January 6, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting

Would you like to ask questions of staff and then go to the project proponent? Well, we usually do just check if there’s any clarifying questions on the staff presentation.

Anything? No, we’re fine. We can go ahead. Yep.

Good evening. My name is Monica Scott and I’m a project manager with the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Thank you, Rowan, for that presentation.

I’m here today to present the Marine Improvement and Remediation Project.

And this is the first review. This is a joint project between Rec and Park and PG&E with Wreck and park leading the marina improvement portion and PG&E leading the environmental remediation.

This project is a historic opportunity to carry out an environmental cleanup and make improvements to the marina that has been decades in the making.

The project area of the East Harbor has contamination from manufactured gas plants or MGPs.

That operated over 100 years ago. In 2001, upon discovery of MGP residues in the East Harbor, the city commenced legal action against PG&E for the cleanup.

Over the following 20 years, the City and PG&E were in litigation with various investigations and studies taking place to assess the extent of the MGP residues.

The result of this legal action and subsequent investigations is a settlement agreement between the city and PG&E which was to develop a joint project.

The potential project scope was presented to the community in 2023.

And it was modified by the Board of Supervisors in February of last year.

I’m here today to review the project in its current conceptual form Taking into account the additional financial and design analysis conducted.

What I’ll be discussing later in this presentation the numerous benefits we think this project brings to the bay and the marina. The overarching project goals that are guiding the project.

As defined in the settlement agreement, our environmental remediation, increased public access and amenities.

And a fiscally sustainable marina. We’re fortunate at this project site to have numerous geographic and community assets, and our project will enhance these for generations to come.

While providing the city and the environment with a cleanup that is long overdue.

Here you can see the extent of the marina in the context of the northern waterfront of San Francisco and the bay with Crissy Field to the west.

And Fort Mason to the right.

And here’s a plan view of the marina today. Please note that the docks in the southernmost portion of the east harbour have been recently removed due to their dilapidated condition and the risk of portions of them breaking off and causing hazards in the bay.

The piles will remain until the full project remediation begins.

The remediation component of this project is developed by PG&E and regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

I’ll summarize this briefly, but I’m joined today by PG&E project manager Ryan Madsen, who’s available to answer any remediation related questions you may have.

As mentioned, one of the key goals of the settlement agreement and the project is to clean up the contamination in the East Harbour from the manufactured gas plants.

The proposed remediation plan will clean the East Harbor and outside East Harbor areas to be protected protective of human health and the environment by dredging and capping sediment with MGP residues and is compatible with our design for an improved East Harbor Marina.

The northern portion of the current East Harbor Marina, including the boat docking area and entrance channel.

Will be dredged and capped below the improved marina operational depth.

The southern portion of the current birthing area features a natural sediment cover over MGP residues which will be monitored under a program to be developed with the water board.

The area highlighted for targeted deeper dredging and capping is in the area where there is an occasional sheen on the water at low tides.

Also, as seen on the map, the red dotted line represents the reactive barrier that will be installed as an extra layer of protection against MGP residue migration.

And lastly, monitoring will be conducted in the sediments and upland during and after the project and institutional controls will be in place to protect the remedy’s integrity.

Before walking you through the proposed plans for the marina and upland areas, I will briefly review the community engagement and feedback received that has informed the marina design and upland concept.

At Wreck and Park, we pride ourselves on our comprehensive community outreach. In March and August of 2023, we held two rounds of community meetings at the Moscone Rec Center.

Over 400 people attended these meetings and we received over 800 responses to the two surveys that were conducted.

We received a lot of feedback on what made the marina special and how it could be improved.

This feedback was incorporated into the design for the public recreation amenities for the Marina Triangle and Lower East Harbor.

Here are photos from the March and August community meetings. These meetings included an open house for people to interact with concepts on large boards, a presentation, and a question and answer period.

We shared precedent images for various activities and amenities to see what was of most interest to attendees.

These questions were also included in the surveys, which could be completed on paper at the meetings or online.

And here’s another board showing how people could select what matters most to them with sticky dots or write in new ideas.

In the development of the public access improvements for the marina, the two main questions we focused on were, what do you like to do in the marina today?

And what improvements would most excite you. Nature views exercising and meeting up with other people were the most popular activities selected.

And the improvements that generated the most interest were improved natural habitat and more recreational activities.

And here you can see the responses to various questions that helped contribute to the marina and upland design, focusing on different amenities, attractions, and additional suggestions.

As many of you may know, there was strong opposition to the planned relocation of boats from the Lower East Harbor to the West Harbour extension in the project presented in 2023.

That’s what’s on the screen in front of you now. This opposition culminated in the Board of Supervisors passage of an ordinance that restricted the extent of the expansion of the West Harbor Marina to the western edge of the wave organ.

And in so doing, drastically reducing the number of boat slips in a renovated marina.

Following this ordinance, we conducted additional outreach to key stakeholders as well as design and analysis to develop a project that is financially sustainable while still complying with the ordinance.

These analyses included comprehensive morphological modeling to study the effect of a small breakwater on the sedimentation rates in the West Harbor.

Updated financial modeling of the projected operating budget for the marina with a reduction in slips.

And a market analysis of marinas along the West Coast. I’m happy to share that the project that we’re presenting today, which was also shared with the community at a meeting in early December.

And with the Rec and Park Commission in mid-December, we’ll meet the requirements and goals of this project.

In this slide, you’ll see the proposed framework plan. With a small 225 foot breakwater off of the jetty past the wave organ We installed slips from an earlier West Harbor project to the south of the jetty.

Reoriented docs and an additional breakwater in the east harbor and a shared use community dock and visitors dock dividing the East Harbor with the marina to the north.

And the shallow water basin to the south. Additionally, we’ve had several conversations with the police and fire departments regarding their critical need For gasoline fuel dock to remain in the marina.

In the 2023 project, the gas dock was located in the extension of the West Harbor. You can see it in the red rectangle there.

While the remediation for this project will not allow for the fuel dock to be reinstalled in its current location in the East Harbor, we’re studying the incorporation of a fuel dock in the West Harbour directly in front of the old harbormaster’s office.

Or there’s an existing pump out. This proposed location is not final.

And we’re giving careful study to multiple locations for locating the fuel block in the marina.

But need to be mindful of not losing additional boat spaces.

Here’s a photo of the existing view taken from the Bay Trail to the east of the Harbormaster’s office looking towards the Golden Gate Bridge.

And here’s a photo simulation showing the sheet pile breakwater off of the jetty.

And the reinstalled docks to the west. Which had been removed in recent years due to sedimentation.

This is the same image just with call outs. The breakwater will function as an extension of the jetty and is designed to reduce the need to dredge the West Harbour entry channel annually, which is currently required yearly and costs approximately $1 million with each dredge.

With this breakwater, per the morphological model, which measured the sedimentation rates over time.

Will be able to delay the need to dridge to 10 to 15 years after construction.

And reductions to every two to three years following that point.

The breakwater is also expected to calm the waters in the West Harbor.

Following the remediation in the East Harbor, the upper portion will be completely rebuilt with reoriented slips.

The existing breakwater will be repaired and have improvements which will allow for pedestrian access and fishing As well as an overlook to Angel Island.

The reorientation of the docks was done in response to feedback from the boaters about issues with the current layout.

Given winds and other unseasonal conditions. We’ll also be installing a sheet pile breakwater extending 180 feet to the south of the current East Harbor breakwater.

That will protect the boats from wave action in the bay that flows under the Fort Mason Pierce.

Along the southern portion, you’ll see an accessible community dock. This will be open to the public, but a gate will be installed for boater access to the long dock running east-west.

Which will allow for guest docking inside tie birthing locations. The boat sizes that can be accommodated in the East Harbour range between 25 to 45 feet in length.

With the majority of the boats slips sized for 30 to 35 foot boats.

Recreation and public access are cornerstones of Rec and Park’s mission, and we’re excited to be able to make changes to this area that will make it a community space for all to enjoy.

And expand public access to the water. Here you can see the existing conditions in the Lower East Harbor and Marina Triangle with a fitness plaza in blue in the bike head path running along Marina Boulevard.

The dashed lines are indicating the BCDC shoreline band.

Beyond the remediation, increased access to the bay and recreational opportunities are the most significant transformation this project provides.

Two significant transformations are, number one, in the East Harbor, we change over 10,000 square feet of underutilized parking lanes to park amenities and coastal gardens and what we’re calling the Nature Exploration Terrace.

Secondly, we’ll be changing the East Harbor from the existing marina only accessible to marina tenants to a 5.5 acre publicly accessible shallow water basin.

That will serve a diverse array of recreational opportunities with the accessible community dock and viewing terrace.

The Marina Triangle will also be transformed from an open lawn framed by traffic lanes and to a much more ecologically and programmatically diverse public amenity.

We retain the flexibility of an open lawn, but frame it with bluff plantings.

With this providing protection from the surrounding vehicle activities. The bluff plantings also serve to frame the proposed volleyball courts.

Which was a specific program highly requested by the public. The three courts proposed or arranged in a playful manner, which result in a series of seating opportunities for spectators or seating spaces for families when courts are not in use.

We’re sure children will enjoy some playtime in the sand when games are not taking place.

We’ll also be making improvements to the existing restroom. While we expect the shallow water basin to be popular for kayakers, stand-up paddle boarders, and small sailboats.

We’ve also engaged with groups that are eager to utilize this space like Outrigger Canoe Clubs and an exciting program for kayak polo.

While you all might be familiar with kayak Polo, this was new to me. Kayak Polo, this is a strong program that’s currently operating under the Berkeley Marina and down in San Mateo. It’s basically water polo, but from a kayak.

And they have an active youth and adult program, and they’re very excited about the chance to be in this basin.

And here you can see the precedent images for the other activities and features for the Marina Triangle, including the lawn with the plantings, volleyball, nature exploration.

The viewing terrace and cafe style seating at the Marina Grove.

Here you can see the existing circulation and access in the area with a bage trail running along the water’s edge, access for marina tenants along the docks, vehicular access through the parking lots.

And the bike ped path and open space.

And I just noticed, I think we need to update our bay trail, I believe from looking at Rowan’s slide, the bay trail seems to not run along the parking lot there.

Here’s the proposed circulation and access in the area with the major changes being the reduced paved area of the parking lot, allowing for increased accessible open space and an undulating bay trail and public access to the water of the shallow water basin from the community dock.

Here are some images of the various types of small watercrafts that will be able to utilize a shallow water basin like kayaks, sailboats, and paddle boards.

And here are two sections showing the shoreline along the basin.

The project includes rebuilding and enhancing the shoreline. This includes adding a composite material permeable reactive barrier to further isolate the upland soil and groundwater from the bay.

Riprap will be installed following the remediation, which will secure the permeable reactive barrier and slope above the native soil and sediments.

The section at the top is along the western edge of the basin showing the parking lot.

The nature exploration area and the Bay Trail. As you can see, we’ll be planting in pockets along the upper portion of the slope to increase habitat opportunities.

And we’ll be focusing on plants that can handle saltwater. The section at the bottom is showing the step-down viewing terrace, which will provide a view of the basin from the southern edge I want to point out that we’ve had conversations with scientists and

Involved with Eco RipRap. We were hoping to be able to install Eco RipRrap in this area.

But due to the rather slow flow rates. They said that this would not be a good use for that material here.

And here you can see a rendering of the Nature Exploration Terrace, Bay Trail, and softened shoreline.

And here’s the lawn area of the Marina Triangle as it appears today, framed by several mature trees.

And here’s our rendering of the same lawn area with views of the Golden Gate Bridge all framed by low bluff plantings to create some intimacy and buffer from the road and parking lot.

In this photo, we’re looking out on the recently removed docks in the Lower East Harbour with Pier 1 of Fort Mason to your right.

And this is a rendering of the accessible community doc, which will provide access to the shallow water basin for small crafts.

And for folks to just come down and walk out to be on the water.

And this rendering shows the new view and experiences created at the public breakwater with an overlook to Angel Island and fishing access.

Wrapping up my presentation, I just want to review our project schedule. As we conclude the community engagement phase, we’ll be submitting our project application to the planning department to initiate the lengthy environmental review and permitting process. With that, we’ll be entering the detailed design phase for the project.

With construction expected to start in mid-2027. We’re envisioning this project will be carried out in two phases. Phase one will be the remediation in the East Harbor and the work in the West Harbor.

And phase two, the marina and park improvements in the East Harbor and Marina Triangle.

The expected total project construction duration is estimated at three years.

Thank you very much for your time. I’m happy to answer any questions. And I’m also joined by our design team of Moffitt and Nickel and field operations and Ryan Mattson from PG&E.

Okay, thank you very much. That was an excellent presentation. And I have to say it’s very significant to have this project coming before the board, this place that we’re looking at tonight is such a critical part of the waterfront and I feel it’s been very um under

Enhanced if you like, for a long time. So it’s very good to see this work underway.

We’ll just start with any clarifying questions that the board has on the presentation.

Yeah, I have a couple of questions. I’m just curious, what is the ownership structure? Is everything that you presented, is that all city of San Francisco rec and park owned and operated? So it’s the marina the parking lot and the open space?

Yes, it’s all within Rec and Parks jurisdiction. I believe a portion of the remediation, however, is under Pier 1 of Fort Mason, which would be a National Park Service jurisdiction.

And then… In the project drivers that you presented at the beginning, is seismic improvements part of it. I’m just referring to that eastern edge of the seawall, which is very degraded. Yes, will be when these when that uh the revetments the area of riprap along that area will be reinstalled with

Seismic improvements in mind. We’re not thinking of putting in like DSM, like army corps plans, as you probably know, for other areas of the shoreline, but definitely we need this area for the integrity of the remediation to be seismically stable.

So it sounds like it’s more like preparing the finishes on the wall like the the I don’t know, cladding the cobbles whatever is protecting the wall more than their foundation work So in this area of gas house code the seawall along the marina and I think maybe I’m often a nickel engineers can speak more to this

But um there’s a lot of different types of walls here there’s like the rubble wall with the steps down that you see along the northern coast of the marina green, right? And then you have like riprap, rubble, like 1906

Big chunks. Maybe, Ryan, you can speak to the shoreline treatment, but my understanding is that we’re getting down to we’re removing enough of the riprap to be able to install the permeable reactive barrier to contain the material that’s below.

Yeah, that’s correct.

Kristen? Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for the really informative presentation. I was just wondering, one of the key things you mentioned at the beginning was feasibility.

And I was wondering how that’s addressed. I sort of assumed it would be through rental of boat slips, but it seems that there’s a net loss of boat slips.

Can you speak to the decisions there? Yeah, the feasibility question. Sure. So the settlement agreement was set up in such a way that PG&E is funding the entire project up front and they’re funding the majority of the project. This is $190 million settlement agreement. That’s the maximum amount.

And Wreck and park of that 190 will be repaying approximately $29 million over a 30-year period.

That repayment will only be from marina revenues. So that’s why we were at such a critical juncture with the loss of approximately 170 slips.

One of the benefits of this rising to the level of the board is that they had their budget and legislative analysts take a look at the financial operations of the marina. And as I mentioned, the dredging is a huge cost for the marina.

Right now and right now But it’s at the board’s discretion to approve increased rates for the boat slips So we had always intended that with the East Harbor, the East Harbor rates have been held artificially low without improvements being able to be made for 20 plus years.

So we were always intending to raise the rates of the East Harbor when people would return to those slips.

What the board’s budget and legislative analysts proposed or suggested i guess was to increase the rates right now.

To not have rec and parks general fund subsidizing the marina operations today, the cost of the dredging.

Right. So that was a policy decision of Rec and Park to no longer have general fund subsidizing the marina when we there’s other priorities.

So what we did, there was a financial analysis done back when that settlement agreement was underway.

And we had a new one prepared with the different slip mix, slip count, and slip mix.

With the rates as they currently are and with rates that were basically suggested by the board.

And that rate increase actually passed through the board in December of last year.

So with the increased rates overall to the West Harbor as well.

We’re able to pencil the marina now.

It was never… I would say it was never the project’s intention to increase the number of slips here But we did want to maintain them if we could and we wanted to support recreational boating.

But clearly, but clearly there was not public support for that. And we did look at potentially pushing out the East Harbor to the north to have a second breakwater and closing more slips to the north.

But that didn’t work either. So we were left with a reduced number of slips and maximizing it as much as we can.

And the breakwater, as I mentioned, the breakwater in the West Harbor was very beneficial for that financial modeling too, if we could eliminate that million dollars a year in dredging.

Thank you. Another question about the sort of feasibility and operations. Is there, I didn’t see anywhere, there was a mention of boat storage in some of the Engagement materials, kayak storage, small craft storage. Is there a location for an operator or

Is that sort of planned to be located or is there some access for that planned here? Yeah, so I’ve been contacted actually recently by a kayak operator, C-Trek out of Sausalito.

In Alameda, I believe. We’re very much looking forward to partnering with operators here, but until we get further along, we don’t want to say, oh, your view will be blocked.

By this box. So what we’re looking for and what seems to work well is we’ll likely position something by the restroom, which is in that northeast corner of the marina triangle, which would just be a short short walk across to the accessible dock.

But we’ll be developing that further, I expect, by the time we return to you, we’ll have more.

Okay. And then just one other question on the um The reason that the additional slips were Next was because of view access is that Correct. That was the dominant.

Sentiment okay Is any of this area state lands by any chance?

Yes, it is. All of it. I believe. I think there’s a dividing line somewhere in the West Harbor and East Harbor. Okay. But yeah.

And do they have any restrictions on or requirements for parking or is there anything Well, we are maintaining the same number of parking stalls So I hope we’re okay. I’ll look into that. I don’t believe that there’s any restrictions on parking as we’re not

We’ll actually be planning to turn back to a number of those parking stalls in that area are currently permit boat tenant parking stalls, but with a reduction of slips I would assume we’ll be able to turn more over back to the public.

Okay. And are there any other requirements that relate to state lands that are pertinent to like uses that you’re allowed to do here?

Well, we had considered putting in a playground and I believe that that is not compatible, right? So, okay.

A nature exploration area is kind of a compromise that we’ve seen work really well at Heron’s Head Park and other areas not on the coast. And they consider small craft recreation, sort of a regional recreation okay yeah Okay, that’s all of my questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Leo? Yeah, thank you for the presentation. I guess many of my questions have been answered. The only one I might have is perhaps more for Moffitt Nickel.

It appears from the diagrams that the bottom level of the East Harbor will be different where the boat slips are, it’d be deeper and where the recreation area would be shallower Is there any expectations of changes in sedimentation patterns or potential buildup of sedimentation in the shallower areas

I think I will pass that to Rich. It’s a good question.

We’ve done some numerical modeling using a mic 21, a Danish Hydraulic Institute model to predict sedimentation in the future based on calibrating model.

Data we have and we don’t anticipate a huge change even a significant change.

Sedimentation patterns in East Harbor. Yes, we don’t expect a change in sedimentation patterns in East Harbor based on the model studies that we’ve done.

Okay, thank you. Again, just a couple of clarifying questions. Oh, I’m sorry. Let’s just go to our online members.

Tom.

Thanks. That was a really great presentation. And maybe you’ve answered this question already, but what I’m understanding is that all of the all of the edges.

That are facing the water are being protected from seismic liquefaction.

I just want to confirm that’s And then are there areas behind the barrier within the scope of the project that are also subject to liquefaction.

Rich, do you want to add? Respond. Another good question. The answer is still being addressed.

We have a geotechnical engineer. Local who’s done some sediment sampling and studies specifically for engineering properties But it’s been done in the water where the original project really involved most of the improvements In this round of this round project the improvements have

Included the triangle. So we’re going to get additional data points in that triangle park area in which we can develop appropriate solution and be able to answer your question.

That’s going to be done shortly.

Good.

No, that’s it.

Anything else, Tom? Okay, good. We’ll move to Bob. Bob, I’m just going to make one comment before opening it up to you.

And for everyone in the room as well, this project is going to also be reviewed by the engineering design criteria board.

The staff have given us pretty clear direction that our priority is reviewing the landside access and some of the more technical aspects, the technical engineering, technical remediation aspects will be dealt with in detail at that meeting. So Bob, I just wanted to give you a heads up on that in case

Whether you were aware or not about that, that you’ll be reviewing this again in that technical review environment.

Thank you, Chair. We can. I actually wasn’t aware of that but we have we had looked at this before on the ECRB.

Focus just on the remediation and ground stability but i uh thank you for that context. That’s very helpful.

Can i should i proceed with? Any questions? Oh.

Yes, go ahead. Yes, please. Thanks, Bob.

Thank you. Thank you. I just, this is kind of a dumb question, but I just want to clarify the extent of the marina expansion.

In front of the marina green. The exhibits we received Specifically on page 18 show a I think it’s called the 2023 framework plan Which I believe is no longer in consideration. Is that it?

Do I have that correct?

Yes, that’s correct. We were just showing that for context. For feedback that you may have heard.

So we’re not reviewing we’re not reviewing that extent, which is much greater.

That’s correct. Yes. The plan on sheet 19 is the plan that’s being presented today.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you. I know it was kind of a stupid question, but I just felt like I needed to be clear on that.

Yeah.

Can you clarify nature investigation element of Improvements.

I couldn’t quite follow that. Again, I apologize if I missed something.

Seems like I missed a couple of things. In preparation for this meeting but What is the nature investigation element in the project?

Oh, I think you might be referring to our nature exploration area.

Oh, nature exploration. I’m sorry. I don’t know where I got investigation. I think it’s in one of the slides again.

But what, yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. Yeah.

That’s okay. Yeah, well, there were investigations. There were investigations for sure. But let me flip to So on slide 27, the proposed site plan There’s a precedent image showing another nature exploration area. It’s basically a playground without calling it a playground.

Made. Comprised of mostly, you know, you can have big logs boulders It’s a spot for all to to kind of explore, oh yeah, sorry, thanks. On slide 32, there’s a rendering of the nature exploration terrace.

So… Yeah, hopefully that will help clarify. And this is still in development

Okay. Yeah, I just, it’s kind of hard for me to understand what it really is because I appreciate all the plants on the shore, but right now it’s riprap and I’m not quite sure how you what the actions are to achieve this very

Colorful shoreline, but that’s okay I have some other We can talk about that later. Maybe you can address that before your next submittal.

Oh, okay. Sure.

Oh, yeah. Actually, a landscape architect wants to weigh in. Hi, sorry. So basically, the project is reducing the traffic lanes in the parking lot, right? Like right now it’s a two-way traffic lane So by making it one way, we gain about 20 feet for the shoreline itself. And now in that thickened shoreline, right in between the riprap and the existing parking, now we have a wider stretch of park

Where we are now meandering the Bay Trail. So as you’re along the Bay Trail, you get different views and perspectives.

But also creating these wider nooks One of which is a nature exploration terrace. And as Monica said, it’s basically an area for children and family to climb up on logs and boulders and play around adjacent to to the waterfront.

Oh, I got you. But it’s not the the greenery and flowers that we see on the shore. It’s on the other side of the trail. It’s not part of the shoreline.

No, no, no. No.

It’s part of the upland fill area.

It’s still within the shoreline. It’s still within the shoreline band. But if you look at the plan, the Baytrail meander. So in the belly of when the Bay Trail is most proximate to the shallow water basin, that’s where we can accommodate this nature exploration terrace.

Okay. So, but it’s landward of the trail and it’s a flat area with some logs and rocks and stuff.

Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying that. I really appreciate it.

Exactly. Exactly. That’s exactly right. Absolutely.

So, um. So I guess it’s the depth that displaces the births from the east Basin, Gas House Cove, to… the west basin is that is that the reason why the remediation triggered this shifting of the births from one basin to the other?

That’s in the original October 2023 framework plan, correct? In this new project, we are not relocating slips. We are just deleting slips.

Oh, I got you. Okay.

So yeah, and you’re right. The reason why we are not able to reinstall them in place in the Lower East Harbor is because basically the project cannot, the project budget cannot cover that extent of remediation to return the entire

East Harbor back to a marine and navigable depth.

Okay. Thank you. Yes, I just… So that’s the nexus is you’re losing some ships in Gas House Cove or some berths.

And you’re mitigating that somewhat by adding births in at West Harbor at the entrance.

I think I got that right. And that’s the only reason why we’re really looking at the West Harbor.

Right.

Or… In the breakwater.

And for the breakwater, I believe, I believe it’s under the purview of the design review board, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, and to note, those slips in the West Harbor were originally in those replacement slips those had been installed in the 2012 West Harbor renovation project.

But due to the significant sedimentation rates, they had to be removed.

So with the right, you might be aware Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I remember that, actually. But there wasn’t a breakwater there on the east side, was there or was there?

That’s correct. There was a floating wave attenuator which

Oh, okay. But now you’re going to have a solid breakwater to to protect from the northeast winds.

Correct. Exactly.

That can put some ways. Okay, I got it. So, um.

I think there are some historical assets within the the marinas, especially in the West Harbor, if I remember correctly.

And I don’t know that that affects anything, I think, but And I’m not an expert on that. Obviously, I’m an engineer but i think it’s it would be interesting if nothing else to have some maybe discussion of that, a review of that next time you come around. There’s some pretty cool

Pieces in there in the West Basin. That’s more of a comment.

Unless you wanted to to indicate that there is information on historical information assets in this submittal or in this review.

Right. Okay. Gotcha. Yeah.

So at this time. We’re not prepared to really cover that except for the historic gas plants. We know about those, but the planning department will be carrying out their environmental review. And so that will be going in depth into the historic significance of the site.

Okay. Great. Yeah, I think the members would find that interesting, although I don’t know that it has any bearing, but thank you for entertaining that.

Question. So… Where does the sand go now? I know that sand, I have some familiarity with the area.

Waves drive sand, primarily waves, drive sand from the ocean through the Golden Gate, along Christie Field, and it deposits On the west side, a little of the old breakwater and then also in a tip shoal at the mouth And that’s why, as you say, the births were removed before

Now you have a breakwater extension And eastern breakwater.

That implies that the sand will just kind of move around those structures, but may still deposit in the entrance or do you expect to I’m just kind of wondering what happens to the sand and You know, just so I can maybe think about the implications.

Sure. Well, I’ll definitely pass this off to Rich Dornhelm, but I’ll just say that the summary, the high level summary for the is that we expect the dredging to only need to be taking place not annually but for 10 to 15 years post installation of the breakwater. Following that, we do expect

The sedimentation to have to be dealt with on probably twice every two years, every two to three years It’s not going away. The sand will continue. But I’m going to pass it off to Rich, who knows more about what will happen.

Right. That’s a pretty good answer, but I would like to hear from Rich if everybody has time.

For people that don’t know, was my My supervisor for many years when I was with Moffitt and Nickel So it’s Still working hard there, aren’t you, Rich?

But you’re working harder. I only have one project with many.

Well, it’s nice to be back in touch, mom. And it’s a tough question.

Yes, thank you. Nice to see you.

Because it started out with a study of replacing the wave attenuator, which had to be removed.

With a fixed breakwater to quiet the outer west harbor basin and we discovered through mathematical again computer modeling using our Mike 21 models that the sediment patterns circulation patterns, along with the waves in the current.

Were disrupted by this relatively short piece of breakwater that changed the way currents and waves pass around the tip. It’s like an airplane wing in certain respects. It flies.

When they come in for landing, they just trim things a little differently and that changes dramatically.

How the plane generates lift and slows down and lands.

We foresee that there will be a change in the deposition patterns as a result of this small breakwater extension.

That will not eliminate the need Bob has done some very nice studies that led us to this conclusion.

About sand movements in the San Francisco literal cell that we can expect redistribution of the sand rather than trapping in the harbor.

Eventually, there will be a need to dredge but has Monica pointed out where foresee about a 10, maybe 15 year interlude While this redistribution occurs before it once again finds a way to migrate towards the entrance of the marina.

Okay, thank you, Rich. I really appreciate it. I also appreciate the tolerance, other patients, other patients board members have for that question. It’s kind of a big deal in the circles that I move in, although in this case, I don’t see major concerns.

I’m speaking to sand transport. But… Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Okay, my last and final clarifying question.

Okay.

But before I get off that is…

Bob, just remember, we also have our board discussion for other questions. So just if it’s a clarifying question, yes, fire away. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah. I have one i have

Yeah, so I have two quick ones. One, can we see the… the studies about the sand transport Can the design review board see those or maybe public, I don’t know.

And then secondly. Are there any sea level rise criteria for this project or any elements that relate to sea level rise or is that something that will be has been put off to the ECRV.

So to answer your first question, yes, we can provide via Ashley, I believe, the studies on the morphological modeling.

Thank you very much.

And yeah, of course. And for sea level rise um what’s been designed so far, and this is just as a concept level.

Was taking into account BCDC sea level rise guidance and criteria.

As well as the city’s sea level rise, their capital planning. So it went through, there’s like a checklist that the city has.

To meet the standards. And so this is designed to 2067.

Okay.

And in the sections, you can actually see those two sections.

Let’s see, slide 31. Those are showing in small print.

Projected sea level rise. They’re showing the mean high, high water and then 2050 as well as 2,100 all the way up.

So even though this project isn’t technically designed to 2100, We’re still looking ahead to that and what will happen with this area.

Okay, thank you. I’ve taken enough of everyone’s time. Thank you.

Chair McCann, I’m done.

Yeah, thanks, Bob. Good questions. I just want to clarify one more thing before we move on. And it’s in the context of the outreach program, which looks to be very effective and a lot of input. It’s always impressive to see 400 more than 400 people participating

But a question I have is how much outreach has happened with a key stakeholder, which is Fort Mason, immediately adjacent?

To these bases. So we’ve presented this project to National Park Service to their review board as well. And we just had a refresh meeting not that, I think it was in December with the updated project as well. So they are

Well aware we’ll be coordinating with them for NEPA, for the remediation portion that will be taking place on their property.

And they, yeah, they have been well informed of what we’re working on We’re also aware that the sand comes from a lot of places and there’s some concern that Rec and Park has about Chrissy field So we’re kind of

We’re all neighbors here. Yeah, good. Great. And then just another quick follow up on the outreach um you know tourists are a very big component of the usage of this area. Were you able to capture any input from tourists or observational input?

So that’s a great question. I think through our actually through the Marina Harbor Association and the Marina Tenants, a lot of the people a large number of people that have boats in the marina are not San Francisco residents. They’re coming here seasonally.

But in terms of tourists, I would say It’s a hard one to capture aside from the conversations we’ve had with the bike rental people. We know that people are excited. We know people also have been excited about a water taxi potentially.

That’s not in our current plan. But we know that this is a popular destination all along this northern waterfront is a very popular destination for tourists.

And we think it will continue to be. And just one more detail follow up.

With the removal of the fueling dock. I don’t know whether they’re related or not, but on the land site up against the wall to Fort Mason, there’s a large storage container and some other things that are pretty unattractive. Do they get to be

Reviewed as part of the project? So yes, one of those containers is actually for the bike rental operator So yeah, we are intending to improve that area as well. And with that, we’ll be looking to relocate as much of that storage as possible.

I think we can really make a big difference in improving the feel and also improve the connection between Fort Mason to the marina through that right okay thank you. I think that Oh, I think this one will follow up. Sorry, one more thing I’m dying to ask. So I was just wondering if you could share some of your design process. I was just noting that so much of the parking is inside the shoreline band. Was there ever

You know a thought about flipping the planting and the parking? There was, yeah. Yep. Well, that was also shared in 2023

And I have to say there was so much opposition to what we were really considering to be the goals of the project that we had to kind of let that pass.

When you start talking about all the parking people get very, very excited about it. So at this point.

We’re doing what we can to buffer the experience I think we also were considering that people are also having a very pleasurable experience going along the bike ped path now without parking up against it.

So kind of have some trade-offs.

If you can visualize that.

Do you guys have the slide deck? Anyway, yeah, there’s a… It’d be better to get on the screen if it’s possible.

On the north side, that’s where you still have most of the parking goes right up to the water’s edge, whereas on the east side you have the planting buffer.

So I’m… The project isn’t proposing to kind of modify the parking towards the north of the triangle, swapping the eastern edge of parking with the triangle itself was the first concept. But as Monica said that didn’t move forward during the community engagement process.

And then the bike path that Monica is referring to is the one that’s kind of parallel to Marina Boulevard that right now runs next to the marina triangle green.

So the users of that path kind of enjoy not having moving vehicles and parked vehicles be what they see on both sides. So it’s kind of a trade-off in that regard.

Does this image help? Yeah, yeah, very much. Yeah, I mean, you know, there’s this moment where you think, oh, wouldn’t it be great to have a park right at the water’s edge and then you have all this incredible views and a buffer on Marina Boulevard.

And the parking in between the buffer. And anyway, so I’m sure, I mean, it’s obvious that it had to have been discussed in detail. So I was just curious how that went.

Thank you. Okay, very good. Well, look, that concludes the clarifying questions from the uh Proponent presentation and So now we will move to public comment and we have a combination of in-person people who will ask questions and then we have online questions and we also had submitted comments as well so we’ll take some time and go through all of those.

Shall we start with in the room? Yes, please. The first person is Chrissy Kaplan. If you could come up to the mic and state your name and affiliation, you’ll have three minutes. And next up will be Dan Clark.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Chrissy Kaplan. I have operated the fuel dock at Gas House Cove for the last 51 years. It has been there for 55 years.

I’m a huge proponent of public access. But public safety has to be kept in mind.

The fuel dock operates seven days a week with United States Coast Guard, police.

Fire, Caltrans, Army Corps of Engineer, the bulk of our day-to-day customers are either commercial fishermen or emergency services.

Where the fuel dock is currently located is in a nice little corner of San Francisco Bay. There’s no concerns about the neighborhood. There’s no concerns about other boats being impacted. It is by nature a rather dangerous occupation.

We have had two explosions. In the last 55 years, but of no consequence either physically to anybody Or to anybody’s personal property.

The other thing I want to point out to this board is where the fuel tanks are currently located.

They have been there underground in a concrete vault for 60.

Nine years old since 1969. They have been updated, the actual physical tanks themselves, but the location has been through Loma Prieta.

Has been through all of the, well, we had quite a tsunami in 2011. This most recent tsunami warning was quite interesting.

As soon as the warning subsided, my phone was ringing off the hook.

By the Coast Guard, by the police, by the fire, will you be there? We’re having to deploy our fleets and we need fuel to do that.

I think having the one and only fuel dock in the city of San Francisco cannot be a second thought. We’re just going to unplug it here and plug it in somewhere else. It has to be a vital service to not just the boat owners, but to our entire city.

When Loma Prieta happened, it was the fire boat that put out the marina grain, not the fire department. It was seawater that was brought in.

On a very small note, the floating docks that are being considered to be putting in the water, when they’re not being used by the public, they will be used by the sea life.

Sea lions and seals will occupy those docks, will destroy those docks, will take advantage of those docks.

And they are not shy about taking over that kind of

Access because uh uh when a young pup gets kicked out of Pier 39, he needs a new place to go set up camp. And it’s usually that gas house code.

The other thing I wanted to point out was the fiscally sustainable part of the project The fuel dock is not broken. Your three minutes are up. Thank you. Okay, I’m sorry.

Thank you very much for your consideration. And I’d love to be part of the conversation.

Thank you. Going forward. Yep. Thank you very much. Okay, up next, I have Dan Clark. And following that will be Patricia Vonley.

Thank you, Dan Clark. No affiliation. This project has been controversial from the get-go, and I’m going to explain some of the reasons that it’s fundamentally flawed. And with all due respect, Chair, you’re remarks about the outreach to the community are possibly being, you may be being led a little bit too much by the propaganda slides that are coming from the proponent about how much outreach

What you see in this room is only a small fraction of the people who are having a problem with this with this project. So just be aware.

The problems here stem from the toxic chemicals that are beneath Gas House Cove that are driving everything. And what’s not being exposed to you or not being focused to you now is that this project is requiring an approval of land use changes to Gas House Cove

That have never been never been really discussed by any independent agency And these land use changes are they’re significant and they undermine the beneficial use of this public resource. So that is the subject that I want to bring up.

I know you’ve heard here that there’s greater public access from some components, for instance, shallow water basin.

Ask yourself, would there be a paddlecraft recreation area in a shallow water basin had if there were no toxic chemicals that had to be kept in that place.

And the answer is no. The income, the financial questions. That’s really trying to make something good out of something that’s really bad. And so this is a fundamental thing.

I realize I don’t have much time to go into all of this. I will point out that if you look at the San Francisco Bay Plan and the policy statements in there, just Google hazardous substance in there, you’ll find the guideline that at least talks about

Keeping hazardous substances and what needs to be done about it. You’ll see that it talks about no harm to people And the harm to people from a hazardous substance will be handled by the water board But you, BCDC, should be looking at whether this

Keeping this hazardous substance there in the form that it is now proposed at this time.

Is the right answer. And is the right trade-off to do with these trade-off What I’m saying is the detrimental use of the uh of the beneficial use of gas house code. I know I’ve only got seconds, but allow me to just say there are alternatives

To this plan. They are not being proposed because they cost more.

If you look into this in any detail, you’ll see that, yes, there are viable alternatives, reasonable alternatives that cost cost more, but not significantly more. So that’s this whole subject about beneficial uses changes change of land use Thank you for your public comment. We’re out of time. And I just hope that it is done so. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Patricia, you’re up next. You’re next. Could you put a… Up here, the picture of the picture existing plan and the new plan.

I have something to show you. We may have to move between them and we only have three minutes for this comment.

Okay, that’s what the problem is with this hearing. And I will give you some writing on this.

Marina, I’m Patricia from Marina Calhalla Neighbors Merchants. And I have worked with the planning department the park and rec for years.

And I’m very disappointed about the outreach on this The fact that we asked after 223 plan to work on this with the department before it got to you so that we could come up with some compromises.

One of my big issues is the big issues is What Christy talked about.

In the old plan, we have a very long pumping station.

In the new plan, we have one about a third the size with boats around it. I was at the Loma Prieta earthquake.

The boats were backed up. After that earthquake.

It was extremely important to have extremely important something that long.

To solve the problem for public safety. That is one of my main issues concerning this.

Also, I have some serious concerns. I’m sorry you work for that company, but we’ve gone through plans since 1960.

And we’ve had every time a plan comes up, it’s failed about the themselves.

The sales push really caused by when the Presidio changed to a coastal area and sand dunes back to sand dunes and that caused a lot of problems with the cell changes And we have to look at that sandpit.

We have a way to go, but I am looking for compromises.

And we need to have compromises. And right now, all I’m saying is rush this through from this department.

We’ve got to have it bam, bam, bam. Where we can sit down and we can work out some issues. But we are not getting it.

And this is what’s disturbing me the most. And I have a degree in environmental design.

And I have some concerns about the toxics. With kayaks polo with the kayaks turning over.

And is this going to cause a problem in volleyball on a previous toxic area.

I’m not sure if the studies are good enough We have not had the privilege of having Being given the studies.

Hidden. What are they hiding? And I want us to have this as a good project.

And one that we can all be proud of. And I have the statistics on the jurists, we have thousands of tourists who go down there every day.

Hundreds, thousands. And as the city builds back up again the marina green and these yacht harbors are between one of the largest national historical deals, Fort Mason.

And we’ve got Palace of fine arts and the Presidio on the other side. Thank you for your public comment. You’re out of time. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Steven Striels, you are up next, followed by Bill Clark.

Can I get slide 23 put up on the screen?

Oh, let me stop sharing.

Yeah, that’s good.

This one, yes. Thank you.

Board members. My name is Stephen Street. Sorry for the bad handwriting. I actually am a member. I live in the community at the in uh the marina. In fact, I live adjacent to the triangle.

This area and this project, this is probably one of the, it’s an iconic world-class public environment with a public art installation.

This area as we all know. So this is vitally important both to the community and to everyone else.

Both in the city and in the nation and potentially the world.

Unfortunately, from the perspective of the community members, I think that Parks and Rec has taken on a cavalier attitude towards the design of the project and has had ample disregard for the community input.

And then we’re still trying to fix that. That’s why I think you’re hearing from us.

And I brought this picture up it has a problem. It represents it from a camera angle not from a an eyeball angle. And what you don’t see from this is that that breakwater is not integrated into the rest of the breakwater environment. It’s a concrete pier square

Doesn’t fit in there. It’s not visually the right thing for that space.

Something that’s iconic. Further, the wave organ, this public art installation, is there.

And I’ve been assured that the wave organ will still function.

But I have assurances of people that are probably not a marine public art experts.

And I would have asked that, I think this is an iconic feature of the area, and I would ask that the board asked for some more questions about this.

To ensure that it’s still functional. And as we get to the end.

I urge the board to request some design revisions to to the breakwater to ensure that it’s visually integrated.

And then two, because of the repeated failure of all attempts to prevent this silting.

I would ask that the board recommend that additional conditions be put on their approval that the breakwater would be removed if it fails to meet the goal of preventing silting.

Because if we spend $5 million, we put this in there, we obstruct it, we destroy the wave organ, and then it doesn’t function and we’re still dredging every year. We haven’t accomplished the goal and we’ve only destroyed our environment. So I think there’s a reasonable condition. And I would also, if the

Wave organ does no longer functions because of the breakwater we’re in worse shape.

I would also ask that the breakwater then be removed.

Thank you for your time. I think that we’re very excited to participate and you’re hearing from just a small group of more than 500 people that objected to the original plans. Thank you very much.

Next up, we have Bill Clark, followed by Maggie Hallahan. I may go over. I prefer not to speed read, so I’m hoping I can get a little extra time perhaps.

Okay, here we go. My name is Bill Clark. And here we go. The issue with RPD’s design of East Harbor is that the southern half still contains a proposed recreation area where marina berths used to be.

There was some hope that a compromised solution for more births could be reached with the return of smaller powerboats requiring a shallow harbor depth and therefore less remediation.

But after over a year of deliberations, no such alternative appears to be in the mix.

Equity inclusion of the lower income small boat owning public who had mostly been left out of the previous design remain left out.

Nothing has changed regarding a toxic waste storage facility in our harbor posing as a paddle graft paddlecraft recreation Area. The same concerns for relocating the fuel dock storage tanks exist for the buried toxics without the benefit of being encased in cement.

The public will be encouraged to recreate in three to four feet of murky marina water with three to five feet of sediment cap covering the toxics.

Would you trust three to five feet of shifting settlement between you and MPG contaminations?

When you could launch your kayak from Aquatic park where no such threat exists.

Or paddle in the dirty backwaters of East Harbor when the cleaner bay waters can be found nearby?

Kayaks are rarely seen in east and west harbors, even with a fancy wheelchair accessible paddlecraft launch in West In the West Harbor that is never used Why would they suddenly appear now?

If we can all agree with the premise that the southern half of East Harbor is best suited for boats due to existing conditions, why was this not the starting point for the redesign?

What kind of public use will there be when three defeat water depth becomes one to two feet from silting?

Or a mud flat like the West End of West Harbor.

The foreseeable obsolescence of the proposed paddlecraft area must be considered now while PG&E is still responsible for the contamination.

An ungrudgeable south southern east harbors offering PG a pass on their obligation, leaving SF citizens with a future eyesore to bookend the other mud flat in West Harbor and a taxpayer liability to convert the area into something usable again.

We deserve a better plan from RPD with PG&E funds spent on contamination cleanup starting point, not jumping the gun harbor retrofits.

If SF Marina is counting on the revenue from new births in the northern half of East Harbor, how about starting with the dredging of multiple vacancant West Harbor berths that are too shallow to rent?

Constrained by an outdated settlement. Rpds harbor improvement and remediation project simply doesn’t meet the severity of the environmental or best youth of the southern half of East Harbor.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Okay, Maggie Hallen, you’re up. You’re best.

Just an overhead, just the overhead one the original one before all the splits were taken out.

The existing or the plan that’s not happening? The existing. Or before you took out, yeah, the one before you took out the slips.

Yeah, that’s fine. Or maybe this one. Yeah.

Hi, everyone. Thank you very much for hearing from me. My name is Maggie Hallahan.

And I’m a licensed captain. I also… I’m a sea scout. Okay.

I’m working on that. Sorry, I just… got over a cold. I’m a Licensed Coast Guard captain and i have been teaching youth boating canoeing For more than half my life, I’m a sea scout leader and we used to have a Sea Scout base there in this marina.

100 years ago when it first started. And we have a sea scout based in aquatic park When I’ve looked back on some of the research that the Park and Rec has done, they haven’t really researched how youth are going to have access

Consistent access to really learn how to navigate and to get on the water. And this space is ideal for that.

I think that that it hasn’t been a great outreach to people. I grew up here.

My uncles used to call the area Gas House Cove and Small Boat Harbor, but when they put out all the information, they just call it East Harbor. And if you’re a navigator, you never call that area east because it’s actually west

So I didn’t know for a long time that’s what they were talking about, but they’d never used the word gas has coke, which I think that the information should all be titled And if you look on the state sites of the waterways, all the state sites call it gas house code so i think it should be called that.

And I also think that we have our sea scout youth come across with our oil and things like that into the You know, you said there was a lot of things over where the launch where the old boat launches, that’s where we deposit our oil and other boats deposit

Oil and gas there. So we need to rebuild that And then also when I was young, we used to launch boats there um Gatekeeper, we launched our first boat right there. And I’d like to keep the boat launch there, the crane and fix it. It’s been broken for 15 years.

And we’d like to have a place to launch our boats per youth. And there could be storage there for seed track and other types of small sailing boats, people that could lead trips for youth out of that area.

So anyway, please think about the sea scouts and other youth. We have hundreds and hundreds of youth that want to get on the water and they need support in buildings and places to meet.

To be able to do that. So thank you so much.

Thank you. I appreciate the comments.

Okay, Chair, we have four comments online Howard Strasner, I’m going to unmute you and you have three minutes.

Hi. So I’ve heard some interesting comments.

There you are.

I’ve had a birth in the guest house cove for over 50 years.

And one of the things we have is very reasonable rent because it was subsidized by a very low interest rate loan.

And I’m concerned that you keep space for small boaters. One nice solution seems to be to use some of this shallow water for motorboats that don’t draw very much. That may be a useful change I would also hold BCDC responsible

To doing a really deep study, how much mud is enough to protect us from the the terrible stuff that’s underneath there. And I also note that you I look at the things and you have reduced parking and that’s okay.

When you run out of money since you’ve already raised the cost of keeping a boat.

In the marina, maybe you want to start getting some of that money from the parking that’s left.

I would suggest that very much. I also want to say hi to Christy. I’ve known her for over 50 years.

And you do need, we’ve never bought gasoline from her. We just pick up, fill a little tank of it for a small sailboat.

But certainly big boats need it and it has to be done very well. It’s a very important thing. I don’t know.

I don’t hope enough is done about that. Oh, I would support removing the parking from against the seawall. This is a major place to walk.

And here are you devoting for people who want to drive there and sit in their cars and look at the weather.

That’s not a reasonable use of San Francisco Bay. This is a use for San Francisco Bay for sailors.

For walkers, for hikers and everything You’re doing a lot of it well. I like the trail as it goes near the old guest house cove. That looks very nice.

But I think you can get some more nickels. From parking i would remind that they collect for parking in the Presidio and they collect the parking At the other place.

Why San Francisco can’t charge for parking for this really great place to visit.

Is craziness you know um doesn’t make any sense. And there is transit very close. People can walk a few blocks from the transit so That’s enough. Good luck. I’m really concerned.

How many feet is enough mud over the that stuff that’s below. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, up next I have Danny, no last name. You have three minutes.

Hello, can we get the slide up of the new proposed Marina Green Triangle design

I have to stop sharing.

Hmm.

While that’s getting pulled up, just want to thank Monica Scott for your work on this. And I am grateful of all the things that we are have lost the west harbor boat proposal that is a huge improvement and why there was

Yeah, anyway, so… that focusing on this next, I do agree with many of the other people that the community outreach as far as designing some of these things is not as thorough as it was made out to be.

So the fitness plaza Is what I’m here to comment on today in this trail This actually is one of the This is one of the hallmarks, I think, of the marina, the ability to have an outdoor workout area where you can

Have space for dogs to play And that’s a huge part of the reason that I live here. Three volleyball courts.

Does a tremendous, I think, disservice to the space. I can’t see any use why three volleyball courts would be used.

People do set up volleyball sometimes but those would be very, very underutilized and would be really, that would cost a lot of maintenance and they would take a huge amount of they would have a huge impact on that space. So there’s people that set up

Volleyball elsewhere and it’s Fine, but if maybe one is fine, but three, I think, removes a huge amount of the ability for people to have dogs run in that area.

Secondly, on the bay trail parks about two or three years ago removed all of the trash cans that were along the water. So there’s like no place to put dog poop as you’re walking on the trail.

So if the idea for this area is community benefit hopefully we can increase get some of the trash cans back so that If people are walking on the trail, they have a place to put poop and there will be less like litter and food scraps

And dog poop that finds its way just on the side of the trail.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that comment.

Do we have anyone else online? Two. Okay, thank you.

Okay, next I have Steve Welch. Followed by Bruce Stone.

Hi, I’m Stephen Welch. Can you hear me?

We can hear you, yes.

So I’m the sea scout committee chair. We have a historic cultural connection We were operating in the San Francisco Marina East Harbor from 1920 to 1947.

When San Francisco Rec Park moved us over to Aquatic Park.

And now that the National Park Service is our landlord, they have let our facility completely fall apart into the water this year they chainsawed our pilings we don’t have more than one boat that we can get to get kids in and out of. Since 2021, we’ve had a 400% increase in membership.

This marina renewal is a once in a lifetime opportunity to have a new facility for our city junior high and high school kids who we introduced to the maritime careers to accommodate the needed youth training facility which can be accomplished if you just require that community doc to have an H

Configuration. So one side could be secured for youth boats and youth access and then where the enhanced bathrooms go or maybe somewhere else But we need like a clubhouse with a classroom you know this would be the largest park or marina facility

Without a supporting building. Anywhere around the Bay Area that I know of. And as the C. Scott committee chair i actually cover San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Solano and lake counties and work with many, many of our programs.

That’s all I have to say.

Thank you for those comments. Next.

Okay, Bruce Stone, you have three minutes.

Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

So I wanted to turn up my phone. Let me see the computer. Okay. So I’m head of the arena harbor association And we’ve got concerns about the gas dock location.

The proposed area that they’ve indicated, which is a over at west harbor is too crowded. It’s a choke point for sailboats filling up and down the harbor without motors to get past that spot.

Also, on the tour side, you have a problem. Of the fuel trucks coming to a very congested area to refuel the tanks there It’s very difficult to make cars making that turn. Then you had some fuel trucks every two or three days in there, that’s further issues.

The tanks that they’re proposing in West Harbor have to be vented directly upwind of the playgrounds.

So you’d be having toxic fumes going to hitting the soccer moms and their kids in that area. The better location is east harbor Just inside that breakwater that’s going to be built there.

It could be right along the new peer that they’re proposing for public access And if that peer moved maybe 30 feet further to the south, you would have no impact really of the turning basin issue that they cite in there would go away.

So both could come in and refuel on a nice long dock, a much safer location And without little sailboats coming by and trying to get past them.

So I really believe this is in your bailiwick as the PCDC people to really opine about the fuel dock location because the location in West Harbor is terrible from a toxic standpoint to pedestrians and and users of the park and also to the kids sailing up and down that harbor without motors to get around commercial boats trying to come in and refuel

Neither the art clubs nor the Marina Harbor Association want that location.

We all want to see it over in East Harbor. Obviously, it might not be able to be kept where Chrissy has her right now but transformed over to the north west corner is an area where fuel trucks could easily get in

And the tanks that would be installed would vent back out towards the harbor and open water they wouldn’t affect people enjoying the marina green.

So appreciate if you take a look at that and get some guidance to RPD about that. Also to Steve Walsh’s idea about shore site amenities for youth sailing We’ve sent Rec and Park a detailed design about a clubhouse and a pier that could adopt that could have showers and lockers and

Facilities for small boats to be stored there and launched off of a that area and wouldn’t need much dredging, maybe a couple of feet from what they have right now.

If you’re interested, I can send you those designs. They were done by a professional naval architect.

Thank you very much for those comments. Sarah had one more sneak in on us. Okay, one more. Let’s go. Thank you.

Margo Attard, I’ve unmuted you and you have three minutes, please.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you all so much for your time this evening and for this presentation. And while I do think it’s a step improved from the initial proposals last year um i think there are still some major issues. And I just wanted to raise some concerns there. So I don’t have any personal relationship to the sea scouts

But I definitely love their ideas and want to support those initiatives. So anyway, you could prioritize the needs of the sea scouts, I think that’s great.

I also wanted to emphasize something that the guy said earlier who had issue with like the volleyball courts and the, you lack of trash cans and stuff like that. I just wanted to mention that the marina green can be used for volleyball, not to officially put up a volleyball court, but like people can use that for their volleyball needs. And I think that

The percentage of volleyball players in San Francisco and in the marina area as compared to like the percentage of dog owners. I think the dog owners are the majority by far and making sure that we’re able to keep the space for dog walks and fetch and stuff I think is pretty imperative. And I am a little confused by some of the

Like the amount of recreation that is proposed at this time. I think being able to maintain at least You know, some space and keeping things the way that they are. And like the person said about protecting the wave organ and stuff like that, I think all of that is

Is really crucial in maintaining the marina as we know it and love it.

And that is all I have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. One more comment. Oh.

We do also have public comments submitted to staff and they will be posted to the website.

Do you want me to read through now? Maybe a summary. Yes, yes.

Bill Clark already spoke, so I won’t review his comments. They were similar to what was submitted in the letter.

Janet Rocco said, please don’t obscure our shoreline and many more any more than it already is and boat slips are fine, even desirable, but anything else is a hard no. Let people enjoy what little is left of the views while walking marina green or driving down the marina boulevard.

Li Wo of MTC The Bay Trail. Commented on the bay trail width and capacity the San Francisco Marina is a high use area. There’s a high demand for public shore and trail area or trail use in this area.

And this project presents an opportunity to increase the capacity of the Bay Trail through widening the overall corridor designated for the Bay Trail and its users.

Currently, the existing matril is 12 feet and they’re proposing to rebuild it at that same width, but the bay trail guidelines request a starting point of about 18 feet.

For the Bay 12 corridor. With additional with additional width to be considered.

Based on the level of use. Also, Baytrail user amenities. We request that the DRB and project sponsor to include amenities valuable to bay trail users, such as a bottle fill station, water fountains, and bike repair stations.

As part of the marina project. We appreciate that the project sponsor’s proposal to renovate the existing public restrooms that will be needed and a useful amenity to patrol users.

And finally, the connections to the Bay Trail. Mtc request that the DRB and project sponsor consider whether the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the SF Marina Project provides safe, usable, and low stress connections to the bay trail for bicyclists and pedestrians from the surrounding areas and roadways.

And whether additional connections are needed. Okay, thank you for that summary. And I just want to say again how much we appreciate all of the public comment.

People here in person, people online, people who submitted comments and I also want to say that we are in a process at this time. So I think this is perfect timing to be providing input like this. I know there has been outreach and

Some of you may have been able to engage more directly than others.

I’m sure the project proponents are writing as many notes as we are and we’ll be taking all of your comments on board.

Okay, at this point, we’ll move to the next part of the agenda which is Board discussion and advice and what we do during this stage is we We have a comment period and discussion between ourselves. We base it on

The key objectives for public access, which is our priority. And they are just a reminder to make the public access as accessible as possible for everybody and as public as possible.

To make sure that the visual access to the bays enhanced and maintained and is preserved as a resource for users.

And to make sure we enhance or where we can and at least maintain the visual quality of the bay and the adjoining developments and making sure that to a point that Ashley was just making and is that the connections and the continuity to the Bay Trail and access are as optimal as possible.

And making sure that we take wildlife into account and we take advantage obviously of the incredible base setting that exists at this location.

And staff have asked us, so I’m speaking to the board now, staff have asked us to look at two, well, four questions and Rowan actually provided a number of sub points which are in your notes. I’ll just summarize the four questions and

What we’ll do is we’ll go around and just have each board member comment on one or possibly two of the questions that really stand out to them.

The goal being at the end to make sure that we’ve addressed these questions in a way that the staff and the proponent can take this feedback forward.

The first question is… Is the proposed project concept plan that we’re reviewing tonight. Is it providing adequate, usable and attractive public access that maximises the public use and enjoyment of the area.

And so there are some sub points that were highlighted to do with creating a sense of place.

Diverse activities Are we balancing? Is the proposal balancing the needs of the public Are there adequate microclimate considerations for users?

For example, wind protection, shade, so on and uh And the… community engagement process, a specific point here about will the project concept is presented, preserve the open horizon and the views from Marina Green. So that’s all bundled up under question one.

The second question really concentrates more on the connections to and through the public access spaces that we’re reviewing tonight.

The public’s use and enjoyment of the site. So maybe if you could really focus on other connections being optimized in the proposal and other potential conflicts or congestion points the pedestrian paths, parking lots, bike paths and what could be done to mitigate

Those conflicts if we see the conflicts there And then the third question, are there adequate support facilities proposed for water oriented uses?

And the support facilities that we would be considering, of course, parking and the vehicular circulation, the restrooms, equipment storage etc. And then does the project design adequately address resilience and future adaptation for sea level rise?

Now, I think we heard at the beginning of the proponent’s presentation that they anticipate coming back. So there’s definitely I think more.

The more data that we will have when we see the proposal again And more response to these questions of resilience an adaptation as needed.

I’m going to start with the our online team here Tom, do you want to just lead off with and address any one of those questions that really strikes you as being critical.

Some of them are interrelated, but you know it’s the location of open space relative to the shoreline, I guess.

Okay.

I feel like we didn’t get an adequate answer to Gary’s question.

Like why so much vehicular circulation so much parking in the shoreline band.

And I can understand it’s probably a very Hot button, but… I think we need to understand more. What is that hot button and are there no ways to Why is that such an overwhelming criteria here because normally Just like Gary said, you’d expect to see parking to the rear.

And see the public access maximized Unless somehow the parking is uh something more i don’t know. I don’t know. That part I don’t get. And then secondary concerns were uh I feel it seems like there’s a lot of questions to be answered about the fuel

Uh fueling. Location and safety and things like that. And third.

I feel like the… amount of sand in volleyball is out of proportion I agree with some of these comments out of proportion to the amount of green open space there, given that it’s kind of a at a premium. I’m all for recreation, but I feel like the

The sand somehow is… taken up a bit too much space.

Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Tom. We’ll go to Bob.

That’s all I’ve got.

Bob, do you want to weigh in on any one of these questions issues that strike you?

Yeah, I mean, I really agree with what Tom said about the fuel dock and sea scouts and also what Gary brought up and Tom mentioned about the parking on the marina green i I sense that this is a very touchy subject any kind of change can

Raise concerns about people. So I don’t mean to say I think that this is an easy topic necessarily but I do think it makes sense to move the Bay Trail back from the shore from the shore perspective of adaptation of that

Amenity with sea level rise i think One way to handle sea level rise is to accommodate some overtopping and flooding by moving things back from the shore And maybe also raising them Bye.

I also think that it would be, I think it would be nice if people could stand near the shore And not worry about conflicts with bicyclists and vice versa.

So for pedestrians that are running or on their own. So I kind of feel like the trail should be moved back. I do know people like to park there and You know, it’s a nice place to listen to music or whatever.

Else that people do in their cars. Depending on the hour of the day.

But I think it’s maybe that’s a little old school. Maybe it’s something that needs to be changed.

The fuel dock rings really true to me as somebody that’s worked around marinas and facilities.

Boats need fuel. If this is one of the only fuel docks around.

I haven’t studied this, but intuitively it makes sense that putting it over in the west harbor it might cause more problems?

Then it solves. And I think that’s particularly strange to me. I’m sure there’s something I don’t understand. She’s got some very You know, being a water person myself, not a sailor i think Sea Scout facilities are, I think it’s really important our children

And I think the adults get a lot out of it too. They need things to do.

And we’re by the water and it seems like a very healthy thing. So I would like to see the city County of San Francisco support.

That amenity. And then just jumping down to the uh… sea level rise thing, I think there really are no criteria provided. I appreciate the explanation. It’s not clear what actions are being taken.

Related to sea level rise in this presentation. So if the DRB is going to review this, I suggest there’s a few things that need to be included.

And the next topic, you know, or if not certainly the ECRB would like to, what are the datums used What are the elevations in a datum that I can understand?

Relative to the ocean. How is sea level rise being considered? What does it look like in the future? Will the Bay Trail be underwater?

Etc. And how do you adapt? I mean, what’s the plan?

So there’s nothing really provided that I saw that really indicates it has even been considered.

I don’t think that’s the case, but certainly if we are going to review this or someone is, there needs to be some information So those are my comments.

I don’t think I have. Oh, the one thing about the sand transport that is kind of a very interesting issue.

And also, again, I think the history is very interesting. And I think we’ve lost some context here.

There’s a lot of context but i think This is an iconic area, so I think a little more on the context.

Might be of interest. And might actually be of interest to all the real… talented and effective designers on the design review board.

Which is not really my area of expertise.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you bob we’ll Keep going and then we’ll just see how these threads are coming together. Leo.

Do you want to make some comments? Sure. Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the public for coming out. These projects are very challenging and it’s important that we hear everybody’s voices so thank you This project is so important to the city. This is one of our most important public spaces. It’s one of the most memorable. It’s what everybody

Thinks about, I think, when they think about San Francisco and certainly Just down the road, Chrissy Field shows what can happen with significant transformation of a waterfront.

The design team is great and super capable. So I do think for me, there are a couple of significant questions. I am very sympathetic to what Gary and Tom raised, I think that It is strange that the most recreation focused portion of our waterfronts

Is separated from the waterfront by parking and roads for its full length And it does get very congested. Those intersections on either side of the triangle Because of the odd geometry and the crossover of traffic, I’ve seen it many, many times, particularly when there’s events over it.

Fort Mason gets very, very overrun. The movement patterns are not obvious sometimes. And so, you know, people walking in the drive aisles and such So I do think it’s um more consideration. I think there are options probably to move the marina triangle closer to one side or the other of the waterfront without having to put the parking up against Marina Boulevard. I think there’s other ways to do it.

I think that’s very important. And I think also it would improve access to the waterfront for the public.

We have… neighbors and residents of the area who use the space. We have folks from all over the city. There’s so many programs that are run out on the green.

We have tourists, we have visitors. It’s a large and diverse group of users. And I think that the amount of options for usage seems like there needs to be more thought given into that. I think that there’s I think as the population of the city continues to grow and will continue to grow that

Demand from open space and how it can serve our public is going to continue to grow. So we really need to think about what those options might be.

I think that, you know, whether it’s sea scouts or supporting these uses is important. Most of the small neighborhood parks have community centers associated with them.

It’s a bit strange that this area does not have one.

I can imagine it would be very popular with the public and well supported.

And then, um. I think just in general, oh, and on the parking The dedicated spaces right now are the ones obviously closest to the waterfront for the boats boat owners and users.

I think it’d be worth thinking about how parking is dedicated to the boat users. I think there is a kind of preferential treatment for the boat users above and beyond everybody else in the public. And I think the convenience is important. I understand how that

The maintenance and equipping of the vessels is important, but I think we can find other ways to do that.

Oh, and one last comment. I think that for me, the spaces are still And this is probably in the course of development they still feel a little transitory for me. There are pathways.

And I think some consideration really about how people could occupy and use the spaces. So I would love to see more seating, more variations on types of seating.

That really kind of support and encourage people to linger and enjoy what is going to be transformed.

Thank you, Leo. Kristen.

I have a lot of questions and I don’t have a lot of coherent sort of recommendations. But I sort of think of there’s this story about two people are fighting over an orange They both want the orange and it turns out one person wanted the juice and the other person wanted the peel. So they both get to have what they wanted out of the orange.

And I think of design as sort of the opportunity to figure out how to have multiple users get what they would like.

And I can see from the materials that were shared about outreach. And it’s difficult to wade into conversations like this that have obviously been ongoing.

Rpd is incredibly thoughtful about how to design parks and spaces and be stewards of these spaces.

Definitely believe that there’s been a lot of thinking put into it.

Excellent team of design firms who are thinking about all of these things in very sophisticated ways.

And it strikes me that we’re hearing a lot from the folks who are sort of users of the waterfront in a more industrial commercial way that maybe didn’t have an opportunity to be as involved in that outreach or Potentially.

That’s question. It strikes me that one of the things that is so wonderful about San Francisco, I grew up sailing and paddling on the San Francisco Bay. And it’s true that these fuel docks are really important pieces of infrastructure. And it’s so great to stand at

These spaces and see all these boats out on the water and see the fishing boats going out. And the reason they can do that is because there are these pieces of infrastructure that support those uses like fuel docks, which are incredibly important for even sailboats need fuel, right? Everybody needs fuel.

So it also seems like that has been a little bit of an afterthought.

And it maybe shouldn’t be. I also realized that there’s the settlement from PG&E that probably has a you know limit to how much money can be spent in which ways and probably this solution about the kind of shallow cove is a way to meet the remediation needs in a more cost-effective way and so

I’m sure that’s why this solution has been decided and that the best use then of this shallow water area is for kayaking.

And so then potentially this solution doesn’t allow for dredging and maintaining this fuel dock in this location. And so I understand how all of those things can kind of come to a decision like what we see here.

So it does seem very important you know as a boater and hearing the public comment and you know to be honest, we rarely get this much public comment it’s really you know there’s obviously a lot of interest and sentiment in this issue

And it came across very clearly that the fuel dock and the opportunity of the sea scouts is really important.

Set of stakeholders in this area And I would love to see a way that the fuel dock can be maintained or moved in a way that is functional.

I’m a little confused by why people are worried about spaces for dogs when there’s this huge green to the west that seems like a great space for dogs.

The volleyball courts, there are lots of impromptu volleyball courts set up. There’s a whole big space here and we’re kind of only looking at this triangle and I’m assuming that that’s because people kind of like things the way that they are and there’s resistance to change there.

I would also just say that as somebody who comes to this waterfront every weekend and I literally walk this whole thing every weekend.

Marina Boulevard itself is this wonderful public space the street itself is this great public space and it’s really wonderful to be walking down that promenade and have the grass on the one side and the beautiful houses on the other and kind of enjoying that space.

From that promenade, your view is not really of the water. It’s of cars, parked cars.

And then you can see the hills in the distance. And I would think actually having some boats parked beyond the cars would be more scenic looking at a bunch of parked cars.

Or bringing people out closer to the waterfront and having those cars be next to Marina Boulevard. I can understand why there’s tension around some of those design choices but And again, this is a team that I’m sure has thought through all of these things.

So yeah, I guess, what am I trying to say? I think… If we want to see people continue to use the water the water.

Beyond just recreation, beyond paddling, we really need to support those types of uses, which require slips, which require slips that are affordable to people and which require fuel docks and other pieces of infrastructure like that.

It’s a ramble. That’s my ramble. Okay. Thank you. An excellent ramble.

We’ll come back to some of those points. Yeah, I agree. This is the most public participation we’ve had in a project probably in couple of years that I can remember.

And, you know, it’s not everybody’s been heard. So I think that point’s been made.

It’d be great to try to resolve some of these comments, including the wave organ kind of strikes me as a good one. Is it possible to do studies or to predict what is going to be the effect on the wave organ? Because that is an important monument in San Francisco.

Also wanted to mention a little bit Leo hit on a little bit, you know, the entrance to Fort Mason, you know, that big wide curb cut on the curve of Marina Boulevard there does create a lot of confusing congestion for pedestrians and

Cars and bikes already and i think that The triangle Park being more kind of intimately scaled than the Marina Green is going to probably get a lot of activity. So it’s going to, I think it’s going to intensify the circulation

In this area and so The other thing is that there’s There’s the marina grove we haven’t really talked about. I think that’s another destination that’s going to bring people into that you know very complicated circulation Nexus. And then in addition

Above Fort Mason, you know, you have the Fort Mason park So people coming from aquatic park are walking on that roadway and up over the big meadow and then down and then you’re kind of unceremoniously dumped onto the Laguna where it meets Marina Boulevard. It’s a very narrow sidewalk there are bikes

People, I mean, it’s such a such a difficult intersection there so I don’t know that we’re going to solve all that. I just want to bring it to everybody’s attention that the the you know it’s going to ripple out from here

It’s not just the triangle park i i think that intersection of Laguna and marina is a little bit problematic.

Everything else I think has been said here. I just want to say the When I look at the conceptual sections and then look at the render of the very green shoreline, I’m having a little bit of a disconnect and I’d love to see a section of how that really works.

Structurally, if it’s really possible. Because the image is really appealing, but then I kind of feel like maybe we’re not actually, it’s going to be hard to pull off.

And then finally, I think Bob didn’t mention that there’s all this historic debris because this was a fill area from the 1906 earthquake there are some classical columns that are sitting in the shallow basin that I saw the other day when I went by and i know that

North of the marina green at a very low tide, you used to be able to see all kinds of interesting things, you know, keystones and, you know, Corinthian column capitals. And I don’t know if it’s something washed, you know, further into the bay it seemed less

Visible when I was there last. But anyway, there’s definitely a story there that could be told.

So I think that’s it for me. Thank you. Yep. Thanks, Gary and um Thanks, everyone, for just weighing in on those with your priority, if you’d like, reactions to this.

I just want to pick up on A couple of points. I’m going to focus my comments here more on questions two and three, I guess.

And before I do that, I just want to step back a bit because This is actually one of my favorite places along the entire San Francisco waterfront and The reason that I really like it is the um i like the

Contextual setting to it you know um marina green Fort Mason.

We talked about some of the other places in the environment but when you are in this location is a very intimate place. And I think there’s something incredibly… important that respond to when you see them walking or see them

Bicycling you know along uh it really is a place that has a different character to it and and it’s associated with the boating and the marina and a whole range of other things.

I think the challenge with this is that When you look at it just as defined by the project site that we’re reviewing.

You look at it in a very specific almost it’s the inclination is to look at it as a in isolation almost from what’s immediately adjacent to it and And I think we can be To question three, you know, focused primarily on how the connections are being made

But perhaps not the primary question, which is you know what is the uh what is the fundamental nature of this place? Is it is it a Is it a series of important connections with you know important infrastructure Is it an important park in itself?

Is it something that everyone should put everything that they’ve ever wanted into you know or is it something that we should think about distributing you know, some of these very interesting possibilities across a broader landscape.

And I think, you know, the points that you guys were bringing up about the parking, balancing parking, where is it located? You know, can it be taken away from the edge i i I really agree with that. I suspect.

That going back to some of the the first question about the first question budget and and how do you spend your money effectively.

I’m sure there’s a lot that’s gone into how much can we move, take away, reconfigure versus what we bring in.

But I think for a space as important as this. And given everything we’ve heard tonight.

I think it is, I would like to see it some of these comments that you’ve made.

Just brought into bear in the next iteration of this design.

So that the concept may be maybe everyone doesn’t get exactly what they want.

But maybe the fundamental importance of this space in terms of meeting critical access criteria, critical connections and ensuring visibility to the bay which are out primary purviews as well as a good balance of uses is accomplished. I mean, I like

There are things that I really like about this concept. I like the establishment of a clearer plaza, the marina Grove space is currently named.

And I think the connection to Fort Mason is very critical. And at the moment, it’s not very well handled. The vegetation is really overgrown. There’s a narrow gateway that you walk through that doesn’t actually feel very safe. You know, if it was dark, I’m not sure I would want to walk through there.

You have… I’m not sure that the wayfinding for tourists is very clear. I mean, even as a local, if you don’t know this area very well you’re coming up over the Fort Mason Hill and coming down into Fort Mason coming, which is a very popular direction for people to be going in, heading towards the

Golden Gate Bridge, it’s not exactly clear what’s happening in this sort of mixing area. And maybe it’s fine for it to remain undefined. It mixes reasonably well most of the time. Sometimes it’s extremely busy and very sort of chaotic but uh

But I think… I think the just making sure that the connections at the eastern end of the I was the uh east bay here and bay here making sure that the connections at the West are accomplished adequately is important.

I like the i like creation of the nature exploration terrorists. I think, you know, it’s definitely widening that area which is very narrow at the moment from the standpoint of pedestrian walkway.

And so you know, that’s a good start.

It would be good to understand more about what the real required level of parking is in this area versus perhaps just keeping it as close to the existing count as possible. I know that it does get very busy at

You know, key times it would be good to look at that.

A couple of small points. I’m just going to mention it because I was very intrigued in the in, you know, in terms of user groups And what came out as being important and maybe this is important you know we have the fuel dock, which is such a critical infrastructure for the bay and

I would like to understand better you know uh white here why not here perhaps further east uh you know we have the in fact we reviewed the um the fire uh the new fire department what pier is that again that’s at um

35, 35? Firehouse, 35. Firehouse 35. Anyway, you know what I’m talking about but uh you know and south beach harbour marina you know we’ve got a whole dotted series of very important places where people need to fuel so I’m not quite sure exactly

You know why why Exactly. It’s critical versus other locations. And do we need more than one? You know, I mean, what is the situation and I think the point made by the the public comment speaker in relation to safety is really critical as well. And I’d like to understand more about that.

When we see it again.

You know, on question three, just a comment about support facilities you know again uh I think we should have.

As much water oriented uses as we can in this area.

And landside facilities are obviously required. But again, I think we have to be I’d like a lot of thought to go into, you know, at each point whether there’s uh

Whether this is starting to be filled up too much you know or not with all of those facilities. I do agree with the I think someone made about making sure that there’s still plenty of places to sit. We obviously need trash cans

And all the other things that I’m sure will be in the more detailed plans. There’s an excellent team on this project.

So I think that’s all I want to say. I’ll come back and just make a summary comment later on but I think there’s some… general agreement on a a lot of these issues from the board so I think we’ll pause there.

And do you want me to just make a short summary as well?

I will just sort of go down what I think we’ve all discussed tonight, not necessarily with strong recommendations but you know for the fuel dock location I think we’d like to understand why it is so critical that it be here, taking into account the historic

Associations with it and you know we’ve heard a lot about the importance of it. So like to really understand if it’s going to move somewhere Let’s have an agreed location for where it should be and make sure that the appropriate outreach has been done.

The Sailing use programs, you know, I just think So sad to see so sad the um The Sea Scouts building falling into the water around an aquatic park and so if there is some way to, in a new way looking forward to incorporate

Sea Scouts operations into this area, I think that would be, especially with the removal of the docs here you know that that would be a very exciting opportunity The adequacy of mud cover on the contaminated areas has been brought up a number of times. And again, I just think some

Clearer

Analysis or if you’ve done it just for people to understand the adequacy of that.

This is a very big project. I think everyone’s concern is that at the end.

It’s going to accomplish the objectives that you set out very clearly at the beginning of the presentation.

The sand buildup we we’ve and the potential for that to occur or not. It sounds like there’s technical studies there and it would be good to make sure that that’s thoroughly reviewed with the key stakeholders who are concerned about this before we see the project again.

There seemed to be some questioning, you know, are kayaks, do we want kayaks or not? I think one speaker spoke with about some concerns about that.

And again, I think it just comes back to managing the uses and the stakeholder groups and, you know, is that a use that can be accomplished here, which with the environment that exists here that makes sense. So some justification for that

I agree there seems to be plenty of areas for dogs to play in.

Obviously appropriate disposal areas are needed.

The question of volleyball courts, are there too many? I mean, it is… when you think of that scale relative to the existing fitness plaza which is actually quite a strong focal point as you come along Marina Boulevard and This is a big zone and it’s a use that is very popular and I think the question there really is

You know do you need three permanent three permanent volleyball courts or you know Is there still the ability to balance? I just think evaluating the stakeholders who are behind that use and just understanding more whether three is really the number would be helpful to us.

The adequacy of outreach, we hood the number of speakers.

Speak to the fact that they have not maybe don’t feel or have not had the the level of contact they would like to discuss their issues so maybe I would just suggest that there be some targeted outreach to continue with some of these stakeholders.

We talked about historical significance of the area and the wave organ. And again, I think these elements that are So, um.

Known to the community and the historical significance of this area is weighed into the concept as it continues to develop. So I’ll stop there but uh i I think that summarizes Our comments.

Can I… add a comment.

Sure, Bob, go ahead.

Yeah, you know, I had mentioned, I kind of alluded to historical aspects of the marina Just to clarify, just working on memory here.

There was at one point a waiting area on the far west end of the marina when it was originally or constructed or subsequently modified where people were to walk into the marina waters and for various reasons, including facilitation I don’t know that that ever really worked.

Also, the marina has changed size various times because it’s it’s fill And there are some old kind of lighthouse looking structures that at one point were the entrance and now is part of a fairway.

I just feel like there’s a number of those things. And of course, the wave organ, which I think is plugged with sand. Maybe it’s not now, but it has been in the past.

I think there’s just some really interesting aspects of this site.

That deserve some review for the context of the site in my So I just wanted to add a few more facts if those are correct.

To why I said that.

Yeah, that’s great, Bob. And I think… I think the proponents are making notes on this question about exploring the historical significance of a number of elements. Yeah.

Thank you. Okay. We can move to the proponent. Thank you.

Great. Well, thank you so much for all of the comments and considerations. And thank you also to the public.

I guess a couple of things that I just want to Really quickly, high level, I know it’s been a long long meeting already So the fuel dock, we had analyzed keeping it in its existing location The cost of that would be about $20 to $25 million. So there’s

That one had a clear economic financial reason for why we could not keep it there.

We looked at about 15 other locations in other parts of the East Harbour and the West Harbor and Moffat and Nickel led that review with our harbormaster. We also reviewed that with Bruce Stone of the Harbor Association and some

Members of the yacht Club. We are also, Wreck and Park is also eager to speak with the port about other potential locations for a fuel dock.

And I had spoken with the fire department, police department, and the Coast Guard The fire department has mobile fueling options. That’s what’s happening now with Hyde Street Pier closing.

So this is definitely a citywide problem. It’s a bay wide problem, but really a citywide problem and they seem to be closing I know at Oyster Point it closed, Berkeley Marina closed so Yeah, we’re doing our best and we’re continuing to to

Find the best solution that will not annoy everybody.

Then we have feasibility to the cover question, and Ryan can maybe speak up, but we have the feasibility studies were submitted to the water board They’ve reviewed them. Those are on our website as the project website, as well as the water board’s website

So hopefully answers to concerns around the toxic toxicity in the cap can be reference there, but we can also return with more information next time we come back to you.

I have met repeatedly with the Exploratorium and the artist of the wave organ, Peter Richards.

So he’s reviewed these plans. He’s on board with the understanding without the breakwater, the wave organ would become a beach. And that’s not ideal for him and it yes we do expect it to continue to function with despite the breakwater with these change conditions. And we’re looking forward to keeping him engaged as the plans develop.

Then let me see. Sea Scouts, right? This is wonderful news actually for me to hear some more context. I’d spoken with Maggie at length.

I didn’t realize the aquatic park facility was failing. I thought, oh, great, you’re at Aquatic Park.

That’s close enough. But yeah, we’re happy to work with them. I think Rick, I can’t speak for all of Breck and Park, but I know that We definitely are always looking for partnerships with community organizations and we understand the significance

Significance of the Sea Scouts. So I hope to contact Stephen Welch, I believe is his name.

Um and Great feedback on the volleyball. We’ll do more. We’ll do more research on this.

And parking as well. Thank you for that feedback i think so many iterations of this have happened over the Now, two years that I’ve been involved with this project but i think we’re I’m always happy to make it better if we can. So we’ll see what we can do there.

Yeah, I will, as was mentioned, a lot of people aren’t here that had spoken up against the project or for the project.

But happy to do we do outreach is ongoing for rec and park and for me. So most of these people that you’ve heard from have my contact information.

Happy to keep the conversation alive. And then, yes, thanks, Bob, for the references to all the historic features one of, you know, as a project manager, it’s like scope creep is real But we’re happy to include what we can. I’m sure there’ll be some signage.

I think some of the rubble and the remnants we hope to reinstall as riprap right so I think I’ll end there.

Thank you very much. And again, I just want to say you know recognize the hard work that the project teams put in. This is a very complex and a very important project so Thank you for all the hard work today. We’ll look forward to seeing you

Again, I usually ask the board if we should see the project again, but I think in this case it’s a given the project will come back to us.

With that, we’ll move to concluding the meeting. I’d like to entertain a motion and a seconder to… I will make a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Gary. Leo, second. Okay, thank you very much. All in favor?

Second.

Bye.

Bye.

All right. Okay. So the meeting is adjourned. Just want to thank everyone and particularly thank the people who took the time from people from the community who took the time to come here tonight and And make us aware of your concerns and interests. So thank you again

And thank you to the staff for all your hard work. Okay, see you next time. Thank you.