. yeah. So steps. You can jump in if you have any comment on this. But I I I think that the work that we’re being shown is is really fantastic, and you know it looks like it’s been

very well done, and and and pretty thoughtful within these constraints. But I I can’t remember that we typically review projects without getting a better picture of what’s going on with the side planning of the buildings, because, even though we have a hundred foot shoreline band

so that our per view is is sort of limited. You know, the visual and physical access to the to the bay is really the major charge that we have. So usually, we start these discussions by, you know, talking about the you know the arterials that serve the property, and where the property lines are, and what street frontage looks like, and what’s your experience of approaching the building, traveling down Sam Lane, where the utilities and

the parking garage and and so I guess I had expected to to hear more about the courtyard, and how that interface with the, you know, with the outdoor space. Is there a fence? Is there a wall? Is it

completely open? And on many projects that we’ve looked at. You know, there are building responses. And the what I think we’ve seen about the buildings is provocative. The buildings look, you know.

like they’re really thoughtfully done. And sometimes we review buildings, and there’s like a. you know, like a recess or an overlook or kind of a third level porch, or something like that, that that kind of mediates the scale of the building as it pushes up against the the shoreline band, you know

the Bay trail. So I I would love to. You know we don’t review the building, so you don’t really have much to say about that. But we we do have the ability to comment on things that we think would improve the public experience.

And and the buildings are so have great opportunities. you know, for views, and I just like to see more about how that interface looks, because it, although this strip of land is is very nice. You know, there is a

I don’t know. 20, 40 foot wide parking lot, and then and then not far away, is the wall of the building. So. when when the project comes back, and I think that it should come back. Of course this is just a preliminary review, and these are very general

preliminary comments. I think it’d be great to see that.

DRB Meeting Room: So

with that, I think we concludes our comments and our recommendations, and the project proponent is welcome to make any statements or responses to those comments.

DRB Meeting Room: thank you for the comments. really clear and very helpful. I think if the project has to come back, then we don’t really have any comments at this point, we’ll just address it as a part of the process. We’ll continue with this.

DRB Meeting Room: Yeah, we’ll continue working with stuff.

DRB Meeting Room: I think. You know, I I I personally, I apologize for excluding the building. That was a little bit on me. I thought that

we didn’t want to focus much on the buildings and really kind of focus just on the on the landscape work itself. So my apologies. I think the other stuff, you know. a map at some lane. Absolutely. It would be great to work with staff, and maybe we can get

210, and you know, to kind of. We can work together and have a comprehensive package, because I agree it would be great if the district was was better connected for sure.

And you know the comment on that exercise station that there’s another. There’s a passive note on the other side of that

sports court, which is equal in size to the exercise station. maybe that that wasn’t clear, but we can clarify that

DRB Meeting Room: I think the other comments are pretty, you know. It’s pretty clear.

Well, I I totally appreciate your comments, and it you know we it is kind of a gray area about what are you know what we’re addressing here? I think that we are an advisory group. We make comments about really anything that we think

the experience of being on the shoreline. And then, you know, it’s filtered through staff and the Commission. There are legal restrictions on what you know what can be

determined. Yeah. But I think at this point I think we’re just talking conceptually about the project and trying to. you know,

DRB Meeting Room: make what improvements we can. And I think buildings are a huge part of that. And you know, sometimes we talk about brood safe glass, or you know, reflections or

you know what is the you know? Shadows cast. you know, from the buildings, and so on.

DRB Meeting Room: What one question I

clarifying question I wanted to ask was, I think you had a question for comment about

DRB Meeting Room: what it

existing. I guess

DRB Meeting Room: accessibility is in terms of

from the main frontage, presumably from Shoreway Road. It was it.

DRB Meeting Room: was it what the existing view corridors are like, and that I wasn’t quite clear, because we did

in the beginning. And and maybe we just kind of brushed over too quickly. But there, there were some use of what the existing conditions are like relative to where the trail is in the front.

DRB Meeting Room: Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely. I I think.

I’m just thinking that the

DRB Meeting Room: the present you know you have. You did some big big context. And then we we went right to the shoreline. And I think this middle piece of the site planning and the building would be great to just get a better picture of how it all fits together.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay,

DRB Meeting Room: that concludes our our

comments. And

DRB Meeting Room: can we do we have any other business before we

during the meeting.

DRB Meeting Room: Yes, okay.

adjourned this meeting. Sorry my language. But yes, I I am aware

DRB Meeting Room: we can take a 5 min break to transition between the process.

I think we’re ready to get started.

DRB Meeting Room: We’ll now begin our review on Agenda item Number 5, which is the fourth review of the proposed San Lee Andro Shoreline Development Project

for the city of San Leandro and Alameda County

DRB Meeting Room: to remind you of the Project Review order. We’ll have B. C. DC. Staff introductions and project proponent. We’ll make a presentation.

We’ll have clarifying questions from the board. Brief period of public comment, and then the board discussion and summary. followed by a response from the proponent.

So with that

DRB Meeting Room: just think all

Project analyst will introduce the project.

DRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Acting chair string. Good evening, board members again. My name is Jessica Finkel. I’m a shoreline development analyst at BC. DC. And and tonight I’ll be introducing the second project for tonight’s review. This is the fourth review of the Stanley and a Shoreline development Project, also sometimes called the Monarch Bay Shoreline Development Project in the city of San Liandro, in Alameda county.

DRB Meeting Room: Before I continue, we’d like to acknowledge that the land in this area is unseeded. Lish on territory, the ancestral homelands of the Chicago-speaking Aloni peoples.

We offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay area.

DRB Meeting Room: The proposed project is located at the Stanley Andrew Marina, in the city of San Leandro, about one miles south of Oakland, International Airport, and 2 miles southwest of downtown San Leandro and the San Antonio Park Station.

The Marina is situated between 2 other recreational areas, oyster points so regional shoreline to the north and Marina Park, immediately across the channel to the south

DRB Meeting Room: to Orient you to the project site and vicinity. Here you can see Sam Andrew Marina to the west of Monarch Bay, drive

2 peninsula around the Marina Mulford Point, to the north and west, and Pescadur Point to the south. The portions of the project within B cdc’s jurisdiction are on the Marina side of Monarch Bay Drive.

This is where the project project proponents are proposing a public park, some new commercial buildings, and a new multi-family residential building to the east is the Marina golf course, where new single-family homes and town homes are being proposed.

The project site is accessible for Monarch Bay Drive, which becomes Marina boulevard in the north, and eventually connects to I 8 80, about a mile away, and the site can also be accessed by a fairway drive from the south

DRB Meeting Room: to provide some additional context about the current site conditions. This area to the west of Monarch Bay Drive is approximately 36 acres, not including the water area and approximately 59 acres with the water area

existing. Commercial uses include Horatio’s Restaurant, El Torito Restaurant and the Marina. In there are also public fishing peer and boat ramp, and about 1,800 surface parking spaces throughout the site.

A few other landmarks of clothes like the blue Dolphin restaurant which has been demolished, and the Sandly Andro and spinach or yacht clubs.

DRB Meeting Room: The Marina itself closed at the beginning of this year, and there have been some challenges at the site. Since the last time the Drb. Saw the project

there’s been an increase in vandalism and some other nuisances that have prompted the city to close Mulford Point and Pescutter points to vehicle traffic and staff is currently working with the city to address these issues in the short term while they continue working on the overall redevelopment plan

DRB Meeting Room: briefly about public access facilities is on the site. The municipal marina dates back to the early 1960 S. And it’s generally been accessible to the public. But there are several, as you can see, existing Dcdc. Permits that provide for public access facilities.

the staff report goes into more detail. But there are some pathways and green spaces, as well as the boat ramp and the bottom. Right off of Pescetera Point some public access was tied to projects that were never completed, like the relocated boat launch on Mulford Point and the Conference center at the Blue Dolphin.

DRB Meeting Room: In addition, there is an existing On-street Bay trail segment along the Marina golf course on Monarch Bay Drive. That’s not connected to a permit

that segment connects to striped facilities south of Fairway drive and on Marina Boulevard to the north.

DRB Meeting Room: I’ll briefly go through several photos and images to give you a general sense of the site as it currently exists.

This aerial view of the site from July 2022 provides a nice overview, and it highlights that the site is mostly paved over.

DRB Meeting Room: This shows the approach to the arena coming from the north on Monarch Bay Drive.

The proposed hotel would be straight ahead as you follow the roadway and the sidewalk on the right would connect to the bay trail and would continue along the shoreline north of the hotel.

DRB Meeting Room: These images are from Mulford Point Drive, looking towards the Marina, heading towards the Bend and at the point.

DRB Meeting Room: and these photos are from Pescatur Point Drive. They show the southern approach on Monarch Bay, Drive, heading west towards the point and the public access area and fishing pier at the end.

DRB Meeting Room: This is the fourth review of the project. The last review was in December 2022.

And this is a brief look at an earlier iteration of the project from 2,016, which would have placed a lot of development on the Peninsula side of Monarch Bay drives, including residential office, commercial and hotel uses, and some active recreation areas included in the public access.

DRB Meeting Room: And this is the site plan. From last December

the major difference between the 2 16 and December 22. Design, which is similar to the current proposal, is the decreased intensity of development on the Peninsula with most private development. Moving east of Monarch Bay Drive and a bigger focus on continuous public access on the western side.

There’s also a decrease in the amount of in-water construction. For example, they’re no longer. There’s no longer a bridge connecting the 2 points, the beach or the repurposed boat slips

DRB Meeting Room: at the December meeting. The Drb. Was pleased to see the private development was largely outside the shoreline band, but expressed concerns about the rip, wrap along the shoreline the amount of parking the landscape plan, the lack of safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists and future sea level rise adaptation.

The Board also urged the project team to explore ways to activate the basin after the marina facilities are removed, and to give the public a better interim park experience. The project team will describe the changes that they’ve made in more detail. But in general they’ve replaced the uniform lawn areas with zones for native grasses and pollinator gardens divided bank plantings along the coastal edge and interior basin.

It expanded the boat launch facilities at Pescador Point, reconfigured the bay, overlooked points and trails, and added pedestrian crossings along Monarch Bay Drive to improve pedestrian circulation. They’ve also revised the facing plans to

provide public amenities earlier in the project timeline.

DRB Meeting Room: Here’s a look at the community vulnerability mapping tool output to the area. The tool identified some block groups as having highest and high-social vulnerability as well as the census tract with highest contamination. Vulnerability.

The relevant factors vary, but some common ones include the rate of renter households, people of color, individuals over 65, living alone. Limited English proficiency. Non Us. Citizens and low-income households.

Contamination vulnerabilities attributed to things like the presence of hazardous cleanup and water cleanup activities in the area, solid waste sites and hazardous waste facilities as well as an impaired water body, which is the bay

DRB Meeting Room: regarding potential sea level rise using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if a site remained unchanged.

using the Ocean Protection Council’s 2018 sea level rise. Guidance. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level under the medium to high-risk aversion. High emissions, scenario at mid-century.

At this level there’s some potential for over topping on site, as indicated by the red lines along Wilford Point, as well as inundation around the edges of the peninsula around the existing rip wrap.

DRB Meeting Room: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like. It’s the site if it were unchanged. This roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level at 2,090, in the medium to high-risk aversion, high emissions, scenario, as well as the one hundred-year storm condition. At mid-century.

In this scenario much of the back end would be flooded in much of the marina area as well, although some higher areas in the middle of the Peninsula might not be flooded.

DRB Meeting Room: The San Francisco Estuary Institute’s adaptation Atlas identifies nature based. Adaptation opportunities along the shoreline. These are areas that are well suited for interventions or actions that can help both address flooding and provide ecological benefits

at the project site. The Atlas indicates suitability for eel grass in the Channel shoreline Beach, along the outside of Mulford Point upland title, marsh, and preparation for upland habitat migration.

DRB Meeting Room: and finally, here’s a summary of the questions, and the staff report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review.

First, please consider how the project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcd’s public access design guidelines. And then staff has identified particular areas we’d like the Board to address, including, does the Peninsula feel public does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s previous concerns?

Are there safe and clear connections and way finding to the shoreline does the proposed shoreline protection approach enhance the experience of the shoreline. Does the proposed design adequately provide for existing and contemplated future uses, such as fishing a private water shuttle, and recreational use?

DRB Meeting Room: And does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections? Before I introduce the project proponents, does the Board have any clarifying questions on the staff introductions.

Actually, I do have one question for staff. our purview is the 100 foot shoreline band. What about the water itself? What is our preview. With that

you may speak to any site aspect that involves or contributes to the public’s experience of the area that goes beyond the shoreline band connectivity from adjacent roadways to the shoreline, but also

DRB Meeting Room: a big water body that’s in the middle of the site.

Okay?

But also, if it helps

DRB Meeting Room: it is so. They is a key part of Pcd’s jurisdiction. And so anything that you’d like to say about it, please, please do.

hey? I think we can proceed, then, with the proponent presentation. That right? Okay? So from the project team today, we have John Hughes with Griffin structures and Chuck Ardella from gates and associates presented.

Thank you, everyone. My name is John Hughes. I am the project manager for the city of San Diego. For this project I’m going to be introducing some of the key goals and objectives of the project before I invite

Chuck Cardella from gates and associates to go through the design iterations that you see before you that we feel addressed the concerns and questions that we heard last time we were here

to recap the goals of the project on behalf of the city. the city seeks to enhance the community engagement with the bay. Through this project this project seeks to mitigate against sea level rise.

DRB Meeting Room: This project seeks to

provide natural restoration of a blighted site. Right now, it’s a very, very challenged site.

DRB Meeting Room: We’re trying to enhance public access into the water, not just around and about it, but actually in it.

DRB Meeting Room: and provide a park for cultural reflection.

The appreciation of nature and family enjoyment.

DRB Meeting Room: as you may recall from our last presentation and the reports that have been provided to you that the the city has done extensive community outreach. We’ve had over half a dozen community outreach events we’ve

sent out. I think, 7,000 emails to solicit interest. We’ve had pop up events. We’ve met with the Kymanu Canoe Club. We have met with the tribal community. We have met with the Lost Boat Memorial Society.

and in all of that, over 13 years we feel that the goals that we just listed represent what the community is looking for. that this project

DRB Meeting Room: is delivering 100% of the bay.

the the B. C DC. Jurisdiction Landside, B. C. DC. Jurisdiction to the community. There is not a single portion of the B Cdc. Jurisdiction that is excluding the community or the public access.

DRB Meeting Room: 13 years of development negotiations with calcos development, where you saw we have pulled out all of the buildings that we’re within the 100 foot band. Because we we share in your goal

that we want to bring the community to this park. And we want to take an area that has suffered for decades and turn it into a gym of a park.

DRB Meeting Room: So with that, I’m going to hand it off to chuck to take you through some of the changes. We’ve taken a lot of your comments to heart.

We think that they’ve really helped us and enhance this project both in the the phasing in the design and the aesthetic theme. and I’ll leave it to chuck to share some of that with you.

DRB Meeting Room: Thank you, John.

DRB Meeting Room: So to give you a quick overview of These are a lot of the slides that you’ve seen in the past, just kind of overview of the existing context of the site location adjacent to the Oakland International Airport in relation to other green space around the community.

DRB Meeting Room: this slide just shows the some of the graphics that were already covered, showing the the finalized, the face. This was the original plan that submitted in December

of 22, and so we’ll go through and highlight, the revisions, and what we’ve heard from your comments in the past. And this is showing the revised site plan as submitted today. And we’ll get into a little more detail as we go through these

touching base on the public access. So going back to where those existing Bcdc permits do exist. we are going to be taking those and enhancing public access and retaining all those areas shown in yellow

as well as developing everything in green. There will be fully, publicly accessible. there are parking lots as well that will be publicly accessible. and then there will be shared parking with the hotel restaurants and apartments and market

as well.

DRB Meeting Room: going through of what we heard and how we responded to Bcdc’s comments.

There were some discussions about providing additional circulation on the top left. So we’ve increased the circulation here. We’ve added a lower terraced trail system

as well as provide an additional trail connection. The Bcd seeds trail system runs up on the west and north side of the Mulford Point, so we’ve provided some additional circulation routes.

on the site plan on Mulford Point. One of the big comments was about softening the interior of the lagoon in this area. So in in lieu of using rip wrap, we’ve been consulting with dill up with a booth and nickel

about, planting the interior base of the edge with planting, so all of the elevation within the interior lagoon will be planted and not utilize rip wrap.

DRB Meeting Room: There was other comments related to parking, and, you know, pulling back the the imprint, the footprint of the parking lot within the center of the site. So we’ve shifted everything to the north

approximately 50 feet and then reorganize the layout of the Hammerhead to integrate the Hammerhead layout into a public plaza that highlights the restroom facade.

DRB Meeting Room: We’ve also looked at some ways to activate the basin the lower terrace trail would utilize the existing grades that are out there now. We would maintain a trail along the shoreline edge on the interior of the basin.

We’ve also created an additional overlook at Pescador Point, at this place. and then increased the fishing and watercraft docks by about 1,300 square feet.

at this lower location here, where the boat R is going to be added

DRB Meeting Room: from a connectivity standpoint. There was lots of discussion of increasing connectivity, so we’ve included the additional crosswalks

along the roadway here. so that the residential development on the east can easily connect to the west.

DRB Meeting Room: and then looking at creating some landscape diversity with the planting palette that we’ll get into a little further as well by creating additional pollinator gardens and habitat.

DRB Meeting Room: So one of the big key factors of the design. So we’ve utilized the the Monarch butterfly as kind of the main design theme, and integrated the butterfly wing in kind of this colorful

design layout. You see here. and so we’re using that to mimic and create little nodes of color that we’ll get into a little further. But this is showing what has changed in the phase one graphic. So in the prior December

presentation this was a very simple phase one, and so we’ve taken your comments and integrated a additional overlook. at the northern part of Mulford Point. We’ve also added about approximately 33 trees where they will not be impacted by future phase 2 construction.

We’ve added that secondary loop path along the lower lagoon edge. the terrorist path we’ve integrated seating nodes along the exterior bay trail

here so that will enhance and maintain the existing fishing access that fishermen do use along the side of the bay

DRB Meeting Room: and then working with Wra. We developed some native pollinator hydroseeds

along this area, and trending developed this to be a very colorful in a playful experience for the public. So it’s not just a a barren field of hydrogen.

DRB Meeting Room: We also have an interim overlook at the lower southern portion of Mulford Point.

and then the the boat ramps and Kayak would be the kayak launch and fishing areas would be expanded by 1,300 square feet, as previously discussed.

DRB Meeting Room: from an interim connection of phase one, we would place a shared use bike path, pedestrian trail on the roadway. Here

that way we are ensured public access from the existing bay trail. and then, as well down to muffered points, both

DRB Meeting Room: looking at the phase, 2 revisions

of what we’ve changed. this is, you can see the overlay of red items. It’s really hard to see at this scale just given the size of this project. but everything in red was the original December presentation.

but we’ve revised the layout of the overlook here to mimic the butterfly theme. That goes for the other posit that’s shown behind the Zoom toolbar. Here.

We’ve also

DRB Meeting Room: pulled in the the plaza and the parking lot area at this location revised a parking circle

the secondary paths. and we’ll get into a little more of these in the blow ups as well.

DRB Meeting Room: This is just the image of the existing Bay trail system that exists today. So we have the existing

A on Street Bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive and the planned access out to Multiple Point

DRB Meeting Room: as part of our placement of the Bay trail. We were still looking at utilizing a eastern edge alignment

of the Bay trail. The reason behind that is there was only 2 pedestrian roadway conflicts with driveways on the eastern side versus the western edge has 7 driveway crossings.

So that was one of the elements we use to locate the Monarch Bay Trail in discussion with our engineering team.

DRB Meeting Room: That Bay trail does come around and make a loop on Mulford Point. connecting back to a kind of a traffic circle for pedestrians and bikes

to make that circular route.

DRB Meeting Room: and then we also have additional pedestrian connections

along the lower edge of the lagoon. Here

DRB Meeting Room: the construction phasing plan we touched debate a bit on this already, but this was just showing those

proposed shared. Use walkways

DRB Meeting Room: at number 17, and then 16 as well. So 16 would be a class 2 and 17 would be a shared use by claim. and those would be protected with

delineators and striping and planters as well. so that we’d have a a protected pedestrian edge for that experience from the public right away all the way into the park

DRB Meeting Room: here. This is just showing the overview of the phase 2. Development.

as we as phase one, is built out, these would be existing. and Phase 2 would come in and develop the entirety of Mulford Point. we would at that time do the final tree planting shrub, planting irrigation systems.

stormwater treatment, and then build out all the overlooks to their 100% a development. There’s an overlook at this location as well as well as build out the rest of the bay trail segments in coordination with the apartment development that is being developed by Cal. Coast.

DRB Meeting Room: This is a rendering of the hotel development that coast is proposing.

DRB Meeting Room: and this Graphic for some reason not showing the hotel background. But this building. The hotel sits within this white space here

the hotel access only that is the pool area. So that is the only area of private access at the pool zone is at the pool zone. There’s an exterior courtyard for the hotel that is fully, publicly accessible. There’s no gates or fencing in between these.

This is the overlook in the boardwalk here, and the bay trail comes down from the north and actually heads this direction as well. so there would be a seamless flow of

the public space flowing into the hotel. And through these areas.

DRB Meeting Room: This is the development of the single family homes and the town homes to the East.

Here, there. This is just showing the circulation related to the sidewalks that they’re proposing. and then the additional crosswalks that it will be proposed to provide uninterrupted circulation for the pedestrians and bikes to the park development.

DRB Meeting Room: Now we’re going to get a little more into the details of the park itself.

so we’re going to skip over this and go to some of the enlargements and details of signage. There is a at the top here which I don’t know if I can

get rid of this.

DRB Meeting Room: Here

we do have a bay trail signage and a number one is a gateway monument. So this is existing as an art piece with some Us. flying birds as well as a big Marina Bay sign that would get replaced.

and we’d also have a public shore access and mile marker signage. Come along the entire bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive. We would have park signs

as well as directional science, to ensure that the public is very aware that this is a public facility, and we’re not trying to hide the park from them. So we’re trying to make the signage as visible as possible and provide signage up on the monarch. They drive

and then provide directories at key points, such as the restroom in the overlook areas.

DRB Meeting Room: So from a programming standpoint, we’ve

are developing a

DRB Meeting Room: variation of on the pollinator gardens. So we’ve actually, instead of a a solid hydroxide or

shrubs and grasses we’ve actually focused in creating these habitat generation zones along here and using those to kind of play on the the butterfly wing theme, as well as creating those highlighted focal areas

along the perimeters of these pathways and the nodes. so that helps create some identity and clarification as to entry these, there’s some small pathways, a secondary pathways of circulation through these spaces.

DRB Meeting Room: and then at the overlooks as well as creating the the garden spaces within those overlooked spaces here

DRB Meeting Room: the tree palettes would be developed further

as the project progresses, utilizing.

DRB Meeting Room: you know, the expertise of Wra’s landscape architects and the Restoration specialists

for this project. we’ve been

DRB Meeting Room: looking and considering, you know the views and not blocking views and then maintaining.

you know, when buffers were feasible within some of these other areas, because that was a concern as well.

DRB Meeting Room: here we’re showing the develop revisions of the interior basin planting. So this is that coastal edge planting. So in lieu of ripper.

that entire interior basin gets raised and gets planted with landscape versus rip wrap. So that also goes to this protected part of the lagoon

here on the interior side, and then all of the interior. We’re going to this place. The exterior of the lagoon. in discussion with Dyla cannot be planted or landscaped. There’s too much erosion, and wave action that would lead to failure in those areas.

DRB Meeting Room: So we did. We did explore a lot of options. And that was the

discussion and outcome of those

DRB Meeting Room: next just plant palette images. I’m sure you’re

these are similar on the

DRB Meeting Room: from the last presentation.

and I’ll hand it over to Liz.

DRB Meeting Room: Hi, everyone for those who don’t know me. My name is Liz Allen. I’m a regulatory permitting specialist at wra environmental consultants

and we helped out putting together the seed mixed palette. So this seed mix would be used for the phase one in the hydro seed mix, and it was designed by our botanist and restoration landscape architects. And it’s designed so that

all of these species, if you’re not familiar, are native to the Bay area and are appropriate for this region. These color palettes have also been designed so that they won’t just be up during a certain time of the year. We selected species that would bloom consistently throughout the year, so that color would always be present.

since we acknowledged that the phase, one condition, will be there for a bit before the ultimate project is completed, wanted to make sure that it looked nice. During that phase of the work

the site will be treated ahead of time to make sure the soils are suitable to ensure success of these species, and there will be irrigation applied as needed to make sure that these seeds do turn into the plants that they are supposed to turn into.

The other thing is this, planting palette was put together with input from one of our Phd level entomologists who specializes in pollinator habitat design and she confirmed that all of these species are

expected to to attract the pollinators that we want to arrive so it won’t just look good. It’ll also be there to help provide legitimate pollinator habitats. What’s really interesting is that by clumping colors together. She told us that that actually is better for a lot of the butterflies, including the monarchs that are known to occur in the area, but we also were careful to exclude species that could disrupt the overwintering of the monarch butterflies that are known to occur in the area.

DRB Meeting Room: And then on this slide. I’m going to talk about. What about the lagoon portion of the project? We heard your comment that you guys are interested in hearing how the lagoon is going to be activated.

What we’re focusing on here is the fact that just by removing all of the existing Marina infrastructure our biologists on staff expect there to be a substantial increase in shore shorebird activity in the area, because part of the reason this marina is getting decommissioned

is the fact that the basin experiences high rates of sedimentation that mean that dredging currently was needed consistently because of that sedimentation without all the docks and peers. This lagoon turns into a really nice flood mud flat even during a typical low tide. Today it’s very exposed and creates great foraging habitat for these species.

The bird species listed here, most of which are known to be mud flat foraging specialists. in our local to the Bay area. Some of them are even endangered.

or on this state like us, fish and wildlife service birds of conservation concerns

DRB Meeting Room: the. As you guys probably know, the existing Marina infrastructure has a lot of creos out treated wood that is known to impact water quality. So the removal of that infrastructure is expected to

improve the water quality of the basin to better support these species. In addition, the existing peers provide predator purchase for predators that then preclude these species from being present. It’s actually a very common comment from wildlife agencies to remove predator purchase, such as pilings when they’re unnecessary, because they often

the predation that they have on the fish and the other birds in the area limits the function, the habitat function of the whole system. the green that’s noted on the edges here is some limited cord grass that we’ve seen that was observed in the lagoon area.

we’re not sure but it’s likely that this chord grass is the non-native Spartina. Largely because this area is not a historic marsh. Even before this

the original fill went in, and the invasive species tends to be the one that shows up where Marsh hasn’t shown up before. unfortunately, that iding this type of chord grass and differentiating it from the native typically requires

genetic analysis or expert eyes. But we’re plan on partnering with the invasive of our China project to determine if it’s the native. or if it’s the invasive, and if it’s invasive, the project plans to remove that spark China, to prevent it from spreading further. If it surprises us, and it happens to be the native, we are going to retain it in place, but it should be noted that it’s pretty sparse as it is, which further suggests that it’s likely that non-native variety or a hybrid with the native, which is also considered to be harmful.

I would also add that I specialize in eel grass. So if you guys want to talk about the suitability of eel grass in this area. I’m happy to talk about that, but I can just I’ll put it out there that it’s not considered very suitable habitat within the basin for Yale grass.

Thank you.

DRB Meeting Room: Thank you, Liz. So here we’re getting into the enlargements and detail of the pieces of the plan. So we can further. Look at those.

so here is Neptune drive. We have our main pedestrian connection. In order to accommodate the sea level rise, we will be coming up in grade from about 8.2 up to 16. So we have an eight-foot fill

that’s going in in this area. So this we’ve looked at the grades. We are definitely accessible. we were looking at creating a different material. That was a comment, so that the bay trail

is clearly evident, and the the secondary maintenance access to the Sewer pump station that’s existing to remain will be a differentiated. So there’s a clear delineation there. This is our project signage. And then we’re also utilizing the. There’s some existing palm trees in the road is playing with it, utilizing that same theme to capture those palm trees and

try to maximize the view as much as possible, although the grades will be a challenge in that area.

DRB Meeting Room: Just quick sections

want to just fly through these, so we can get through the presentation. this is the hotel. Overlook this. Everything you see here is publicly accessible. We did revise the design layout of this area.

so the calcos development. The hotel lobby sits here and there’s a door here. The entire pathway is focused on the door and then to the lobby. And so we’re playing, utilizing that theme in creating a kind of a terminus overlook at this point

as well as focusing on the trail Bay trail alignments. So we’re kind of creating an intersection, if you will, in developing some places for large groups, smaller areas, and then

smaller groups down in along the edges. Here. We pulled this back so it’s not protruding over the water’s edge as well to reduce costs.

and then simplified the overall design and layout of the overlook here at the hotel

DRB Meeting Room: general sections. parking lot sections. This has not changed since

you’ve last seen it

here. We’re at the Overlook at Mulford Point, at the knuckle. Here we’ve revised the Overlook layout to follow a little more of a called modern butterfly wing themed utilizing benches that create some nodes, nodes, and individual spaces in between these areas

providing opportunity for an art piece at this location. Here we have that secondary path that has been added that provides a little closer access to the water’s edge

as well, and then we’ve shifted some of the burns to provide a visual buffer from the vehicles as well as they come in through this area. Here, you see this. This is the existing rip, wrap, and then we have our planted coastal edge here

this planting on the outside on the bay side. this would incumb incorporate the new rip, wrap, and then everything above the new rep rap line would be landscaped as well.

And that’s what’s shown here on this section of do rip, rap, and then coastal edge planting on bay and on the interior side existing riprop with all new landscape. Where the sea level rise fill is required.

DRB Meeting Room: This is a detailed blow up of the revised restroom maintenance building layout.

Here we’ve adjusted the Eva turnaround to integrate it into the plaza design and then created a focal point at the roundabout at this location, so that we’re able to utilize this space and turn around both for

public use in public as well as for Eva and maintenance truck turnaround for this space. we’re also located the memorial here. This is the lost boat Memorial, which is the giant torpedo

with some seeding nodes at this point of inflection. and then creating the habitat pollinator planting that’s shown in the bright oranges and yellows. Here again we have the additional

trail system that’s behind the building. and then our seeding nodes that occur, but approximately every 150 feet or so along the bay trail edge.

DRB Meeting Room: and those those are going to be used for additional maintain the fishing access.

DRB Meeting Room: This is lower area the where the used to be just the giant lawn. So this has been revised to native grasses, and then we utilize the pollinator and habitat planting. It’s hard to see. But underneath the trees

in these areas, defining those edges of the pathways. again, the seeding nodes for fishing and public access, and the viewing along the bay trail.

and here we have the cultural overlook zone that would be pay tribute to the the ingenuous tribes, as well as provide some signage and educational signage to the historical aspect of that.

DRB Meeting Room: And here, at the tip of Mulford Point, this is the revised overlook again adjusted to follow modern butterfly

wing. We’ve utilize that secondary trail since we have to go down from about 15.5 down to 9, which is the existing grade. At this location.

we would be sloping down to that rip, rap edge, and following that with a bay trail

DRB Meeting Room: pretty much following the existing rip, rap alignment at that Point location.

we would have a sloped bank of landscape above that, with some additional seating nodes along that lower terrace trail system.

DRB Meeting Room: and then here we would still utilize a a large area of in in phase 2. This is not, hide your seat anymore. This is actual shrub planting.

of following the pollinator habitat working in coordination with a Wra specialists.

DRB Meeting Room: We also have the landscape burns for wind control. We’re trying to maintain those at a

a height of, you know, maximum 3 feet. There is a lot of septed visibility issues with police surveillance and crime that’s currently being that challenge out on the site.

DRB Meeting Room: Here we have the Pescador Point overlook and boat launch.

So we’ve been working with the Kamano. Canoe Club of what their needs are for their launching facilities. We’ve added dry onland storage for kayaks.

And we’ve increased these areas by about 1,300 square feet of kayak and fishing deck access. In this location. Here we have the restroom building, as what was previously shown. But we’ve added a additional overlook public space

to the rear of that building, so that the views to the West can still be had at that location.

DRB Meeting Room: This is just the traffic circle at the apartments. This has not really changed since the last presentation, with the exception of

coastal planting on both sides, where fill or where Rip rap was previously shown.

DRB Meeting Room: and at the lower part of Monarch Bay Apartments, Pescador Point is just to our north. Looking here at the key map.

we’ve revised and simplified. This overlook to be completely on grade and then creating some pinch points for access, so that those material changes so that the overlooks are clearly defined from the Bay trail circulation, that these are movements out of the active circulation.

DRB Meeting Room: and then just the general materials following city of Stanley Andrew standards for benches and trash cans, etc.

DRB Meeting Room: that is it.

DRB Meeting Room: Thank you for that very, very detailed presentation.

I can have some clarifying questions from the board here, and I thought I would just maybe kick it off. that you know you’ve done an incredible amount of work, and the graphics are really clear, and I commend you on that. And there’s no question that this is the maps

improvement from what’s out there today, and I think we recognize that of the comments, or at least I recognize from the comments we gave you last time. I think you’ve picked up the vast majority of them. And I just wanted to.

you know, with with that as a backdrop to say, there is a couple of comments that we’re at the top of the list of the board, and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment

on really, the the basin. you know the mudsl and the rip wrap. The thought was, is there anything that can be done to kind of aid in the succession of the of the mud. And

there was some suggestions about stepping the elevation, you know, like removing Rip graph and stepping the elevations. And I completely understand that you’re adding planting

above the rip wrap of the ripe. So it’s really not a criticism. It’s more in the interest of clarification, complete the presentation. I I think the city did

make it really clear that, you know there are lots of good reasons why you’ve ended up where you are, and I just wanted to see if you could share that with the group so maybe that could. Just. I don’t know. We can

DRB Meeting Room: get that out, you know we’ll start and I’ll hand it up to you guys. So thank you for that. Yes, we took that to heart. This team

went through an an an extensive analysis of various options, looking at steps, looking at slopes, looking at beaches, looking at ramps.

And I’m gonna let Dill up from off at a nickel as well as Liz, from to kind of articulate. The decision points as to some of the challenges associated with those, and why we ultimately landed on the design that we have. But, I can assure you that

as much as you. We want to activate this space as much as possible, as much as feasible, and in a way that is sustainable, both environmentally and financially, for the long term. And so I’ll hand it off to maybe you guys to get into some of the details.

Thank you. in terms of the repr. You know, it is a pretty steep. It was built as a Marina, right? So this was an artificial, artificially created peninsula, very specifically to provide protection for a marina basin.

And so the slopes are pretty steep. wave action is not very significant, and so the rock size demonstrates that it’s generally small, you know, smaller rock size on the

on the inside. however, something is needed. Erosion. Protection is going to be needed, you know. If not rock, it would be some other kind of hard structural elements.

DRB Meeting Room: unless, of course, you bring in a lot of fill

and flatten the side slopes. or you cut back into this. You know very narrow Mall peninsula that you have and so, wherever possible, you know, above

the elevation of

DRB Meeting Room: erosion protection we have gone with as flat of a slope as possible for the grading of the fill for the park itself.

Those will all be vegetated.

in terms of the basin. Sure. We looked at, you know. We looked at bringing back some amount of recreation. You know. What can we do with sailing, or or canoes or kayaks?

it’s very limited in terms of its water depth, availability itself, you know, you can see that that is not a rendering. That’s an actual photograph which shows the channel.

DRB Meeting Room: it. It’s a high amount of sediment load.

However, it’s not high enough to sustain a pickle in Marsh that would, you know, come on its own. I think. between rising sees that our pay sediment and the deficit of sediment that we’re seeing in San Francisco Bay. There just isn’t enough sediment to sustain a build from a mud flat. So we do expect that the mud flight will continue Acc. Creating.

it will probably very likely, for the foreseeable future mid-century remain a month flat

DRB Meeting Room: in terms of others, you know. Yes, maybe List can speak. We looked at islands. We looked at Beaches. We looked at, you know, large restoration projects. I think the project

the Marina project. Probably

DRB Meeting Room: you know it. It were difficult to add a large restoration project onto a Marina Park project itself. There are other avenues, you know, so I don’t think the door is closed on future restoration projects. If there is.

it’s Stewart. If there is a proponent, you know, and there is some funds to bring in restoration elements of title fringe marshes you can have for it

DRB Meeting Room: in certain areas.

Yeah, I can. There’s Allen again from Wa I can speak more to some of the other considerations we had. We looked into putting out peers that potentially people could launch from We looked at putting out Bird Islands. The reason that we didn’t add any public peers or retain any of the existing structures is directly related to the saltation that’s experienced at the site currently, where

there’s concern that people would get stranded during low tide. Since it’s not just during extreme low tides, it’s during typical low tides that the majority of that lagoon becomes a mud flat. In terms of the Bird Islands we looked into, whether putting out structures for birds would be suitable. But from my project experience, working with East Bay, Regional Park district and other projects that are fundamentally restoration projects.

you have to be careful about creating unintended conflicts between nesting bird habitat and the public And so the concern would be if we put out islands. And then Sushi started nesting, such as what happened not too far from here, with least turns in East Bay Park’s favorite marsh project you could lead to conflicts between when they’re nesting and the buffer zones that they need. And so

this habitat is really suitable foraging habitat in its current form. It’s not highly suitable nesting habitat, and I see that as a good thing for this project to maintain or not create unnecessary conflicts.

and that same comment would be true for other restoration in the area. The existing choreographs, regardless of whether it’s native or not, does indicate that there might be potential for some fringe.

Other cordgrass marsh in this area. But I do have concerns about whether it’s worth putting the effort of restoring that habitat in an area where the marsh has no room to move with sea level rise.

And in addition, I, the other agencies that all have the opportunity to issue comments on this project before we receive permits. they typically expect around 10 years of monitoring, of restoration projects like that. And that’s a cost that the city is not willing to take on, and would potentially

cause reductions in other portions of the scope. It’s just a major addition to the project to add that level of restoration, especially when the longevity of that restoration past the next couple of decades is in question.

because in the current form there’s a nice mud flat. But, as Philip said. despite the fact that sediment settles really nicely here. That’s largely, as I understand it, to the shape of the system, but that’s expected to reach an equilibrium, and the sedimentation is not expected to keep up with sea level rise, and so restoring a marsh here where there was not one previously, and where it wouldn’t have room to grow up to move up slope just doesn’t seem like a worthwhile exercise.

I think. supporting this area by just improving the habitat for the short birds which are known to love. The South Bay mud flats as it is. is A is a really great option, and as I referenced when I spoke previously, this area is currently too shallow for illegraph. It’s possible that by mid century that that’s a different story. But this is not too shallow for subtitle vegetation as well, and eel grass is really the only

subtitle vegetation that that’s known in the direct region. I’ll add one more thing to that I forgot to mention earlier, which is that lower trail that Chuck presented is intended to give people a better viewing opportunity of this lagoon to have better bird watching opportunities.

So so those birds that you’re showing they’re using the site now, or some portion of them. Yes. These birds are based on local observations, personal experience from Wre’s staff biologists, as well as data collected on I naturalists. So yes, these are known to occur either locally to the lagoon or in within a mile known to forage and mud flat. I

would expect it only a couple of the more common species, likely frequent area in its current form, because it’s has a bunch of infrastructure that attracts predators that dissuades a lot of these

birds from showing up as well as the nuisance activities that have been prevalent out there. It’s we’re focused more on the fact that these birds are expected to be more prevalent once the lagoon is a more naturalized system.

Okay? So in summary, is it fair to say that in order to do what the board was suggesting, it would take a massive amount of fill which is beyond the

DRB Meeting Room: yeah. There’s one other thing I would add to that, too, which is that when it comes to the other agencies as currently designed, the project is expected to be self mitigating, and not need compensatory mitigation.

To bring in the fill that would be required to soften these slopes would require compensatory mitigation, which is upwards of a million dollars an acre for cost. So it’s it’s just a it’s a massive burden for a project that’s not whose primary goal is not to restore tidal habitat, but it could be a great opportunity for a future project proponent or the scientific community to look into.

Okay, thank you. I think there is great education for board. okay, one other thing. And then I’m going to open up to others here. the that one of the early diagrams, you know, showed the single family home area.

you know, severely impacted by flooding at mid-century. so I just wanted to. I think that’s something that is coming up more and more when there’s privately owned property in an area like that which is endangered where this may be beyond their capability to mitigate as Homeers Association. are there guidelines, or for the development of that property? That will?

Okay, yes, the the developer has agreed in writing in the Development Agreement, and as the project is entitled with the city, that all of the residential units that you see here are going to be raised to 2,070 levels, just like everything we’re doing on the Park as well as the Hotel and multi-family.

DRB Meeting Room: So they will be addressing

anyone else, please.

DRB Meeting Room: I have a just a couple of questions, and thank you very much for the presentation, and

I remember going to see the site with Gary in 2,016, and I really appreciate all of the efforts that you’re making.

DRB Meeting Room: 2 questions. One was about maintenance

and about what the city is.

DRB Meeting Room: how the city is expecting to kind of maintain this area, especially with this sort of new approach to landscaping, it’ll be helpful to understand. Are there other parts of your

park system where there’s similar stuff that you’re dealing with? Or is this kind of a new venture? And then the other one was something that you brought up, which was crime prevention.

so sort of natural surveillance in the site. I’m curious about lighting. and if you could sort of speak to those 2 things which seem to be intertwined

thank you. sure.

DRB Meeting Room: So I’ll start with the maintenance.

So as part of this project, the city has, pardon me. put together a community facilities district to fund and finance the maintenance required for this project.

We’ve also worked very closely with the city’s Public Works Department, who maintains their own projects. And so this project has been designed to be as efficient as possible for the maintenance of the project.

It’s specifically designed to be able to facilitate their vehicles, their tools, their contractors, and that central node area where the restroom is, is designed to also function as a maintenance facility where they can have real time, access, and immediate presence. To be able to maintain this. This facility. They have a lot of lessons learned from projects in the direct, the city just to the south

as well as across town, and so this will be utilizing some of the the most late up to date, latest and maintenance technology that we’ll be working closely with them to implement on the project.

And there’s and there’s funding already in place to finance it in perpetuity.

Related to the septed principles and lighting. So generally. The park is lit, you know, within the hotels and the apartments areas. These areas are lit.

but everything within past this parking lot, down into this area would close at dusk support to all the other park facilities in the city. These would only have.

you know, possibly some ambient lighting as needed, like around around the buildings. But there’s not intended to be full lighting at night through the park.

DRB Meeting Room: some of the the vandalism issues don’t even occur at night. It’s middle of the day out here right now. So it’s not the night time. Only element. One of our things we are doing is providing vehicular gates.

So when the park does close, these areas can be closed off to prevent, you know, after hours Rvs and side shows from happening out here.

DRB Meeting Room: And we also have been working closely with the San Diego police department to design this park so that has maximum visibility. So

Not only do the the the viewing goals that this body has for the public those same goals hold true for public safety, so that they can have good sight lines throughout the park. That’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to minimize the amount of obstructions and keep it as as low profile as possible, because that facilitates law enforcement. The gates have been located with their guidance in mind. And and and of course, then in the areas where there’s parking lots, there’ll be

The code requires that there’s continuous lighting there. So where we need the lighting for crime prevention, we will have it, and where we’ve been advised by public safety to close off the park at certain hours we’ve followed their guidance.

DRB Meeting Room: I have a couple of questions. One. Could you speak a little bit to the eastern edge of the the marina and the connectivity of the

public access areas to that interface. And then second. and this is this is on buildings. So I don’t know how much of this is within the jurisdiction. But

did you have any consideration of providing

DRB Meeting Room: retail or areas that would be accessible to the public

in either the hotel or the apartment building, and I’m particularly looking at some of those interfaces that are at the entry points of the apartment in the northeast corner of the northwest instead of

edges that are kind of treated as buffered from public. If they could be enhanced through some kind of program at the ground floor of the building that can make it a little bit more inviting. So

any any thinking behind the location of retail and public uses.

I think

DRB Meeting Room: I think you’re asking about the area right in the middle of the project. Right? That’s that’s grayed out that we’re not touching right

for the first question.

DRB Meeting Room: On the upper edge of that is a restaurant called Horatios, on the southern edge of that is an existing hotel called the Marina end

that is currently not a part of this project. There are, however, existing acts of public access permits in place that will remain in place continuously throughout the project.

those are under current ground lease agreements with the city that last for a number of years. and so for us to make improvements at that stage. At this stage it would delay the project as much as a decade or more.

So what we’re doing in this project is basically focusing on the areas that we can improve. the city is currently in negotiations of those ground leases to put conditions in place, to be able to make sure that those areas themselves mitigate against sea level rise, and the existing public access permits and requirements will remain intact throughout the duration of both the construction and and continuous, so the existing condition will remain unchanged.

DRB Meeting Room: as it relates to or retail.

So if you look on there, you’ll see

I’m wondering with the regrading of the public access improvements that are happening to the north and south of that area. How how would that connect? And it’s tricky? And and we have our civil engineer to explain it. But there’s going to be some unusual contours where you’re going to be a little bit higher and have to slope down into the parking lots right? There might even be there might even need to be a retaining wall. I don’t know but it there might be a situation where we have to raise the grade and then contour down to land where they are.

The good news is in in in certain areas here. They’re actually higher there than where we need to build or where the developer is building the hotel. So we believe that there are

solutions that are Ada accessible that allow for continuous pedestrian interaction in there. But it’s something that it does have to be further studied because we’re going to have some interesting driveway approaches to make sure that we are still maintaining the existing grades where we’re not raising the sea level, right or mitigating sea level rise while also addressing areas where we’re not or where we are, I should say.

DRB Meeting Room: Okay,

DRB Meeting Room: retail. And other access. If you go to the other.

that that

DRB Meeting Room: go to the one that shows all the buildings, the whole, the whole set. There you go perfect.

So number 3 is the hotel, as you know. Number 4 is a restaurant open to the public like any other restaurant. There’s a El Torrido there now. So we’re essentially providing a new restaurant where an old one exists, it’ll be open to the public. It won’t be restricted by the hotel in any way. The Associated parking for that is open to the public.

Number 5 is a market. So as part of the development agreement, the city, like like you’ve wondered as as is requiring that the developer build a market, it’ll probably be a place where.

Yeah. it might be like a trader. Joe’sish kind of place. You see where you where we that we that the city, believe that it. It’s it’s the kind of place a family can go to and get snacks and sandwiches in a picnic basket, and then go to the park.

or you can stop on your way as you’re riding your bike on the bay trail. Get a drink, have something to eat, so there’s a retail component at both of those. And then, of course, the hotel is open to the public. But it’s a hotel.

Okay?

DRB Meeting Room: And the hotel will also have a restaurant as well.

Yeah.

well, first of all, thank you for the presentation. Very detailed. And it’s great that you brought a team with with experts with you. It really helps us understand and have confidence in what’s being shared with us today.

couple of questions. One is. Well, first of all, I’d say, I think. What’s I appreciate about the approach here is that it’s not your traditional.

DRB Meeting Room: you know, nineteenth century Park. It’s really looking to naturalize as much of this

historic piece of infrastructure as possible. So I think that’s really wonderful. And it stands in contrast to perhaps some of this open spaces nearby. as such as kind of. It’s kind of a little piece of ecology unto itself. And

DRB Meeting Room: I think you’ve answered a lot of my questions regarding your grass and mud flats and and things like that. So that’s that’s great.

One question I did have, though, was with the shore birds, and the proximity to airport is that perceived as any potential conflict.

DRB Meeting Room: it’s not expected to create any additional conflict beyond what I already exist, and that’s mainly because larger concerns happen

I should back up. The mudflat. Specialist species are not typically the same species as what creates conflict with airports. That’s typically typically what we see is marsh habitat. And the actually, it’s actually a good point that it’s another reason the creation of true marsh habitat could become the problem.

we’re far enough away from the airport that it’s not a direct constraint on the project, and that the airport doesn’t have say over it, and that also goes to the fact that this project sequence document is already complete. Where they would have the opportunity to comment. But no, the increase in foraging habitat that already exists is not expected to create any new conflicts.

and then maybe this is more, for landscape is Has there been a study of the prevailing winds, as you mentioned firms being put up. and how the prevailing, how those respond to prevailing when?

DRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So a lot of the prevailing winds come from the west.

it’s typical in the bay, headed towards the east in this direction. So where we’re looking at placing firms is primarily on the western side of the park, so that the

recreation zones, ie. The native ones. Areas are protected from the wind. somewhat. It is when I’ve been out on the site. It is usually very windy. and

DRB Meeting Room: you know, short of building a wall, there’s not going to be a lot we can do to it. And then we’re also trying to mitigate the pay attention to the Sept as well, and not creating very tall burns. We’re looking at 3 foot high burns on that western edge.

DRB Meeting Room: Can you go to the section that shows the

okay.

the lower tier

DRB Meeting Room: or the

yeah. Oh, you were. You were close.

Okay, if you look at the section there, at the bottom there is about a 5 foot. elevation difference between the lower tier and the upper tier.

We anticipate placing benches up against backing up against that tier. Now we know wind has a way of getting around, but we’re doing our best to kind of create a bit of a wind shelter, so that the folks that are on that lower tier that want to take a break do some bird watching and sit on a bench, do have some protection from the wind at their back.

Perfect thanks.

And this is probably a question comment which you start to address, which is that? I think it was mentioned about the seating areas on the west side of

the Peninsula for fishing being every 150 feet. I was curious. There’s there’s a extensive other system of paths where there’s no seating or other kinds of amenities indicated at this point is that something that is part of future development of the project.

DRB Meeting Room: we can definitely look into it. A lot of the circulation pathways inside was more about producing or or providing for movement. Throughout the park

we placed the benches where we think they maximize the views, maximize interaction with the water, and specifically on the west side of of the Mufer point. There, where Number 2 is.

we have found, at the city, and just a personal observation as well as the city’s years of observing the existing fishing pier, that folks don’t use it for fishing. They

scramble out on the on the western side of the edge and fish out into the open bay. So rather than fight nature, we want to place the benches in place the fishing availability where it’s best for fishing. That said we did it. Extend the docks at the launching the boat launch.

So if there was someone out there that loved to fish in that spot. They still can. But it’s our understanding that it’s not ideal fishing right there. Given the siltation and the in the lack of movement.

Yeah. And if I might follow up with that, I think. But there’s other reasons for seating along the trail you mentioned the bird watching. So I was just curious if there was other.

DRB Meeting Room: Yeah, we’ve placed some where where we where we think they make sense benches are easy to add right? And I mean, I can even see a scenario where the city observes the usage and realizes that certain areas might deserve a bench where we’re not

A lot of it is observing how it gets used. We want to be able to allow people to enjoy the grasses and have a picnic and lay down a blanket. we also want to allow them an opportunity to maximize these to the views and the bird watching them. So

that’s kind of at this early stage. That’s that’s kind of our decision point or our our direct.

the and the way we’re headed, I guess. But we’re open, you know.

Thank you.

DRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further questions from the board. Yeah, just one more

back to the water. I totally understand what you’ve explained.

DRB Meeting Room: kind of morphologically, I guess. so. My, so my question is.

is there going to be active management of this mud flat. or could anything happen? And are there bad things that could happen there would need to be fixed or mitigate, or something like that.

DRB Meeting Room: I’m having trouble thinking of what bad things could happen. I think that what will happen, as I said previously is that the depths will increase here, and eventually, mid century or late century. There

may not. It’ll might be deep enough for other vegetation or other habitats to develop like you. I can’t think of any concerns or management needs

for what you would manage, for in this space, and other than just making sure people, I I guess, because you mentioned about invasive species, oh, and and trying to encourage something that made me think that there was going to be active management.

DRB Meeting Room: The invasive Spartina is really the only

species I can think of. And there’s it’s extent in this location is limited enough that it should be reasonable to get rid of it here at this time. That’s not the case in other parts of the bay, where it’s become intertwined in existing marshes.

Other invasive species it’s really the only one I can think of that would take advantage of this area and those Mars species. Part of why we’re not proposing the vegetation is because even if they do arrive they won’t last. But the Spartan is really the the only marsh invasive species. That’s it. More of a generalist than the species it competes with that I could see arriving here. And I would imagine that if we’re removing it as part of the project, that the city would see that through and make sure that if it shows up again it’s taken care of. But the invasive for China project is a great

nonprofit partner on all those efforts throughout the bay to help make sure that it’s managed and eradicated. Where possible.

is there?

I mean, mitigation project would have monitored and stuff like that. But we’re not in that category right?

Right? typically, the removal of vegetation. It’s possible that other agencies, namely, the waterboard and the army core of engineers, particularly the water board in this case, may ask for some

monitoring to make sure that if the Spartan is removed, that it’s truly removed, but that would be done in coordination with the invasive part time, a project, and may even be led by them as this part of the project. We’re not at that stage, since we don’t even know if this is the invasive or not, but we will be working with them to determine that I again, I think it’s likely that it is. But since this is the only plant species that’s out there, and it’s very limited.

That’s a pretty straightforward eradication project compared to what they usually contend with. It’s don’t have to discriminate between other plants. You can just go in and get it out of there, and there’s enough. It’s there’s just not that much of it compared to other projects. I work on that deal with it in a much more challenging capacity.

So just to make sure I understand. dear an invasive maybe coming in. other species may come in after that, as saltation builds up.

and then, as sea level rises, they may go away, and they may get back to open water with the R

DRB Meeting Room: in a point like a 2030, 40 years from now.

Are you asking if it would become open water? Yeah, would it be return to open water.

DRB Meeting Room: You know someone, I would say the first part to your question. Yes, there will be some management. There will be management or debris at the very minimum. There’s going to be management of floats and and debris that is in the bay.

that the city would be, you know. as part of their maintenance function here.

DRB Meeting Room: in terms of sedimentation and and the progressive build up of vegetation. It’s

possible that

DRB Meeting Room: that the good variety of chordgrass.

if it can be encouraged. not planted, but encouraged.

DRB Meeting Room: can lend itself to better retention of sediment from the suspended water column when tides come in in the future, and so it could build its way out further.

that would be the goal. And then, I think, at some point

DRB Meeting Room: just like with Bunker Marsh, and just like with the other marshes on. You know, this side of the bay itself. there will be collaboration with regional efforts. You know, the invasive part on our project is a large project that is, coastal conservancy, sponsored and funded. Easter. A park district pays into it.

It’s possible that the city, you know, would become a partner in that also. This is not the only mar they have Bunker Marsh, which is a very large one, just out of here.

DRB Meeting Room: you know, I think that’s the adaptation at this point. It is not a

deliberate action to bring material in and create marshes, because I think that itself is getting to be a pretty large action. That one was not covered in sqa to the Restoration Agency is really lash on to something like that and say, if you’re building something, you need to monitor it.

and then, you know, there are

DRB Meeting Room: our success criteria and goals, and if you don’t meet those, you know you get dinged for doing something good.

Could there be odors from the mudflat that could be offensive?

Yes, I think in the existing condition it would be the same as the proposed condition, and that yes, there are likely existing low tide odors from the exposed mud flat. But again, with sea level rise. This mud flat is not expected to last to

past till when do you think it will?

DRB Meeting Room: Yeah. But I would say the order issue is associated with with outfalls and discharge and things like that. There isn’t

a historic marsh here that generates hydrogen sulfide, which really is, you know, the issue with many of these historic

DRB Meeting Room: this is sediment that’s coming in.

It’s

DRB Meeting Room: words and sediment that you know, falling out of the water column itself. with the Bmps

with all the other stormwater treatment that is planned.

DRB Meeting Room: The rest from outfalls, I think, are going back to the source system itself. There’s no so in general, it would be far better than the Marina. The marina itself, I think, is probably the biggest source of condemnance right now

DRB Meeting Room: within the basin, so removing that.

you know, it’s going to help with water quality improvements.

DRB Meeting Room: And generally, I think, with the use an attraction by the local, you know, feel birds.

and I want to make sure you caught what Dill Up said about the hydrogen sulfide, because it’s a really good point that the rotten egg smell you typically think of with exposed areas at low tide comes from the sulfide that’s released by vegetation. So that’s why marshy areas tend to think more. It’s it’s a direct chemical.

That’s where it comes from. So he’s right to say that it’s I can’t say directly how what what the current state is. I don’t expect it to change. And yeah, the vegetation is actually the main reason for that odor. All other odors are the man-made variety.

DRB Meeting Room: It’s it’s a great opportunity. I’ll tell you this. If I had, it’s a great restoration opportunity. I would love to do what I’ve done at Bear Island, and what I’m doing in Hamilton and at Belmar and Keys and others, you know, there’s a lot of you know. There’s there’s a

a a complete set of different agencies and goals that come in with the Restoration project, and I think bringing the 2 together at this point might offset the schedule for this project substantially.

What? But I think we can still keep it open, and I think that’s what we would recommend in the city that you know they stay open, and. you know, pursue

DRB Meeting Room: double a grants pursue other sort of, you know, opportunities with agencies to see if there is someone who would like to create a wetland here.

DRB Meeting Room: And I might add, I mean, the city school is to solve a problem now as soon as possible.

and restore an area that right now is an attractive nuisance for crime, and make it into a place that the entire community can enjoy, while at the same time not doing anything that precludes us from doing something in the future that could restore this project. So what we’re trying to do is do the most we can right now, and leaving the most available options for the future.

Great! Thank you so much for all that. That was one of the more extensive question and answer periods with that. so let’s see, I think that concludes the board questions. Unless anyone has anything else.

we can open the meeting to the public public comment. If there’s any member of the public attending in person. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to comment.

and if you’re attending online please raise your virtual hand to speak.

DRB Meeting Room: There’s no public comment, but we did receive a letter from Bay Trail staff that I will summarize at the moment. The comments have been forwarded to the board and will be included in the meeting summary. But to summarize the Mtc. Staff recommendations.

the Bay trail provided, or should provide more of a loop experience than the out and back elements. Alignments that are currently shown with the high potential use at the site designing the bay trail consistently at 26 feet wide.

would be recommended, the 18 feet being the minimum width per vital guidelines.

DRB Meeting Room: all Betra are all proposed. Betrayal. Improvements be completed in phase one, and not split between the 2 phases

and the addition of the other trail amenities, such as drinking fountains with bottle, fill stations and bicycle repair stations would be much appreciated.

DRB Meeting Room: And that concludes patrol comments

DRB Meeting Room: right? And the letter was proposing essentially a trail on the inside of the basin right? Going around pretty much the entire basin.

DRB Meeting Room: Yes, they. They wanted a loop experience. Not just the out and back. Yeah. Facing inward to the basement basin.

Okay, great. Thank you. If there’s no other comments we can move on to the board discussion for the board discussion. I’d like to ask everyone except the Board members to turn off their cameras so there could be a focus discussion.

Clarification is necessary during the discussion the representative of the project team may speak briefly to the clarification at the discretion of the board chair. So

again. I’ll just summarize The 7 objectives for public access, make public access.

DRB Meeting Room: feel public, make public access usable.

provide, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and shoreline. maintain and enhance the visual quality of the bay, shoreline and adjacent developments.

DRB Meeting Room: provide connections to and continuity along the shoreline.

Take advantage of the base setting.

DRB Meeting Room: ensure that public access is compatible with a wildlife through citing design and management strategies.

And then

DRB Meeting Room: staff questions specific to this project.

Does the Peninsula feel public and allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people space inviting with sufficient facilities to support public use.

DRB Meeting Room: Does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s concern about making the space feel usable and welcoming before the project is fully completed.

DRB Meeting Room: are there clear connections and way finding to the shoreline from the Community and Monarch Bay Drive? Does the proposed bay trail alignment, a long monarch, drive Monarch Bay, drive, complement the current and planned

pedestrian and bicycle circulation networks. Does the phase one design adequately provide for southbound Bay trail of traffic?

DRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed shoreline protection approach

enhance the experience of the shoreline? How could the design improve these physical and visual connections?

DRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed design provide adequate opportunities for fishing without creating points of conflict with other users? Is the design of Pescador Point and the boat dock adequate to accommodate current and anticipated user groups.

including public recreational use and a commercial water taxi service.

DRB Meeting Room: Does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections.

DRB Meeting Room: so I think

I hope that works generally to consider all those factors, and for each board member to provide their provide their their comments, and then I don’t know. Ashley May, if you feel like we haven’t addressed some of these adequately. Maybe at the end we can do a wrap up, or something.

DRB Meeting Room: Would anyone like to kick off?

DRB Meeting Room: well, I I listen to the whole presentation, and and I thought

I didn’t hear any part of it that seemed to have big holes or flaws honestly in terms of the basic landscape design circulation. I was not really in favor of what

the patriarchal folks were saying about ringing every single shoreline with

DRB Meeting Room: the trail, because I’m always more concerned about

bikes and dogs and kids conflicts. so

to support with some of those things coming up there.

DRB Meeting Room: I don’t know. I I I just think that there was a you know, a good good faith, effort here to to address everything we brought up.

I was awesomely impressed that Dill and and

from Wsa. yeah. really thought this through, and I was expecting to be like. No, you just can’t just say nothing. Nature take its course. This is just back during it, but I I am convinced now.

finally, about the proper taking the part, of course. So personally, I’m generally satisfied.

DRB Meeting Room: Thank you, Tom.

Can a building what? Tom? Saying? just thinking about this betrayal access issue.

DRB Meeting Room: I’m a little torn, because.

I think, thinking about the Bay trail as a sort of recreational access versus something that would encourage all users all multimodal users to basically access the site.

the attention that you made to sort of orienting the market and the restaurant to Mulford Point drive and having that sort of be a new

DRB Meeting Room: entrance on into the site, I think is really good.

there’s a class 3 by claim there. But I wonder about that piece, and about sort of making that

DRB Meeting Room: it you sort of a multimodal usable front door for everybody.

And that feels in many ways sort of more important than the

DRB Meeting Room: Pascad or Point drive

connection in terms of closing that loop. particularly if that’s just a residential building in that location. This idea about sort of putting the public access on the parameter is

more in keeping with the way you think about the bay trail in this part of the same the intro But So here’s a question that I’d like to think about is

DRB Meeting Room: in the next phase.

or when in the adaptation strategy that you sort of think about down the line when Horatio is on the hotel, basically turn over. Does it make sense to you actually shift the bay trail

to the west side of Monarch Bay, drive onto the shorter line in that location. and when you do that, then is that when you actually want to get a loop created. So instead of bringing the bay trail

all the way to Monarch B Drive, now, where the connectivity in that location may not be the best thing. Do you do it in the future when you actually can complete that loop

around? the entire

former Marina. But does that mean that you want to think about again that multi-point drive connection a little bit differently. because

DRB Meeting Room: right now it does make sense to sort of push people to the edge. But in the future

you actually might want to get people across Multiple Point, drive along sort of a newly activated front door. Once ratios goes away once, you know, once that’s it turns over

And if I follow through getting to the point that the maybe that makes the northwest corner of the apartment building more important than

the northeast corner in terms of activating that for future public use.

Well, while we’re on that subject? Can we bring up a an image so that we can see? So we can look at some monarch day drive. And some of these circulation issues easier to visualize. And and then I just wanted to ask

stuff on

DRB Meeting Room: You know, they’ve they’ve addressed the issue of crosswalks that we that we brought up, and at the same time the Bay trail issue that you’re mentioning requires a criss crossing of Monarch Bay to get to the shoreline, because it’s on the east side of the road.

So I understand that the they all these driveway curb cuts to provide a conflict. There’s a there’s a diagram that has the little red dots showing all. Yeah, if you go to page 18, I think that’s probably the most useful

sort of regional diagram, or it’s page 18 in the lower right hand corner. Yeah, that one. Yeah. Yeah. So I want to focus. And I think the other question there, too, is that there’s this breaking up of the big block.

we on the the hotel site, and I think that’s beneficial. But then.

DRB Meeting Room: trying to sort of understand?

DRB Meeting Room: how that actually would be used.

You know the pedestrian access from the roundabout getting to the shoreline, getting around sort of the front edge of those buildings. And so another way to sort of think about making that

DRB Meeting Room: increasing the multi-modal access in that area would just be to rethink that section of of multi-point drive.

DRB Meeting Room: you know, beyond just a class 3 facility. on that location.

DRB Meeting Room: I’m looking at it through the lens of.

you know.

DRB Meeting Room: if I took my kids to the shoreline on my extra cycle.

and we needed to make that stop because they were hungry.

I would just go to. I would. I would take Mo. 4 point drive on my bicycle because there is a portion of that where it needs to be a non recreational experience. but I know that, you know.

there’s a great variety of sort of public that actually needs to access that point.

DRB Meeting Room: How about it? Yeah.

Well, I I think you raised a good point, and I think for me, one of the the big questions on the bay trail was less the question of the loop and more the the continuity along the shoreline

north of this project and south of this project, as you can see from understanding this correctly.

DRB Meeting Room: the bay trail north and south of us is on the west side.

and so I think that

DRB Meeting Room: I didn’t hear if there was any reason other than the driveways for not locating it on the West side, because it just. It just seems to me that

DRB Meeting Room: for reasons of continuity, the reasons of not having to cross Monarch Bay Drive, which is going to be busier than any of the driveways, I would imagine, because it’s cumulative traffic.

DRB Meeting Room: and then all the public amenities are on the West Side as well, so I think it would be worth considering and and seeing, because I think it will feel more public, Frank.

DRB Meeting Room: And then I think the other comment I would have, and this was related to my question about seating

is right now. It seems like

DRB Meeting Room: The trails south and west of the apartment.

the trails between

DRB Meeting Room: the the the fishing, the west edge of Mullfer Point and the hotel, and from the hotel back up to the access point on Monarch Bay.

DRB Meeting Room: They see all of those walkways seem very much at the scale of the car. There is the street, there’s occasional trees

and the amenities. The places for people to actually enjoy that space are very far apart, and they feel like what they were described as which was kind of like through put places and connections. And I think that really the reality is that when you’re on foot

DRB Meeting Room: people tend to move at a different pace. They look for interest and activity at a different interval than one might find in a car. So I think

in the next phase, I think it’d be great to see some more talks about that. It may be seating. It may be amenities. and I also think that there is opportunities for more cross connectivity

from the

DRB Meeting Room: the bayside to the

I guess the the cove the question for both days. So the small bay on the east side to the the but the San Francisco Bay that there’s these parallel trails, and it just seems like there’s more opportunity to provide connectivity back and forth.

DRB Meeting Room: And then the last detail on that is

in my understanding it correctly. It looks like on the south side of Pescador Point that there’s no trail there which? Yeah, so and that’s that’s actually where

pedestrians are getting out of cars and buses. It looks like. And so, or

DRB Meeting Room: boat trailers. And so it just seems like, that’s where people are arriving at the site. There should be a trail along that southern edge to connect everything.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

Yeah, I

DRB Meeting Room: I’m

I’m torn on the loop. But I guess just to start. Thank you for the presentation, and it’s really, I think, amendable to see the before and after with the aerial, how much gray and asphalt as kind of being turned over to soft space and usable public

space. The outlier is a little bit. You know, the area that Leo is just talking about Southern piece does feel like it’s still pretty vehicular in its focus. And I wonder about

DRB Meeting Room: plaza moment at the toes of

the southern trail, and if there’s a softer a space that is made to be softer and more generous, paired with that as

more usable area. And on the loop, I think

it’s

DRB Meeting Room: I’m getting caught up on where the gray dash line is shown. I understand the re-grading and the challenges to connect

But I also think, as pedestrians, if there was, if there were attaining walls or things that felt like they were cutting off access. It would make some of these great improvements that you are doing.

because you would be forced as a pedestrian to then walk all the way up or find other routes. that are less convenient, or make you feel like you should just get in a car and drive

out into those areas. And so if there is a way for the lower trail, forget what it was called the Lower Basin trail, I believe, on the northern side. If there is a way for that to connect

even if not the higher ground, and all of the extent, I think, that could go a long way in making that feel more seamless. and

DRB Meeting Room: to the extent that

there may I, you mentioned

DRB Meeting Room: bike, repair facility? Or if there’s consideration of those types of programming. I think the apartment building having one of the corners.

and I’m kind of going back and forth now between, is it the Northwestern. Is it kind of one of the other on the southern, where you have already have the lobby and courtyard areas? just to help make more usable that space that is quite generous with seeding and planting paired with the apartment building.

So those would be my 2 kind of focal areas of.

DRB Meeting Room: but really great and very

really inspiring to see with all the constraints, and thank you for explaining all those challenges as well.

Okay, so I I have a comment about this bike lane on on Monarch, and I I don’t know if this is a valid comment or not, but it just seems like one

2 smaller bike lanes, one on each side of Monarch Bay instead of the 18 footer, would be more. What’s that? A a class, 2 facility instead of a class 3.

Yeah, yeah, I mean, it seems important to have something over there for the scenario you describe stuff on. I mean, I I

DRB Meeting Room: I do. I would be concerned about trying to cross that that road on bicycle.

It’s hard enough for an adult. If you have kids. you know it seems like it can lead a problem. Anyway. I I don’t know how you arrived at that, and whose jurisdiction it is to determine

those things. But that’s one thing.

DRB Meeting Room: and then I think a lot of the other comments that I

had it been covered. Well, I just wanted to say there was one comment about the single family homes would comply with the 2,070 guidelines for sea level rise.

and just wondering if that’s, you know, 50 years is an adequate lifespan, you know, for a single family home, you know. I don’t. I don’t know if it would. It would ratch it up as the guidelines change, or if that’s locked in it.

But you know, by the time it’s built, you know, you’ll be pretty close to a lot closer to 2,070

DRB Meeting Room: I’m not sure how. How, again, out of our purview. But it’s something that comes to mind, you know, building on sensitive sites that are influenced by the bay.

DRB Meeting Room: okay. Are there any other comments? Or Ashley? Do you have anything that you want to

address?

DRB Meeting Room: If you could speak more to possible user conflicts, or if the Shoreline Bay trail, the exterior Bay trail is meeting those needs with the notes for anglers.

DRB Meeting Room: and pedestrians and bikes.

and

DRB Meeting Room: oh, And the

boat, Doc.

DRB Meeting Room: If it’s adequate to provide for

recreation users and water taxi.

and what that might trigger on the lands.

I don’t. I don’t know if I I’ve seen enough detail and understand the scale enough to really be able to address that I mean, we’re looking at this thing very globally at the moment and not. And these are

DRB Meeting Room: questions about whether something is scaled or scaled appropriately. I’m not sure

that I can cover that, that I would be that I have a

DRB Meeting Room: valid thoughts on that at this moment.

DRB Meeting Room: hmm!

What about the land side services that would be associated with those 2 different user groups. Is there adequate passenger loading? What facilities might be needed on the land side to accommodate those different uses. If you have any recommendations for that.

DRB Meeting Room: just to clarify what different uses are you talking? This is the water taxi plus the boat launch users. So the contemplated uses at the boat ramp

are non-motorized small boats. Kaya. there is the Outrigger Club. There’s motorized boat ramp. There is a proposed or a contemplated water taxi.

small water shuttles. and fishing.

DRB Meeting Room: Got it? Okay, thank you.

Is it possible to see a detail of that area.

I wonder if it might be the topic of a part of a subsequent presentation is helping us understand what the anticipated and intensity of uses for each of those different user groups are.

it’s hard to say. You know, water taxi is. it could be many different things.

DRB Meeting Room: so I think you know, the specific design of that would be be helpful to understand what are the use groups and what the anticipated load from each of them is.

DRB Meeting Room: on 1 point. I’m not an expert fisherman, but I have to say I would imagine fish probably are not going to congregate around a boat. R.

So it’s there for recreation as was mentioned. So whether it’s fishing or recreation that

it seems. Okay.

DRB Meeting Room: there’s other

accommodations of the meeting for fishing.

DRB Meeting Room: Yeah, that’s valid point, are there other areas? actually, that we should focus on like this? Because I think when you see it at the scale and you have a minute to to to think about it, that we can get better comments

if there’s any way we can do this with without having the proponent come back for another presentation, and they could work with staff on those areas. I think that would be better for my point of view. But but I think if

with your recommendation, we could probably go either way.

DRB Meeting Room: So if we maybe we could identify areas that would require some further study

with Staff.

DRB Meeting Room: you can direct them to work with staff further on these

specific areas. and we’ll work with them on that. Okay, I think we’re all eager to to move it along. Yeah, I think so. yeah, I think it would be great. I I think it’s a really important point that’s being raised here. I just don’t feel like we’ve had the time or the detail and the scale to figure to really focus on that.

DRB Meeting Room: So I don’t know, I think, are there other

channels for soliciting board advice on isolated items. I think we’ve discussed that in the past.

DRB Meeting Room: you know.

I think we can reach out unofficially. And you guys are always welcome to follow up with the follow up a board meeting with comments email to us and we’ll share them on. Okay, great. Thank you.

I just think on the water taxi question. we we we could identify. The applicant could identify what kind of both can fit in there, and what kind cannot

I mean.

DRB Meeting Room: and which ones are likely to be used, and which ones are seem unlikely?

DRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further comments?

If not, then that would conclude our comments and recommendations. And if the proponent would like to speak on any of these issues, please feel free.

DRB Meeting Room: just a couple of things. Thank you for your offer. I hope everyone agrees that we can work with Staff to keep going, because we’re anxious to to get this project built. So thank you for that.

These are all very good points. I know the city also wants to put the bay trail on the west side of Monarch Bay Drive, and if that ends up being a condition for approval, we’ll do it. I will say to the point about the bay trail loop

if you. We don’t have to go back to this slide. But what we are proposing is about 100% more bay trail than what’s in the Bay trail plan now. So we are adding Bay trail around the hotel where the Bay trail currently is not envisioned.

We’re adding Bay trail around the apartment buildings, and the evening is over, you know. So we take. We definitely take their points to to heart. We care about bringing bikes to the market as well. We. I want to feed my kids when I’m out there, too.

but we are trying to maximize the bay trail access more than what the bay trail guidelines have given us. so yeah, we would. And and the the usage of the of the boat launch. It is a work in progress, we expect it to be the majority of the used to be the non-motorized craft. It gets very little motorized boat used now very little

that will get very, very rare training exercises for the county fire to to launch. and the city is currently negotiating the terms and conditions for a potential water taxi service. But we need time to flesh that out. And so your offer to let that work out with staff as we approach the the final stage would would help us a lot.

So those are our only comments. We very much take your comments to heart. We want to maximize access to this to the people and provide a safe biking environment as well as a safe pedestrian environment as well as a a scalable pedestrian experience. It’s a very large space. We’re doing everything we can with the resources we have, and we thank you for your guidance. So thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much for all your really hard work and all the people here who contributed. Yeah, thank you. And if I have Ashley’s permission to adjourn this meeting. I can entertain a motion to do so.

Second.

DRB Meeting Room: okay, I believe.

Pardon. Tom has made a motion and move to adjourn somebody. Second.

DRB Meeting Room: okay, if there are no objections, this meeting is adjourned.

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act

As a state agency, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting.

How to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits

Pursuant to state law, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically, (2) all teleconference locations, which will be publicly-accessible, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting.

If you plan to participate through ZOOM, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above, which will be distributed to the Commission members.

Questions and Staff Reports

If you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda, would like to receive notice of future hearings, or access staff reports related to the item, please contact the staff member whose name, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item.

Campaign Contributions

State law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest.

Access to Meetings

Meetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities, as well.