BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.18.0//NONSGML v1.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H X-Robots-Tag:noindex X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:UTC BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:UTC DTSTART:20220101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230911T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230911T170000 DTSTAMP:20240213T235013Z CREATED:20230912T062516Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235013Z UID:10000062-1694451600-1694451600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 11\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This meeting of the Design Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board Members are located at the primary physical location. If\, after a meeting notice or agenda is published\, a Board Member wants to change the location from which they originally planned to participate in the meeting\, that Member must participate from one of the noticed teleconference locations in the meeting notice or agenda (including the meeting’s primary physical location). Furthermore\, all noticed teleconference locations listed below must remain open and publicly accessible for the duration of the Board meeting regardless of whether any Board Member is actually at such location\, including the location originally listed by the Board Member who decided to change locations. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88589468132?pwd=MG9kbWlSYUdIUVZuVlArQkJScDNKdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID885 8946 8132 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for March 13\, 2023 (PDF) and May 8\, 2023 (PDF) Meetings\nStaff Update\nIndia Basin Shoreline Park Redevelopment Project\, City and County of San Francisco; Second Pre-Application Review (PDF)The Design Review Board will review the design by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department for its proposed India Basin Shoreline Park Redevelopment Project. The project would involve restoring and enhancing the existing\, approximately 5.6-acre India Basin Shoreline Park\, located at 900 Innes Avenue in the City and County of San Francisco. The redesigned park would include a large recreational pier and floating dock\, a large lawn\, a gravel beach\, shoreline pathways including a Bay Trail segment\, fitness and play areas\, basketball courts\, restrooms and parking\, and other amenities. This is the Board’s second pre-application review of the project.(Schuyler Olsson) [415-352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Summary\n Draft Summary of the September 11\, 2023 BCDC Design Review Board Meeting \n\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review. Design Review Board (DRB) Chair Jacinta McCann called the hybrid meeting to order on Zoom\, at approximately 5:00 p.m.DRB Board Members. Chair Jacinta McCann\, Bob Battalio\, Leo Chow\, Patricia Fonseca Flores\, Kristen Hall\, and Stefan Pellegrini were present in person.\n\nBCDC Staff. Ashley Tomerlin\, Yuriko Jewett\, and Schuyler Olsson were present in person.\nProject Proponents. David Froehlich (SFRPD); Christine Boudreau (Boudreau Associates\, LLC); Katherine Liss (GGN Ltd.); Chihiro Shinohara (GGN Ltd.); Katie Chamberlin (Anchor QEA); Sean Hart (Moffat & Nichole)\, Dilip Trivedi (Moffat & Nichol).\n\n\nStaff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update on the recently completed Bay Trail gap closure project along Doolittle Drive in East Oakland as part of MLK Regional Shoreline Park and new boat launch facilities. The DRB reviewed the East Bay Regional Parks District project back in 2016.\nIndia Basin Shoreline Park (Second Pre-Application Review). The project involves the redevelopment of the existing India Basin Shoreline Park. It would include building the park on a system of terraces\, with a sloping lawn in the center that would terminate at a gravel shore beach\, held in place by two Mixed-Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls. The Project would include a variety of site improvements and support diverse recreational and educational opportunities\, including walking/jogging\, bicycling\, fishing\, basketball and other sports\, nature viewing\, and outdoor picnics and barbecues. Water access would be provided at the gravel beach and at a large recreational pier and floating dock. The Project would also include shoreline recontouring\, shoreline protection\, and marsh creation and enhancement. The Project is eligible for funding under Measure AA from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority\, and the pre-application process is underway with the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team (BRRIT)\, an interagency team with representatives from BCDC and five other regulatory agencies\, to obtain agency feedback on the project design.\n\nStaff Presentation. Schuyler Olsson provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.\nProject Presentation. Katherine Liss\, designer with GGN\, Ltd. provided an overview of the project with a slide presentation. The presentation focused on the project goals\, background\, local context\, existing site conditions\, and a detailed description of the proposed project design.\nPublic Comment. Eight public comments were received for the project.\n\nLily Brown\, Transportation Planner\, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/Bay Trail (by email ).\n\nMTC appreciates the proposed gap closure and creation of a continuous shoreline trail experience along India Basin.\nWould like clarity of the proposed width of the Bay Trail through India Basin Shoreline Park. The trails in this area are likely to have a higher level of use due to the proposed amenities. MTC recommends that all Bay Trail segments be designed with a 26-foot width.\nMTC appreciates that the proposed project has many amenities. To add to the amenities for trail users\, consider adding drinking fountains with bottle fill stations as well as bicycle repair stations.\n\n\nJackie Flynn (now Jackie Bryant)\, Executive Director of A. Philip Randolph Institute (in person)\n\nSupports the project noting that SFRPD continues to capture community feedback on the project.\nIn terms of equitable development\, members have gone through trades programming to work on site or in other projects in San Francisco and work with youth programing.\nThe project is inspiring the next generation of park stewards. Everyone in the community are park people and they need park spaces. A tech hub/community innovation space was created to support this area. This space is essential to our community members. APRI plans to continue leading the way to bring community voices to the park project.\n\n\nElsworth Jennison\, neighborhood resident for 43 years (in person)\n\nMain concern is the project impact to habitat and would like to see it protected. Notes that the site currently hosts snowy white egrets and herons.\nThe proposed floating dock is not in a good location given the mudflats at the site that extends to Heron’s Head. India Basin Shoreline Park is unprotected and in mud. It is not safe for children. The 900 Inness site would be better for a dock.\nHas concerns regarding maintenance of the site. The boulders at Heron’s Head Park were exposed only six months after construction. The park would be best suited for green grass or walkways and not much more\, like Dolores Park.\n\n\nJill Fox\, India Basin Neighborhood Association/neighborhood resident (online)\n\nComments are her own and is not speaking on behalf of the association.\nLongtime neighbor and advocate for the park and is happy to see improvements are being made to the site. Noted that a neighborhood improvement is ultimately a regional improvement.\nFeels that access is important and there needs to be more parking. The availability of parking is not enough now\, and the new project appears to provide the same amount and will not accommodate growth. Currently\, people drive on the grass to get to the basketball court\, for example. Need to provide better bicycle access. Need to consider water access like water taxis connecting from the ferry building to the neighborhood. Better transit will allow for tourism. Support bikes and more bike parking further down into the site and near the program areas. Bikes are better for nature and the neighborhood.\n\n\nMaya Rogers\, San Francisco Parks Alliance (virtual)\n\nWorks on the Blue Greenway project and lifelong resident of Bayview Hunters Point and is showing support for the project.\nThe project transformation of the neighborhood and the equitable development plan supports the neighborhood\, it works for the community and the project. Creates spaces and preserves cultures\, welcoming to everyone. The balance developed by this partnership has created a synergy.\n\n\nSarka Volejnkova\, Trust for Public Land (virtual)\n\nTPL has been working for many years with SFRPD and Parks Alliance to design and implement this park\, along with the landscape architecture consultants. It is important to the community and an important landmark park for the City.\nNotes that the project will continue to provide recreational access to the waterfront especially along the south end of the community. The design is in line with what the community wanted and has many elements that were important to the community.\nAppreciates the access connected with this park and good to integrate water activities for San Franciscans and likes that the habitat areas are integrated into the design. The park is very usable by multigenerational visitors. There’s something for everyone to enjoy.\n\n\nStephanie Troyon\, San Francisco Parks Alliance\n\nAs a partner\, Parks Alliance has been working with SFRPD and others to implement the 13-mile Blue Greenway. This park is integral to the connections and will close a critical gap in the Bay Trail. The park will transform areas to a usable space.\n\n\n\n\nBoard Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation\n\nKristen Hall noted this is an area of low car ownership and asked for clarification of bicycle parking locations. The project team stated that bicycle parking for the project is proposed in three locations: near the “porches” near Hunters Point Boulevard; the turnaround area in the parking lot near the boathouse; and in the basketball court area.\nKristen Hall requested status of the soil on the site. Is remediation required? The project team stated that unlike the neighboring site at 900 Innes\, this area was not used for industry and shipbuilding. The filled lands here were always for park use and soil testing showed that the site did not require remediation.\nKristen Hall commented that it appears that the connection from India Basin Shoreline Park to Heron’s Head Park will flood by 2050. How will this connection be maintained? SFRPD stated they are working to partner with property owners (PGE\, Port\, and private owners) to coordinate maintenance of continuous access\, but details are not available yet. The project goal has always been to have the site read as one continuous shoreline.\nBob Battalio commented that the floating dock will be exposed to waves probably up to 2-to-3 feet\, much larger than what you experience in a marina\, for example. Is the design of the dock able to withstand these conditions? the project team stated the stability of the floating dock has been reviewed by the coastal engineer and it should withstand such conditions.\nBob Battalio asked whether the team considered a less lawn-like space between the Bay Trail and gravel beach? Waves can push gravel up and have it flatten-out and in nature there is often a transition zone. The gravel beach could be larger and travel further upslope. The project team stated they had looked into it and can look into it again.\nSeveral Board members had clarifying questions related to the Bay Trail\, including connectivity to the adjacent 900 Innes site\, grade transitions\, materiality\, trail width and specific amenities that the project will provide along the trail. The project team stated there is a smooth transition between the two parks and the trail has grades of approximately 4%. Materials include exposed aggregate paving in both parks. The width ranges from 12 feet to 14 feet with 2- foot shoulders on each side. There will be fixed benches along the Bay trail.\nStefan Pellegrini asked if there has been coordination between the improvements being made to the right-of-way in this area and the frontage of the park. The project team stated there will be a new sidewalk at the frontage of the park and that is included in the scope of the project. Raised crosswalks and curb ramps at Hudson and Hunters Point are also part of this project in partnership with DPW; MTA is currently implementing a road diet pilot project with K-Rails and a multiuse path on each side as part of the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. PGE is also implementing work along Hunter’s Point Boulevard that will result in right-of-way improvements; and The 700 Innes development project is required to make streetscape improvements in this area\, including new curb rumps\, raised crossings\, and signalized intersections.\nStefan Pellegrini requested clarification of other amenities the project will provide related to water access at the site beyond the boathouse and dock. The project team stated the project will provide a boat washing station. Feasibility of providing open water swimming is being discussed with stakeholders\, and SFRPD is working with the Port to develop policies related to fishing. Heron’s Head currently offers fishing and there is a desire to continue that program at India Basin Shoreline Park as well.\nPatricia Fonseca Flores asked for clarification on the adaptive capacity of the pier and floating dock; what is the life span of the materials for the dock? The project team stated the materiality of the floating dock has been designed for a 50-year lifespan.\nLeo Chow asked how much seating is provided along the Bay Trail. Formal seating is important\, and a bench count is important. The project team stated there are benches along the Bay Trail\, as well as the nature pathways throughout the park. Benches provided on intermediate pier\, where paths cross\, and seating is provided adjacent to program entry. Count: 37 benches including swings.\nLeo Chow requested further detail on the windy conditions at this site\, especially in the late afternoons. Is there a digital analysis of this condition available? The project team stated the site can be windy at times with winds coming from the west. The decks are level with the street\, however there is a 4 to 5-foot grade change to the lawn area so that the landform will provide protection as you make you way to the water. Programs such as the basketball area and the playground are on lower terraces\, tucked into the slope to allow for more comfort from the wind. The team has not modeled the site digitally for wind and there is no wind consultant on the project.\nLeo Chow expressed concern about the geese at the site and requested clarification for how this will be addressed with the new design. The lawn should be useable and other projects reviewed by the Board have identified the difficulty of managing geese population. The project team acknowledged there is a geese population at the park now. The project team will have to investigate this topic more as it relates to maintenance.\nJacinta McCann requested clarification for arrival zones at the site. It appears the same number of parking spaces are provided\, but the project is aiming for a lot more activation. While activation is a good thing\, understanding how sports teams\, large parties of people carrying heavy things\, will transition to using the site is a concern. The project team stated the parking lot will have 24-26 spots and there is turn around for drop off. Dropoff at 900 Innes site is also possible. There is also on-street parking along Hunter’s Point Boulevard to the south. The project team is working with community/MTA to implement a shuttle program to better connect the neighborhood. MTA will be the agency to plan and implement the transit stops.\nJacinta McCann clarified that native planting is proposed for the site\, but asked if the park will have irrigation. How will the planting be maintained? The project team stated that irrigation is included with the design and the maintenance building at 900 Innes site and will serve both parks.\nJacinta McCann asked if there is an education program planned for the site? The project team stated there is a special events and programming plan required as a condition of the BCDC permit for the 900 Innes site. The shipwright cottage community center serves as the visitor center. There will be a community classroom and a shop building to accommodate community activities\, arts\, and crafts\, etc. All of the open spaces have potential to be programmed. SFRPD is still working on logistics and whether the programs will be implemented with inhouse or with outside vendors.\nJacinta McCann requested clarification on the planting categories and if a tree list will be included and if they will also be native species. The project team stated the trees will be native species and a list will be provided in a later submittal.\nJacinta McCann asked if the park is fully funded? The project team stated the project is close to reaching its goal. The India Basin Waterfront Park initiative consists of both sites to make up one park and totals approximately $200M. This includes $15M for the development and implementation of the equitable development plan. 85% of the initiative has been funded so far. The 900 Innes phase is fully funded and the shoreline park that we are reviewing now is close to 80-90% funded.\n\n\nBoard Discussion. The Board discussed how the project addresses the seven objectives for public access found in the Public Access Design Guidelines\, provided feedback on the proposed public access improvements with respect to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise\, and environmental justice and social equity\, and addressed the staff questions listed below.The seven objectives for public access are:\n\nMake public access PUBLIC.\nMake public access USABLE.\nProvide\, maintain\, and enhance VISUAL ACCESS to the Bay and shoreline.\nMaintain and enhance the VISUAL QUALITY of the Bay\, shoreline\, and adjacent developments.\nProvide CONNECTIONS to and CONTINUITY along the shoreline.\nTake advantage of the BAY SETTING.\nEnsure that public access is COMPATIBLE WITH WILDLIFE through siting\, design\, and management strategies.Staff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration:\n\n\nDoes the project successfully complete the India Basin shoreline system in a cohesive and inviting manner?\nAre park programs and spaces sited so as to minimize potential conflicts between the design objectives and planned uses?\nAre the scale and design of the water-oriented public access features (gravel beach\, associated Marineway wall\, and recreational pier and floating dock) necessary and appropriate for the success of the water access objective?\nAre the water access elements designed in a way to minimize future required maintenance needs?\nDoes the shoreline protection strategy adequately address current and future site resilience? Is there opportunity to use more natural and nature-based shoreline protection features in areas where riprap is proposed?\n\n\nSummary of Key Issues and Board Comments\n\nOverall Site Design\n\nBoard members agreed that the project successfully completes the India Basin Park Shoreline. General comments included that the design is thoughtful and appears to be built on a community process to meet the design goals on a small site.\nThe Board agreed that pulling the hardscape inland from the shoreline edge makes for an attractive design.\nThe Board appreciated the programming of the site\, underscoring that basketballs won’t bounce into BBQ areas for example. The concept to “stack” the programs throughout the park works and helps protect activities from the elements such as wind.\nThe Board noted that the sightlines to the water were generous and that the ability to get to the shoreline was clear. Better understanding how the sightlines work at night was requested\, there could be some safety concerns for some areas.\n\n\nSite Arrival Zones\n\nThe Board expressed concern around the arrival zones of the park\, specifically noting that large groups arriving at the site will have a difficult time getting to where they need to go. Sports teams\, large parties for picnics arriving by car will have a lot of distance to travel across the lawn area. The drop off area near the boat house does not seem sufficient for vehicle access.\nOne Board member noted that part of the adventure of visiting a park is to travel there; no one wants to picnic right next to a restroom or parking area. Consider ways to make that long journey more successful with key elements that provide smaller moves of activation or elements for play on the lawn\, such as the red chairs at Presidio Tunnel Tops\, or example.\nThe curbside access with the K-rail and temporary bike path that is there now also seems to invite conflict of users getting to the site. Board members requested that be looked at again since the condition is part of a pilot program.\nAnother Board member noted that the upper section of the park appears to feature a lot of secondary paths\, potentially creating superfluous movements that don’t have the same meaning as intended.\nThe Board appreciated the coordination with other agencies and emphasized how important timing of the implementation of the overall improvements will be key with the opening of the park.\n\n\nBay Trail\n\nThe Board discussed the Bay Trail width and if it is sufficient for the site. Board members noted that the Bay Trail is an offroad condition that the city bicycle network does not always offer. There are design moves the project could do to slow the bikes down and better share the trail with slower moving travel\, while the city bike route could be the “faster” mode of travel. A narrow trail can accomplish this\, but too narrow and there will be conflicts with a variety of modes sharing one trail. The Board recommended not going less than 20 feet to avoid creating user conflicts.\nThe Board noted the proximity of the playground and the Bay Trail and the Hudson ROW and making sure there’s a way to keep these programs separate. Not necessarily fencing\, but planting and other methods of containment could be accomplished here. The Board also suggested moving the trail upland in the lawn area to create a better edge condition and help mitigate conflicts between habitat and public access; it is important to get this balance correct.\n\n\nPublic Dock\n\nFeedback on the dock were generally favorable\, noting that boating is an opportunity for community stewardship of the park. There are few opportunities to get people out that far on a dock. Offering the opportunity to picnic at the end of the dock for example is a unique feature and not present at most parks in the city.\nThe Board expressed concerns regarding the stability of the dock in this location due to waves and requested further study.\n\n\nShoreline Protection\n\nThe gravel beach seems too narrow and the Board recommended possibly expanding it. The EcoAtlas shows an extensive beach for this area of the Bay\, and here it is between two walls. If the paths and trails are set back even further you will have more success to get the ecotone in there now and provide scrub brushes as a buffer between the lawn and beach.\nThe Board felt that the shoreline protection seems reasonable; it does provide a hard edge to establish the upper planting area and the park could go with a low- risk adaptation scenario on the elements that are outboard of Bay Trail.\nThe Board also noted that the Marineway walls seem like a big investment. Another thing to consider here is that the walls may reflect some of the strong waves to other shorelines. If that wall goes in\, the patterns of sediment in that cove may change in unforeseen ways but the walls are necessary to frame the beach and maintain beach material.\nThe Board felt the beach will be a popular recreational site.\nWhile the PGE site is adjacent to the park and outside the scope of this project\, it is worth noting that it is a critical piece of shoreline that can connect the India Basin neighborhood to Heron’s Head. There is an opportunity for a gravel beach and back beach area at that parcel. A Board member recommended looking at the overall habitat programming for this section of shoreline and weighing the benefits\, a gravel beach at this location would help protect marsh at that site.\n\n\nLandscape and Planting\n\nThe Board encouraged the project to seize the opportunity for nurturing park stewardship through volunteer programs to enhance the native planting and engaging the community during construction.\nThe Board requested the project better analyze the distribution of shade throughout the park\, such as shade structures in the BBQ area and especially encourage further study of the trees.\nRelated comment regarding soil amendment and understanding the salinity of the site. Large gaps can be created through the loss of 2-3 trees so maintaining plant health will be essential to success.\nThe Board also requested that the appropriate caliper trees are budgeted to allow for immediate wind protection and long-term success. While striving for a complete native palette is a good goal\, note that the melaleuca trees on site are healthy and while not native\, are providing good protection now.\n\n\n\n\nComments from Project Proponents\n\nThe project proponents clarified that while the comment to provide a gravel beach to enhance the connection between India Basin Shoreline Park to Heron’s Head is a thoughtful one\, this area is not in the scope of this project.\nConcerns of managing the geese in the lawn area have been heard and will continue to be studied by SFRPD.\n\n\nConclusion and Meeting Adjournment. The Board stated the project has completed its Board review and design refinements can continue at the staff level. Board member Kristin Hall moved to adjourn the meeting. Board member Bob Batallio seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/09-11_DRB-Audio.mp3\n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \n[ZOOM LINK HERE] \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID[ZOOM ID HERE ] \nPasscode[ZOOM PASSWORD HERE] \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-11-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230807T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230807T170000 DTSTAMP:20240213T225743Z CREATED:20230808T061539Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T225743Z UID:10000061-1691427600-1691427600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 7\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This meeting of the Design Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board members are located at the primary physical location. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84698619387?pwd=Q2xuV0dSOFJlaTBKKzJMQlp2ZDFadz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID846 9861 9387 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for December 12\, 2022 (PDF) and April 10\, 2023 (PDF) Meetings\nStaff Update\n1301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; First Pre-Application Review (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold its first pre-application review of the proposal by Four Corners Properties to redevelop a 6.91-acre site with a life sciences campus at 1301 Shoreway Road in the City of Belmont\, San Mateo County. The project proposes to demolish the existing four-story office building on site and construct two 7- to 8-level office/R&D buildings and a 9-level parking garage. The project proposes both on-site and off-site public access improvements\, including constructing a new sidewalk along Sem Lane to provide public access from Shoreway Road to the shoreline\, widening the Belmont Creek Trail\, and refreshing the landscape with seating areas and trail serving amenities.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nSan Leandro Shoreline Development Project\, City of San Leandro\, Alameda County; (Fourth Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold their fourth pre-application review of a proposal by Cal Coast Companies\, LLC and the City of San Leandro to redevelop the San Leandro Marina and surrounding land. The proposed project would include a waterfront park\, hotel\, restaurant\, residential and condominium buildings\, and a commercial building. The project has undergone significant design and land use changes since the second review in 2016.(Jessica Finkel) [415/352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording & Transcript\n \n \nMeeting Transcript \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, are we ready to go? \nOkay. Good evening. My name is Gary Strang. I am the vice chair of the B. C. DC. Design Review Board. I’m going in tonight for just into the can who could not be here. But she sends her regards\, especially to the new Board members \nwho are joining us tonight for the first time\, Leo Chow\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: and so \nShe wish she could be here. But she is following along. \nDRB Meeting Room: we are located at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and those who are participating online. Our first order of business is to call the role board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. So\, Ashley\, please feel free to call a roll \nacting chair\, strain. present board\, member or not present board member\, Chow. \nboard\, member leader here. board\, member Pellegrini present. \nBcbc. Staff attending tonight\, or myself\, Ashley\, Tamerlan. Kerry Jewett\, Kathryn\, Pan Shutti\, Sinha\, and Jess Sinkle. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, thank you\, Ashley. We have a quorum presence. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nand I appreciate everyone’s patience as we go through some protocol for everyone online and in the meeting room\, please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nfor board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it is on\, so everyone can see you for members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period. That is part of an agenda item\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nFirst\, if you are here and with us in person\, we’ll ask you to form a line near the podium. If you wish to make a public comment. Speaker\, cards are available at the door. You asked to come up to the podium one at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation. Prior \nproviding comments during the meeting. After all of the individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely the second way\, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hands in the zoom. \nIf you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised. \nDRB Meeting Room: Finally\, if you are joining our meeting via phone. You must press Star 9 on your keypad \nto raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. you will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised. \nDRB Meeting Room: After you’re called on you will be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nPlease state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of the remark. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nDRB Meeting Room: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We’re here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. \nbut everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. It will not tolerate hate\, speech threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time with it \nwithout permission for public comments. If you’re attending online. Please note. we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you’re attending the medium. The meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists. Audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced to individual panelists. Videos. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties\, list to be notified of future meetings \nconcerning these projects. Please call her email Ashley\, Tom Orlyn. His contact information is on the screen or is found on the Cdc’s website. \nDRB Meeting Room: Finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting post Yuri\, our Bctc. Staff \nare acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the next order of business is to approve the \nthe minutes from the previous 2 meetings or \nDRB Meeting Room: and so board members. We’ve all been given draft minutes of our December twelfth \n2\,022 meeting and a draft summary of our April the eighth\, 2\,023 meeting. Are there any comments or corrections that anyone would like to make? \nDRB Meeting Room: I would appreciate? \nYes. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, so let’s go ahead with comments. this would just be for the board members who attended those meetings. Obviously. \nDRB Meeting Room: Stefan. \nanyone else? No\, comments. \nCf\, I so since I had a comments minor comment\, crafting some language. see? \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. She gave me a comment. But I’m not sure which of the meeting notes \nfirst 2. She had made a general statement \nDRB Meeting Room: chair. Mccann mentioned that this was very sad. I think we were saying goodbye to \nAndre. At this point she said\, \nDRB Meeting Room: She mentioned that this was a very sad evening for everyone on the Drp. And she stated the Graphic that you have shared\, and she lined out \nand replaced it with clearly shows \nDRB Meeting Room: the incredible impact that you have had on the Dr. B’s work. So minor. But \nit’s important to crop that line. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you didn’t get that\, we can catch up on it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. \nSo like to make a motion to adopt the minutes\, then can someone make a motion \nDRB Meeting Room: move to the \nokay\, and if there are no no issues with that\, then the minutes will be approved and amended as noted. \nDRB Meeting Room: And now the Board Secretary will provide staff update. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Chair. \nI’m going to keep this brief tonight. Thank you. To the Board members who attended the July 20 sixth they adapt Briefing staff\, found it to be an incredibly rich conversation\, and we look forward to working with the boards as the projects develop \nfor newly reopened public access. Foster City Phase 2 is now open\, and Phase 3 is on track for opening later this month. This time there are approximately 4 and a half of the 6 and a half miles available for public use. \nDRB Meeting Room: The picture shown is one of the levy access trails. \nOur next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, September eleventh\, and will be a hybrid meeting here at Metro Center we will be holding our third review for the India\, based in Shoreline Park and our first review of the proposed office development site in Oakland. \nThat concludes the B. Cdc. Staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. \nthere is none. So we can move on to the next item. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, the next item is public comments for items not on tonight’s agenda. We’ll start with those members of the public and our headquarters building here today. Please form a line near the podium. If you have a public comment. \nAfter all\, the individuals who are present make their comments. We’ll call on those participants who are attending remotely. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: seeing no comments here in the room. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment. \nplease raise your virtual hand. Remember\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press\, star 9\, and your keypad. Raise your hand to make a comment to mute or unmute press\, star 6. It will be called on. Your your hand was raised\, and you will have 3 min to speak \nhere. You will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your comments \nDRB Meeting Room: just mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties\, list to be notified to future meetings. \nPlease call or email. Actually. \nDRB Meeting Room: we have no public comments here. \nDRB Meeting Room: In that case we can move on to the first review of \nproposed Project 1\,301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development in the city of Belmont. in San Mateo County. \nDRB Meeting Room: The first review \nand just to remind everybody of how the meeting is scheduled\, they’ll be \nDRB Meeting Room: Dcdc. Staff introductions. \nA project proponent presentation followed by clarifying questions from the Board. A period of public comment \nDRB Meeting Room: which will then be followed by a board discussion and summary. \nand then an opportunity for the project proponent to briefly respond. \nDRB Meeting Room: And so with that. DC. DC\, permit analysts. \nIntroduce the project. 50. \nThank you. Acting chair Strang\, and good evening board members. My name is Shutti Sina. I am a permit analyst at BC. DC. The first project for review tonight is a Life Sciences Redevelopment project in Belmont\, proposed by 4 Corners properties \nDRB Meeting Room: before we discuss the project\, we would like to begin by acknowledging that the majority of the land in this area was once water in historic tidal flats located near lantern\, the unseeded ancestral homeland of the ramitous Olone. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay Area. \nDRB Meeting Room: 1\,301. Shoreway is a 6.9 one acre site at 1\,301 shore road in the city of Belmont\, San Mateo County\, just outside the Redwood Shores waterfront Community. \nThe project site is bounded by Sam Lane to the northwest Shoreway road to the southwest. a Pg. And E. Substation to the south and the Belmont Creek to the east. \nThe site shares the Belmont Creek shoreline with 10 twin Dolphin and 200 twin dolphin\, both recently reviewed by the Drb. In 2 in 2\,022 \nShoreway road is adjacent to\, and runs parallel with Highway 101. \nDRB Meeting Room: The existing permit for the project site \nB. C. DC. Permit number M. 1\,981 point 6 4 point 0 2 was originally issued on May eighteenth\, 1\,982\, in association with the construction of \na 48\,000 square foot building\, which is now a medical offices building. The permit was amended once for construction of a private sports court and the overall public access requirements of the permit include \nappropriate landscaping a 10 foot wide\, pedestrian path\, no fewer than 3 benches. no fewer than 2 public access signs and an 8 foot wide connector path on the north side of the tennis court or the Sports Court. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a Google Street view capture of the site from Shoreway Road. To this\, to the right\, you can see the vehicular entrance of the site\, and a 4 story. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry \nthis. This \ncapture is taken from Highway 101\, which runs parallel to show railroad. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is another Google Street view capture of the site from Semlene to the right you can see the parking lot of the 1\,301 Shoreway campus. To the left is the pedestrian entrance to the the trail from Sam Lane. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a photo of the Belmont Creek at the site from a staff visit \nlast year. The building on the left is the existing building on the former oracle campus across the creek. \nDRB Meeting Room: This slide provides some regional context for parks and public access areas. The existing Bay trail alignment is shown as a green line. The Belmont flew as a light blue Line \nHighway 101 and Highway 82 as dark blue lines\, Cal. Train as the pink line and nearby parks in green. \nDRB Meeting Room: With respect to the social setting of the project location. The area is largely dominated by office buildings \nand B. Cdc’s vulnerability mapping tools shows the project area as having moderate social vulnerability associated with lower contamination vulnerability. In this area\, the social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile are for people with no vehicle\, people with a disability. People of color\, people with limited English proficiency\, and people with very low income. \nNote that there is some. There is an area to the West that has a higher social vulnerability. Vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile. For this area includes children under 5 people over 65\, and alone\, people with no high school degree people with limited English proficiency\, and people who are not Us. Citizens \nDRB Meeting Room: moving on to sea level rise. \nI note that Belmont Creek is a tidal waterway and using current site elevations. This map\, with the projects I outlined in red shows that shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remain unchanged \nfor the medium to high risk aversion. Scenario 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level\, which would also not cause any flooding on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site if unchanged. \nHere the project site is outlined in yellow\, but the medium to high-risk aversion scenario 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the 100 year storm at mid-century\, and mean higher high water in the year 2\,090\, \nDRB Meeting Room: and you can see that there is inundation throughout the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: To conclude this introduction\, we’ve summarized the Bay Plan policy and guideline questions that apply to this project. In addition\, we have also included some questions by staff that we would like the Board to consider. \nPlease note that the staff report had identified the proposed courtyard as publicly accessible. However\, the project team has indicated that the courtyard would\, in fact\, be private. \nDoes the Board have any clarifying questions at this point? \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s like no questions. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. With that I will hand it over to rich Ying of 4 Corners properties to present the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hello\, everyone board members and staff. My name is rich in the 4 Corners representing Project ownership. \nRene here\, will go through to the presentation on me. I’m just going to give a pref and trump \nDRB Meeting Room: with me in person. Here are Renee Connor and Daniel\, from SW. A. \nCraig\, from Dga. Raquel\, from Bkf. Villa\, from Moffat Nichols. \nDRB Meeting Room: and I think joining us remotely\, is Karen and Dj. As well. \nDRB Meeting Room: So before I turn over to Rene\, who will go into the project details\, I just wanted to give a brief overview of who we are. So 4 corners started almost 20 years ago. \nAnd since inception we’ve been Bay\, area-based and B area focused. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, our ownership. History \nhas solely been concentrated on the Bay Area from San Francisco to San Jose. In fact\, one of my partners and I are both barrier born and very raised. So you know\, we have a pretty \ndeep commitment to building high-quality projects in our backyard \nDRB Meeting Room: for context. We purchased the property back in December of 21 with our capital partner. and since then we’ve been working with the city \nand B Cdc. Staff on the design and necessary approvals for each relevant component and I just wanted to note that while nobody from the Sbca\, I don’t think is on tonight. Remotely\, we did forward a letter to staff \nfrom Sbca. Endorsing there. support for our \nDRB Meeting Room: proposed improvements. \nAnd with that I’ll turn over to Rene. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, if I got that part Russian\, easy \nGood evening. Distinguished Commissioners\, board members\, and BC. DC. Staff. My name is Renee Bian\, managing partner of SW. A. San Francisco \nstudio. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s an honor to present the 1\,301 Shoreway project this today. This evening. \nI represent one small part of a team that I think has a very deep bench in this area. And if questions get technical later on\, we may have to call some of those \nto the mic. I’d also like to give a warm shout out to Shrew T. And Ashley\, who’s been great thought partners for us over the last several months and highly professional in guiding us through this process. \n13 or one sure way\, I’ll try to not be too redundant with the overview that Truty gave. But It’s in the city of Belmont\, and it’s adjacent to the Belmont Creek site as shrew teeth navigated \nthe site\, although our site itself is fairly small\, I think it combines beautifully with both the 200 twin dolphin site and the 10 twin dolphin site kind of\, you know the parts adding up to a a bigger whole. \nsuper. Important to recognize that. Our site is\, in fact\, the on the creek side\, and it does not correct. Connect directly to the larger bay trail system. However\, with the advantage of 200 twin dolphin and 10 twin dolphin\, it will connect through those those sites. \nDRB Meeting Room: also. to note that. the site\, the DC DC jurisdiction area is only half owned by our client. 4 corners. The other half is owned by Sbc. A. And as Rich said\, they’ve been very supportive. And albeit last minute they did draft a very supportive letter today. \nother kind of important contextual things is that to the west some lane is a private street owned by the city of Belmont. To the east is the Pg. And E. Substation quite an unsightly mess. \nand then we have both the one one freeway and shoreline to the south. As Shruti mentioned\, the site was originally approved in 1\,981\, and then in 1\,985\, a modification to add up a tennis court adjacent to the site. \nagain\, the trail head for our site begins currently at the end of Sam Lane. There’s a small sign and a \ntrailhead. However\, there’s no public walkway that connects from Shoreway to the trail head itself. The site will eventually\, as I said\, connect to the north side of the creek itself\, and from the north side will have connections both through the 200 twin Dolphin and the 10 twin dolphin projects. \nDRB Meeting Room: oops. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry. existing condition of the site. You know. I’m just gonna be frank. It’s not great. the in addition to the 101 freeway and Shoreway Road. There’s a 70 foot wide. Utility easement to the south side of the site. The Pg. And e substation is is currently \nonerous\, to say the least. Some lane only has one access into the existing surface parking lot. And again\, the current access to the actual trail head is is not great. \nimages from the 101. There are no indicators that there is\, you know\, a a water body\, natural system from the 101 itself \nas you get in a little closer to one I want sure way. same thing. You know\, it’s about 5 to 600 feet from Shoreway to the actual trail itself\, and there are no visible indicators that really show you\, you know. \nGo here\, so to speak. the site itself in the upper right that is the trail head and the sign. But again\, no public access to that trail head \nThe creek is. The condition is currently. you know\, pretty much in disrepair\, with the benches and the trash and the other amenities overgrown. And even that vegetation\, you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: implemented several decades ago\, is not\, is not great. the. It’s also\, I think\, a little bit of an incoherent Site plan in terms of There are not enough indicators to help clarify. You know\, the directionality of the path. How do you get from one place to the other. the shaping of the spaces. Everything feels just a little bit hunky\, Tonk\, and maybe not\, as on par with the other amenities that we see in the Bay area for this this level of of site. \nDRB Meeting Room: this is the flood map and we covered that briefly. But I want to give my oops. \nSorry\, a quick indicator of numbers here and again\, if there are specific technical questions\, we can come back to that. But the creek. Yeah. The creek trail itself \ncurrently meets a resiliency standard to mid-century based on a king tide of 7 9 plus 2 feet sea level rise. So worst case scenario 9.9. \nThe Belmont Creek is currently at 11 to 11.8 feet in elevation\, which exceeds the 9.9 the trail can be adapted to handle the 1 100 year storm event. \nand for good measure we’re proposing to raise it to 12.2\, so existing building is it 15. Existing elevation of the shoreline is 11 to eleven-five\, and the trail fluctuates from 10.9 to 11.5 in its existing condition. \nSo we’re going to switch a little bit to talk about flood adaptation\, and how we intend to address that both short term and long term. first of all along the creek itself\, as I said\, for good measure. \nwe’re going to raise the trail to 12.5 from its current standard of 10.9 and 11.5. The building elevations will be set at 12 per the city of Belmont and we’re also going to do some shaping to the berm that I’m gonna get to here. \nDRB Meeting Room: So left to right\, I’m I’m sorry. In the upper right hand corner you’ll see some section keys\, and if you follow the those through the series of sections\, it should be pretty clear what we’re doing. So building pads are going to elevation 12 existing curb and gutter to remain at 10.3 and then the trail and the planted area\, and the \nhead of the berm itself will raise to 12.5 at the high level \nDRB Meeting Room: next section. Cut a little bit further down as you’re into that proposed courtyard itself. the again. The berm will be elevated from it’s currently at 11 2 to 12.5. \nThe Graphic is a slightly off on on this one. If you read the the actual numerical at 12\, it should be 12.5. It looks a little bit higher than that. I apologize. But \nDRB Meeting Room: Then the section at the garage itself\, again elevating the levy to 12.5\, and keeping the building at 12 and existing courtyard fluctuates with that flow of the grading itself. \nlong term\, and for that 2\,100 mark we feel that there’s plenty of room to build up to the high\, high level of. We have about 50 feet to deal with\, and which gives us enough time enough room to burn up\, to get the access to the site\, and then to return back before we hit the downslope to the creek itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: So\, switching now to a program and kind of the amenities package\, so to speak. \nstarting back at Shoreway. we are proposing to add a 6 foot wide sock sidewalk. with proper signage at the intersection of Sam and Shoreway. \nThe walk continues all the way down to the site itself\, where you’ll meet a improved trail head\, 10 bite parking stalls\, 3 vehicular parking stalls\, and then a series of both passive and active seating nodes along the trail itself at a rhythm of about 100 150 feet each. \nDRB Meeting Room: so the signage again\, both pulling it out to Shoreway Boulevard. I think\, particularly for hotel guests in the adjacent room. That’s where they’re gonna want to kind of see it and kind of pick it up and go down to it\, and then improving the signage and bringing more of an informational signage to the trail\, head itself at the creek. \nSo existing condition. where then? Not a through street sign is to the right will be the new walkway to the left\, at the hotel that walkway does not continue all the way down. \nso it would be 6 foot high side walkway. And again the informational graphics \nDRB Meeting Room: and a planting buffer between the walkway and the proposed building. \nDRB Meeting Room: once you get to the trail head itself. As I said\, there’s a series of different nodes. One is kind of to build on that existing athletic program nodes. So a bicycle repair station\, obviously bike parking\, but also kind of high quality exercise stations in half of the nodes that are being provided. \nThe other half of the nodes will be more passive seating node for bird watching. Or you know\, quiet phone calls You know\, we want this to be a a trail and an amenity that’s for people of all ages and all economic groups. we want it to be inclusive. So we’re we’re proposing as much variety as we think is kind of reasonable on the the site here. \nBut also\, you know\, the nodes aren’t one-liners. Obviously\, if there’s exercise stations\, it’ll be paired with a quality seating that gives people good orientation\, not just to the creek\, but to the to the surrounding landscape \nDRB Meeting Room: again\, you know just a so simple and accessible node next to the adjacent path\, and looking down the the slew itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the fourth node is slightly larger\, and it would include\, obviously\, community\, more community style tables and chairs where people could have meetings or \nhave their launch\, or\, you know\, do something that’s a little bit more socially engaged \nDRB Meeting Room: just a slight blow up of these areas again that as you’re looking at it 3 new designated parking stalls\, there are 0 now. 10 class 2 bike parking. There are 0 now\, a new walkway to connect to the trail head and improved educational signage. and then which kind of brings you around to the first \nseating burning node there. \nDRB Meeting Room: so the existing condition again. No parking\, no bikes\, no connectivity \nto the proposed condition. I should also point out that to the left\, here in the center of the screen. That’s the official bay trail. we’ve also included a secondary trail adjacent to the parking structure\, so that there’s 2 ways to kind of navigate through the through the project itself. \nA slight blow up of both that active node\, the fitness node above\, and the more passive trail seating below. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then finally the largest node at the end. It’s it would be a fitness node a meeting node to the center or above the the tennis court\, and a fitness node below. So the 2 nodes combine\, and there’s an additional seating node in the back\, which is a part of the existing \nwalkway system behind the courts themselves. \nBlow up looking you’re looking across at 10 twin Dolphin drive the future 10 to the dolphin drive. and an example again\, of the scale and the materiality of of these nodes. \nDRB Meeting Room: existing vegetation. Again\, it’s not great. The trees are listed in either every tree is listed either as poor or extremely poor conditions. Several are already dead\, very few natives\, and we would be replacing that with a more \nindigenous. plant pellet. We’re clearly wanting to complement and build off of the plant palette that both 200 twin dolphin and 10 to involve and have done for a bigger\, larger ecological impact \nto the Overall creek itself. hopefully. the material palette looks familiar to most of you\, but this would be the look and the scale that we’d be looking for. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the ground covers. \nDRB Meeting Room: And that’s a presentation. Thank you very much. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much\, Renee\, for that very clear and comprehensive presentation and and graphics that are really easy to comprehend. So we’ve got a we’re going to take a moment here to see if there’s any questions from the board\, clarifying questions on the proponents. Presentation. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you have a question\, please. \non your mic. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. Nice presentation. this is a new\, newly constructed parking day along the \nhe’s in the creek. Are there a. C. 3 stormwater requirements they handled in there somewhere. \nDRB Meeting Room: for the the development itself\, for for the\, for the parking strip that’s within the yeah\, that that will all drain to the private development itself. Yeah. \nright\, Raquel. \nthat \nDRB Meeting Room: that I I will say that for the private development we’re using pretty much the same plant palette and the same strategy kind of tying the 2 ecologies together. So the the C 3 requirement is actually kind of a feature of the \na private courtyard. \nI had one question about just to make sure I was reading the illustrations correctly. The adaptation zone for a future as well as the nodes that you were showing. \nDo those fall outside of your client’s property. Ownership \nDRB Meeting Room: is that within the other property ownership that you established at the beginning of the presentation? \nit’s really designed as as one zone. The nodes are within the twelve-five adaptation area\, though\, if I understand your question. \nDRB Meeting Room: so they’ll be above twelve-. \nOkay\, is that was that the question. the question is more about the property lines. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s a that’s \ngood question. \nDRB Meeting Room: Got it. So that property line is indicating everything east of it is the Sbc 8. Okay\, thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Anyone else. \nYeah. maybe 2 questions. If you could help us with one. Is you heard the question from Staff about the the quality of publicness of the central court. \nSo it’d be great to hear a little bit more about the thresholds \nDRB Meeting Room: entering and exiting that court\, and how that is made to feel welcoming. \nAnd then maybe the second question is. there’s a larger cluster seating adjacent to the court\, which perhaps reflects the current condition. \nIs there any thought about how the changes to the uses on the land side effects where people are more likely to gather or not? \nYeah. So your first question is\, how are we making it more public the court\, the making it welcoming for the public to move through the court\, because my understanding is that that is considered part of the public access. Oh\, the private court\, as a part of the development. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the question the question is\, how is the courtyard with what’s your attitude on the publicness of the courtyard that’s being created by the 3 building? If I could Just clarify that there are 2 things that might be. we’re being referred to as a court. There is an inner court yard which is part of the proposal. and then there is a \nsports court\, which is a an existing feature on the site both of which are are private and intended to remain. So. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe you can handle the \ntouch on the the gathering by the private court\, the the sports court. Okay? Why\, there’s a larger one there. Given the changes on the land side. Okay? so in on the \nthat \nDRB Meeting Room: more or less\, this is it. \nthat’s the largest area right now. And if you look at the Site plan\, I mean one of that one of that I think benefits to the to the greater public is that this parcel line kind of triangulates in front of the Pg. And E substation. \nSo the planting and the landscape that goes there will help screen that at least from short way drive. And so there’s there’s benefit there that larger gathering space there is about the size of the existing gathering space that’s currently there. So there’s a larger space there. The other nodes are distributed. I guess they would add up to allow a larger space. \nBut I’m trying to. \nDRB Meeting Room: Your question is\, why? Why? Why is the big space where it is now? Versus later? Yeah\, I think it has more to do with the geometry and the fact that there’s more area to work with there because the space can pull in adjacent to the to the Sports court. \nI mean\, if there was a desire to make one of the other nodes larger\, we could. I mean\, there’s nothing precluding it. This is not a trail that currently gets a lot of use because it it’s somewhat dead ends on some lane. So we don’t want to over scale these spaces. We want it to feel comfortable. \nbut the the largest space is adjacent to the tennis court\, just because there’s more flat landmass to to deal with there. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much for the presentation. \nhave a \nDRB Meeting Room: couple of questions\, and then I think\, as some clarifications would be helpful about something in the staff report. \nmaybe we could start with that. There’s the discussion I have a levy \nDRB Meeting Room: and the justification for why the levy improvements are sort of outside the purview of this project. and I would love it if you could provide us some more context as to where that levy is \nDRB Meeting Room: and in its relationship to what’s actually being improved. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, can I? Do you mind just killing your microphone? \nCan someone else help me with that one? \nGo back to the see my map. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hi\, my name is Rachel Phones. I’m from Bkf engineers. so the actual creek is outside of the property. \nin. we are basically just enhancing it. since it’s outside of our property. \nDRB Meeting Room: I know if that answers your question\, and it’s about maybe 30 feet away from the property line. \nDRB Meeting Room: But there is a levy on the \non the inland side of the creek. The you know. It’s a berm. It’s not technically a levy in in in the staff report\, and this might be a question for staff. \nThe discussion of this levy is\, is that what you are referring to? Yes\, the trail\, the Belmont Creek trail on both sides\, on the 1\,301 Charlotte Showway side\, and on the 201 dolphin intent on dolphin side. are both on a what we’ve understood from those projects to be a fema\, certified Levy. So the the trail \nthe pedestrian trail. They are actually on top of the levy and From those the the prior projects we’ve learned that because it is there on a a fema certified levy. any changes \nto to the those those areas would require action from several other agencies and municipalities. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the strategy is to have the individual property owners gling the 2 that we’ve previously seen\, and this one to improve to a new base plot elevation outside of the physical levy. \nand that sort of further down the road there could be a agency-driven fled control project within the creek corridor. \nBut yeah\, but but the idea is that we’re just looking at the per view. I see. Actually\, you’re not in your head. Okay\, yeah\, I just want to make sure that we sort of understood that in the context of what we’re sort of talking about\, Stefan. I also would like to add that I think the levy that you may be referring to should also mentioned. It’s that dash black line. Yes\, that is on the other side. Yes\, that’s \non the other side of the quick\, which is not part of this improvements. Okay\, yeah\, thank you. So in that context. And this might be a question for today. again. But we’re talking about the sort of connectivity and synergy that can come from \nthis project in the context of the twin dolphin improvements. So for someone to actually access the trail and cross the creek corridor. \ncan you provide some guidance for actually how that actually would happen for a production\, either on this side to reach the bay trail side or from somebody on the twin Dolphin side to actually come over to this side of the creek. \nSo currently the trail head starts here. and continues and connects to the north side. Here it’s sure way. So you come here. There’s no bridge or structure that goes over the creek until you hit shoreline\, so then you would follow shoreline to the north side of the creek\, and either you know\, cross here to the bay trail or come down to this end \nto hit the bay trail. \nand the \nDRB Meeting Room: context that are providing additional connectivity between these sites in this location \nis due to the fact that the \nDRB Meeting Room: creek is lying outside the jurisdiction. \nThat’s really what we’re looking at like. If\, for example\, like a pedestrian bridge or something that would create synergy or provide opportunities for these amenities to be more easily accessed between sites. It’s this jurisdictional issue. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m sorry I don’t understand your question like why you couldn’t propose like a pedestrian bridge across the creek that actually would provide a more direct connection between where the improvements are actually happening. \nFor example. \nyeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the creek\, it’s not part of our property. And I mean it’ also trigger all their agencies like you\, said Fema. And they are out of our control. Yeah\, right? Yeah. I mean the the context for my questions is\, if it\, the access to this portion \nof the jurisdiction is is still pretty challenged. And so I I just try to sort of address that. And then Have you had any discussion with Staff about \nany \nDRB Meeting Room: shared use happening in the adjacent \nopen spaces to the public access. For example\, either the Sports Court or the Larger Development Court. Has there been any discussion about potential for shared use\, maintaining privacy on those sites but opening them up under certain terms \nor uses or activities to the the broader public. \nDRB Meeting Room: because of that nature of the building itself is like science security is definitely an an issue\, and the owner is kind of adamant that the court itself\, although visually accessible and ecologically accessible\, not be physically accessible. \nAnd then this force that goes for the Sports Court that’s adjacent to the trail as well. Well\, I think the preference would be to keep the it’s it’s not as hard line. But I think the preference would be to keep the sports chord private. Okay\, thank you very much for the additional contacts. Appreciate it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \na couple of questions I have. So the 12.5\, the berm or the levy whatever calling it when you get to the ends. Is there any indication of\, you know connection at the at the ends or \nyou know. I guess we’re always interested to\, you know\, when you look at it in section. It looks like you have protection when you look at it in plan\, you know. Not as much protection until you know the levy continues. \nDRB Meeting Room: so is a question that when you get to the end\, do you know\, work to go? Where to continue? Well? Does it? Does it close off\, you know. Does it turn back on the property lines to protect or or is it? Is it only effective when the adjacent properties complete the the thought\, and \nyou know\, related to that also is just the the finish floor of the existing building set at 12\, you said\, which was by the city\, the set by the city. Yeah. Okay. And I was just curious where you know the what\, what sets that? What are the guidelines they’re going from or the the \nI don’t know. The criteria that sets that when those guidelines were written\, perhaps is is maybe more to the point. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, maybe someone else has a better answer. But I think they use the fema guideline\, the city of Belmont. \nDid you know \nDRB Meeting Room: I actually just did it here. So the city of Belmont required us to. We’re on flat Zone X\, which there is no a specific base\, flat elevation\, but the city of a Belmont. they said that they would like us to set it at 12\, just because. \nwe’re right next to the phone\, ae\, with base flight elevation 10. And they wanted to make sure that we are accommodating for the 24 inches\, probably the sea level rise. So then\, they said\, please set it to 12. So that’s where that came from. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, yeah. And I I guess my question is\, you know\, was there any consideration about going higher\, or what is longevity of the 12 So we’re trying to make sure that we’re able to conform to the streets because the streets same lane and also the short way road. So I think based on the guidelines the city gave us. That’s probably the most so we can go right now\, otherwise it will be hard for us to create more challenging to confirm to the assistant streets that are not going to be raised. \nYeah\, thank you. It’s it’s pretty much maxed out right now. \nDRB Meeting Room: just for accessibility on the\, on the issue about what happens at the end of the trail. I don’t have the history of when it was proved\, but the adjacent property adjacent to Pg. And E. Seems to have had a recent \nimprovement\, and it’s pretty nice when you get there. You know you feel like you just continue on in terms of the feel of of the nodes themselves on on our property. They’re intended to be able to look 360\, not just like\, you know. Look there\, and we’re turning the back on that on the project itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: Great\, thank you. Yeah\, I realize it’s a regional problem. But I was just curious. Any thoughts you have on how you how it transitions into the future. Yeah. The the other thing I thought I heard you ask\, but I think it’s an important point. Any is that we’re not dependent on 200 twin dolphin or 10 twin Dolphin to have a successful project because our loop goes to Shoreway. when when our project is built in our trail is\, you know\, it’s kind of a standalone piece improved. Obviously\, when the neighborhood improves but not dependent on it. \nDRB Meeting Room: because because the whole property is raised\, you’re protected. Yeah. \ngot it? Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. If there is no further questions\, then I think we can move on to \npublic comments. \nDRB Meeting Room: like to open the meeting to the public. Any member of the public attending. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to make a comment. if you do\, does it look like you have comments. If so\, I’ll read the instructions again. \nDRB Meeting Room: There are no comments online here. \nOkay. okay\, hold on. We did receive one letter of support from the project or for the project from the Redwood Shores business agency. \nRegarding the proposed shoreline trail improvements. The comments have been forwarded to the Board and will be included in the meeting summary. \nOkay\, thank you. Then\, at this time we can have a board discussion. I think this is\, oh\, did you have something? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, quickly. I would like to \ncorrect something I told in. I I said in response to board member Pellegrini’s question about the levy I just spoke with dillip survey of mafia and nickel which is consulting the applicant. \nThe the project team on sea level rise and and flooding assessments. and I’ve just been told that \nthis side of the the the Belmont Creek the \nDRB Meeting Room: it is not a fema certified levy. It is on the twin dolphin side\, but not on on the 1\,301 sure way side\, not on the side that this project falls on \nso presumably this means that it can it it. \nDRB Meeting Room: There is a possibility of \nplacing\, fill\, or or or conducting other activities on this side of what is basically a berm \nDRB Meeting Room: which would not have been possible without agency. \nFurther agency action on the other side of the creek\, on the twin dolphin side. So I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Great. Thank you. Troy. So yeah\, we have an opportunity to bring forward any comments that the Board has at this time any advice. \nAnd \nDRB Meeting Room: what we can do is \nI think we want to answer the questions in the context of the \nDRB Meeting Room: the issues that we are asked to address as a board. There are 7 objectives for public access. \nMake the public access. I feel public\, make it usable. \nDRB Meeting Room: provide\, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and the shoreline. \nmaintain and enhance the visual quality of the day. Shoreline and adjacent developments provide connections and continuity along the shoreline. take advantage of the base setting \nDRB Meeting Room: and ensure that public access is compatible with wildlife through citing design and management strategies. So those are those are issues that we’re asked to \naddress for every project. And then\, in addition to that\, there’s a few other more specific comments that are coming to us from staff. \nDRB Meeting Room: How does the project proposal result in the public spaces that feel public? \nAnd does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people. \nDRB Meeting Room: Proposal includes both passive and active public spaces along the shoreline integrated with campus-oriented uses. \nlike the sports court and parking does. The sighting of these public and campus-oriented programs enhance and activate the shoreline in a manner that is inviting to public users \nDRB Meeting Room: what additional improvements could enhance the public access experience from the publicly accessible courtyard \nto and along the shoreline \nDRB Meeting Room: and that I believe that’s not correct\, right? It’s not a publicly accessible courier. \nSo I say that again\, what additional improvements could enhance the public experience from the \nDRB Meeting Room: courtyard 2. And along the shoreline. And this is referring to the large courtyard. Correct? And I could I ask if we do? We have a an enlargement of that area since that’s one of the main questions. I think that would be helpful to \nput that up as possible. given the increase in scale and size of the buildings on site. That’s the proposed design. Provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike pedestrian networks \nto draw users into and through the site. The Belmont Creek trail and shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adapted to sea level rise \nin balance with ensuring high quality\, public space. public access\, opportunity. So I know that’s a lot. we can come back to those if if needed. But maybe we’re just \nso we just start at the end of the table there. Stefan\, and we’ll work our way. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, I’ll try to do my best to go first. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think in a I’ll start by saying in the context of the other projects that we’ve seen in this area. \nI think that just \nDRB Meeting Room: from a starting point. The idea that there is new development that’s happening that actually can enhance the public realm is like a huge positive \nbecause the sort of the previous generation of development that happen in this area. It’s it’s ready for some renewal. And so I think that actually is really positive. \nthat there’s an opportunity to enhance the sort of public space in this location\, and particularly when there’s multiple projects that are adjacent to one another. \nso I I’m that’s I think that’s a big plus sort of a benefit. Here. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m gonna look at the rest of my my team members here. I the this one\, I think\, is a little bit tricky\, because the \nDRB Meeting Room: as I mentioned\, like the access in this \nlocation\, this is sort of not great. It’s not well connected. It’s sort of shoe horned in between the freeway and the other amenities that are basically on the other side of the waterway in this location? \nand so I think\, trying to sort of understand or look at it through. That context is important\, like\, what are we trying to do by maximizing public access in this location? \nDRB Meeting Room: I guess one thing that’s going through my mind is that the way that it seems to be set up is that it’s looking at \nassembling as a enhanced access point for the community that you basically can find your way onto the site with bike and the the 3 public parking spaces \nat the entry where you actually enter into the project that’s enhanced\, you have better signage. It’s you’re directed into that location. And then you could sort of get off of your vehicle or your bicycle at that location and find yourself basically into the the larger public network. \nso I think that’s sort of a positive it is potentially sort of better connected to the network than you would the situation that you have today. but I’m sort of curious or sort of looking at it through that lens of \nif this does become sort of a enhanced gateway for this neighborhood to get into the Bay trail system. How much public access do we need? \nAnd so that’s I don’t know if I have the answer to that. but it does seem like that’s just sort of my context as sort of how I would look at that. Look at this in this location. \nI think. \nso on one hand\, like clear signage. clear understanding of where you are\, what you can get to. that getting to the amenities in this area. You still have to take this kind of roundabout way \nto get there. But this idea that you’re passing through nodes to get you from 1 point to the next\, I think\, is actually very positive. there’s improvements on the Pg. And that we talked about. That’s also positive. \nSome things I’m sort of wondering about is To what extent can you benefit from \nDRB Meeting Room: having visual connections to the larger open space network\, even if they’re not going to be publicly accessible. \nAnd so I’m just curious about that like can the landscape? To what extent can the landscape continue across the parking lane. can you sort of visually be in a space? What’s the edge of the public courtyard like \nthat? You can clearly\, visually access that you would not be allowed to sort of go into And those things\, maybe. \nDRB Meeting Room: they’re not well communicated by the really great set of design that we have sort of in the proposal. So I’m curious about that. \nThe Sports Court seems like a great opportunity to sort of enhance public access in that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s a fairly prominent site. It’s elevated. \nThere’s an opportunity for habitat\, probably some views in that location. and I’m just curious if there’s sort of a way to kind of push the envelope there and \nDRB Meeting Room: and get some increased public access. \nin that location. So I’ll stop. Yeah\, thank you \nDRB Meeting Room: please see on \nyeah. Actually\, maybe 2 parts. one. Stefan\, in terms of your question about general accessibility and connectivity to the broader district. \nDRB Meeting Room: I didn’t. I didn’t hear it. I didn’t know if it’s a possibility that there is signage at the end of some lane \nwhere there could be something as simple as a trail map\, indicating all the trails in the area. So at least there’s raising the awareness of what the public amenities in the district are that people could access. \nand I think with that kind of simple \nDRB Meeting Room: amenity\, would help people really maybe become aware of and encourage\, and perhaps spread the word any. And then the second \nthing it is\, I guess I I was asking the question about the larger seating area next to the court sports court in part\, because \nDRB Meeting Room: in its original condition\, that it was at the end of a \na driveway from Shoreway Road\, and so it felt pretty connected back out to Shoreway Road. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, in its current configuration\, where that of parking on the east side of the property is really a dead end loop now \nstarts to feel more remote and perhaps less available to to folks. So I just wonder if maybe that \nDRB Meeting Room: seating could be spread out more. Perhaps there’s a a node that is closer to the actual entry point. Now\, because I think \nthe configuration really shifts all of the entry to the north end. \nThank you. Okay. \nthank you for the presentation. I I agree with stuff on your framing and understanding of the context. And Gary\, as you read off \nthe goals of the lenses through which we’re viewing this\, it’s interesting that the visual connection aspect to the bay or the regional connectivity are sort of limited by conditions outside of the \ncontrol of this project. And there’s lots of limitations. And so acknowledging that the focus of this discussion primarily becomes the publicness of the trail. And \nI think that’s really where a lot \nDRB Meeting Room: of the comments that I’m hearing and where I’m going to is \nthe tennis court is a real opportunity to create something that is an anchor for public shared use\, as you know\, in your presentation running. You even describe this isn’t necessarily a popular or doesn’t see the levels of use that you might expect. So having \nsomething that signals to visitors or pastors\, by that this is intended as a place for public use or rest. and it could maybe even paired with something as simple as a water fountain. Or you know\, I mean drinking water fountain or something that’s an amenity for a public user. \nI think\, and create that signal quite successfully. I really appreciate and enjoy the concept of the fitness\, nodes and the idea of thinking of this is a cohesive trail\, and you encounter these moments\, that kind of reinforce that witness theme. \nso I think those are really successful\, and\, you know\, can add an element of playfulness. It is where I’m getting caught\, too\, is a lot of this is. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, what could be perceived as \nbehind the building. Kind of\, you know\, we’ve all been in places that feel like it is designed publicly\, but still gives you cues that you’ve chanced upon something that maybe you’re not supposed to be there. So \nthink with \nDRB Meeting Room: signage or way\, finding that even \nalong Semlene. earlier on\, before you get to the trail to be able to have these signals. That gesture towards there is a public amenity back there and encouraging people. could go a long way. So \nreally I I guess the \nDRB Meeting Room: majority of my comments are about the power of the small moves of way finding or small public amenities\, and embracing those aspects more fully. But thank you for the presentation. \nI think it’s a pretty straightforward project. I think it’s well handled. I just have 3 comments just to add on top. I think number one is\, I think the tree would be nice at the trailhead. We come down Sam Lane \nto have a \nDRB Meeting Room: a clear explanation. How in the world are we going to get to the \nDRB Meeting Room: vitriol from here? It’s it’s quite circuitous. So \nsome may have explained that it was going to be a long way. Maybe a drinking fountain would be nice. Is it going to get the receipt by time to get there? And I also. I believe I’m not sure if the crosswalk \ncoming over from private courtyard it’s a traffic table\, but I think that’d be beneficial. \nDRB Meeting Room: And the third thing is\, I I just think this \nprivate sports court \nDRB Meeting Room: not very nice idea. I think it should be. \nI think the applicant should strongly consider the the benefit that would accrue to them by making that public. especially if it’s surrounded with fitness\, equipment. These are things. But you can’t. But why can’t I go in there? Well\, it’s private\, you know it. \nIt doesn’t disintegrate message\, and I think it’s not a big deal. Don’t let the public use that thing as well. \nOkay\, thank you. Thanks all for your comments. yeah. So steps. You can jump in if you have any comment on this. But I I I think that the work that we’re being shown is is really fantastic\, and you know it looks like it’s been \nvery well done\, and and and pretty thoughtful within these constraints. But I I can’t remember that we typically review projects without getting a better picture of what’s going on with the side planning of the buildings\, because\, even though we have a hundred foot shoreline band \nso that our per view is is sort of limited. You know\, the visual and physical access to the to the bay is really the major charge that we have. So usually\, we start these discussions by\, you know\, talking about the you know the arterials that serve the property\, and where the property lines are\, and what street frontage looks like\, and what’s your experience of approaching the building\, traveling down Sam Lane\, where the utilities and \nthe parking garage and and so I guess I had expected to to hear more about the courtyard\, and how that interface with the\, you know\, with the outdoor space. Is there a fence? Is there a wall? Is it \ncompletely open? And on many projects that we’ve looked at. You know\, there are building responses. And the what I think we’ve seen about the buildings is provocative. The buildings look\, you know. \nlike they’re really thoughtfully done. And sometimes we review buildings\, and there’s like a. you know\, like a recess or an overlook or kind of a third level porch\, or something like that\, that that kind of mediates the scale of the building as it pushes up against the the shoreline band\, you know \nthe Bay trail. So I I would love to. You know we don’t review the building\, so you don’t really have much to say about that. But we we do have the ability to comment on things that we think would improve the public experience. \nAnd and the buildings are so have great opportunities. you know\, for views\, and I just like to see more about how that interface looks\, because it\, although this strip of land is is very nice. You know\, there is a \nI don’t know. 20\, 40 foot wide parking lot\, and then and then not far away\, is the wall of the building. So. when when the project comes back\, and I think that it should come back. Of course this is just a preliminary review\, and these are very general \npreliminary comments. I think it’d be great to see that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So \nwith that\, I think we concludes our comments and our recommendations\, and the project proponent is welcome to make any statements or responses to those comments. \nDRB Meeting Room: thank you for the comments. really clear and very helpful. I think if the project has to come back\, then we don’t really have any comments at this point\, we’ll just address it as a part of the process. We’ll continue with this. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’ll continue working with stuff. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think. You know\, I I I personally\, I apologize for excluding the building. That was a little bit on me. I thought that \nwe didn’t want to focus much on the buildings and really kind of focus just on the on the landscape work itself. So my apologies. I think the other stuff\, you know. a map at some lane. Absolutely. It would be great to work with staff\, and maybe we can get \n210\, and you know\, to kind of. We can work together and have a comprehensive package\, because I agree it would be great if the district was was better connected for sure. \nAnd you know the comment on that exercise station that there’s another. There’s a passive note on the other side of that \nsports court\, which is equal in size to the exercise station. maybe that that wasn’t clear\, but we can clarify that \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the other comments are pretty\, you know. It’s pretty clear. \nWell\, I I totally appreciate your comments\, and it you know we it is kind of a gray area about what are you know what we’re addressing here? I think that we are an advisory group. We make comments about really anything that we think \nthe experience of being on the shoreline. And then\, you know\, it’s filtered through staff and the Commission. There are legal restrictions on what you know what can be \ndetermined. Yeah. But I think at this point I think we’re just talking conceptually about the project and trying to. you know\, \nDRB Meeting Room: make what improvements we can. And I think buildings are a huge part of that. And you know\, sometimes we talk about brood safe glass\, or you know\, reflections or \nyou know what is the you know? Shadows cast. you know\, from the buildings\, and so on. \nDRB Meeting Room: What one question I \nclarifying question I wanted to ask was\, I think you had a question for comment about \nDRB Meeting Room: what it \nexisting. I guess \nDRB Meeting Room: accessibility is in terms of \nfrom the main frontage\, presumably from Shoreway Road. It was it. \nDRB Meeting Room: was it what the existing view corridors are like\, and that I wasn’t quite clear\, because we did \nin the beginning. And and maybe we just kind of brushed over too quickly. But there\, there were some use of what the existing conditions are like relative to where the trail is in the front. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, yeah\, no\, absolutely. I I think. \nI’m just thinking that the \nDRB Meeting Room: the present you know you have. You did some big big context. And then we we went right to the shoreline. And I think this middle piece of the site planning and the building would be great to just get a better picture of how it all fits together. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \nDRB Meeting Room: that concludes our our \ncomments. And \nDRB Meeting Room: can we do we have any other business before we \nduring the meeting. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, okay. \nadjourned this meeting. Sorry my language. But yes\, I I am aware \nDRB Meeting Room: we can take a 5 min break to transition between the process. \nI think we’re ready to get started. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ll now begin our review on Agenda item Number 5\, which is the fourth review of the proposed San Lee Andro Shoreline Development Project \nfor the city of San Leandro and Alameda County \nDRB Meeting Room: to remind you of the Project Review order. We’ll have B. C. DC. Staff introductions and project proponent. We’ll make a presentation. \nWe’ll have clarifying questions from the board. Brief period of public comment\, and then the board discussion and summary. followed by a response from the proponent. \nSo with that \nDRB Meeting Room: just think all \nProject analyst will introduce the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Acting chair string. Good evening\, board members again. My name is Jessica Finkel. I’m a shoreline development analyst at BC. DC. And and tonight I’ll be introducing the second project for tonight’s review. This is the fourth review of the Stanley and a Shoreline development Project\, also sometimes called the Monarch Bay Shoreline Development Project in the city of San Liandro\, in Alameda county. \nDRB Meeting Room: Before I continue\, we’d like to acknowledge that the land in this area is unseeded. Lish on territory\, the ancestral homelands of the Chicago-speaking Aloni peoples. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay area. \nDRB Meeting Room: The proposed project is located at the Stanley Andrew Marina\, in the city of San Leandro\, about one miles south of Oakland\, International Airport\, and 2 miles southwest of downtown San Leandro and the San Antonio Park Station. \nThe Marina is situated between 2 other recreational areas\, oyster points so regional shoreline to the north and Marina Park\, immediately across the channel to the south \nDRB Meeting Room: to Orient you to the project site and vicinity. Here you can see Sam Andrew Marina to the west of Monarch Bay\, drive \n2 peninsula around the Marina Mulford Point\, to the north and west\, and Pescadur Point to the south. The portions of the project within B cdc’s jurisdiction are on the Marina side of Monarch Bay Drive. \nThis is where the project project proponents are proposing a public park\, some new commercial buildings\, and a new multi-family residential building to the east is the Marina golf course\, where new single-family homes and town homes are being proposed. \nThe project site is accessible for Monarch Bay Drive\, which becomes Marina boulevard in the north\, and eventually connects to I 8 80\, about a mile away\, and the site can also be accessed by a fairway drive from the south \nDRB Meeting Room: to provide some additional context about the current site conditions. This area to the west of Monarch Bay Drive is approximately 36 acres\, not including the water area and approximately 59 acres with the water area \nexisting. Commercial uses include Horatio’s Restaurant\, El Torito Restaurant and the Marina. In there are also public fishing peer and boat ramp\, and about 1\,800 surface parking spaces throughout the site. \nA few other landmarks of clothes like the blue Dolphin restaurant which has been demolished\, and the Sandly Andro and spinach or yacht clubs. \nDRB Meeting Room: The Marina itself closed at the beginning of this year\, and there have been some challenges at the site. Since the last time the Drb. Saw the project \nthere’s been an increase in vandalism and some other nuisances that have prompted the city to close Mulford Point and Pescutter points to vehicle traffic and staff is currently working with the city to address these issues in the short term while they continue working on the overall redevelopment plan \nDRB Meeting Room: briefly about public access facilities is on the site. The municipal marina dates back to the early 1960 S. And it’s generally been accessible to the public. But there are several\, as you can see\, existing Dcdc. Permits that provide for public access facilities. \nthe staff report goes into more detail. But there are some pathways and green spaces\, as well as the boat ramp and the bottom. Right off of Pescetera Point some public access was tied to projects that were never completed\, like the relocated boat launch on Mulford Point and the Conference center at the Blue Dolphin. \nDRB Meeting Room: In addition\, there is an existing On-street Bay trail segment along the Marina golf course on Monarch Bay Drive. That’s not connected to a permit \nthat segment connects to striped facilities south of Fairway drive and on Marina Boulevard to the north. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’ll briefly go through several photos and images to give you a general sense of the site as it currently exists. \nThis aerial view of the site from July 2022 provides a nice overview\, and it highlights that the site is mostly paved over. \nDRB Meeting Room: This shows the approach to the arena coming from the north on Monarch Bay Drive. \nThe proposed hotel would be straight ahead as you follow the roadway and the sidewalk on the right would connect to the bay trail and would continue along the shoreline north of the hotel. \nDRB Meeting Room: These images are from Mulford Point Drive\, looking towards the Marina\, heading towards the Bend and at the point. \nDRB Meeting Room: and these photos are from Pescatur Point Drive. They show the southern approach on Monarch Bay\, Drive\, heading west towards the point and the public access area and fishing pier at the end. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the fourth review of the project. The last review was in December 2022. \nAnd this is a brief look at an earlier iteration of the project from 2\,016\, which would have placed a lot of development on the Peninsula side of Monarch Bay drives\, including residential office\, commercial and hotel uses\, and some active recreation areas included in the public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: And this is the site plan. From last December \nthe major difference between the 2 16 and December 22. Design\, which is similar to the current proposal\, is the decreased intensity of development on the Peninsula with most private development. Moving east of Monarch Bay Drive and a bigger focus on continuous public access on the western side. \nThere’s also a decrease in the amount of in-water construction. For example\, they’re no longer. There’s no longer a bridge connecting the 2 points\, the beach or the repurposed boat slips \nDRB Meeting Room: at the December meeting. The Drb. Was pleased to see the private development was largely outside the shoreline band\, but expressed concerns about the rip\, wrap along the shoreline the amount of parking the landscape plan\, the lack of safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists and future sea level rise adaptation. \nThe Board also urged the project team to explore ways to activate the basin after the marina facilities are removed\, and to give the public a better interim park experience. The project team will describe the changes that they’ve made in more detail. But in general they’ve replaced the uniform lawn areas with zones for native grasses and pollinator gardens divided bank plantings along the coastal edge and interior basin. \nIt expanded the boat launch facilities at Pescador Point\, reconfigured the bay\, overlooked points and trails\, and added pedestrian crossings along Monarch Bay Drive to improve pedestrian circulation. They’ve also revised the facing plans to \nprovide public amenities earlier in the project timeline. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here’s a look at the community vulnerability mapping tool output to the area. The tool identified some block groups as having highest and high-social vulnerability as well as the census tract with highest contamination. Vulnerability. \nThe relevant factors vary\, but some common ones include the rate of renter households\, people of color\, individuals over 65\, living alone. Limited English proficiency. Non Us. Citizens and low-income households. \nContamination vulnerabilities attributed to things like the presence of hazardous cleanup and water cleanup activities in the area\, solid waste sites and hazardous waste facilities as well as an impaired water body\, which is the bay \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding potential sea level rise using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if a site remained unchanged. \nusing the Ocean Protection Council’s 2018 sea level rise. Guidance. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level under the medium to high-risk aversion. High emissions\, scenario at mid-century. \nAt this level there’s some potential for over topping on site\, as indicated by the red lines along Wilford Point\, as well as inundation around the edges of the peninsula around the existing rip wrap. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like. It’s the site if it were unchanged. This roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level at 2\,090\, in the medium to high-risk aversion\, high emissions\, scenario\, as well as the one hundred-year storm condition. At mid-century. \nIn this scenario much of the back end would be flooded in much of the marina area as well\, although some higher areas in the middle of the Peninsula might not be flooded. \nDRB Meeting Room: The San Francisco Estuary Institute’s adaptation Atlas identifies nature based. Adaptation opportunities along the shoreline. These are areas that are well suited for interventions or actions that can help both address flooding and provide ecological benefits \nat the project site. The Atlas indicates suitability for eel grass in the Channel shoreline Beach\, along the outside of Mulford Point upland title\, marsh\, and preparation for upland habitat migration. \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, here’s a summary of the questions\, and the staff report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. \nFirst\, please consider how the project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcd’s public access design guidelines. And then staff has identified particular areas we’d like the Board to address\, including\, does the Peninsula feel public does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s previous concerns? \nAre there safe and clear connections and way finding to the shoreline does the proposed shoreline protection approach enhance the experience of the shoreline. Does the proposed design adequately provide for existing and contemplated future uses\, such as fishing a private water shuttle\, and recreational use? \nDRB Meeting Room: And does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections? Before I introduce the project proponents\, does the Board have any clarifying questions on the staff introductions. \nActually\, I do have one question for staff. our purview is the 100 foot shoreline band. What about the water itself? What is our preview. With that \nyou may speak to any site aspect that involves or contributes to the public’s experience of the area that goes beyond the shoreline band connectivity from adjacent roadways to the shoreline\, but also \nDRB Meeting Room: a big water body that’s in the middle of the site. \nOkay? \nBut also\, if it helps \nDRB Meeting Room: it is so. They is a key part of Pcd’s jurisdiction. And so anything that you’d like to say about it\, please\, please do. \nhey? I think we can proceed\, then\, with the proponent presentation. That right? Okay? So from the project team today\, we have John Hughes with Griffin structures and Chuck Ardella from gates and associates presented. \nThank you\, everyone. My name is John Hughes. I am the project manager for the city of San Diego. For this project I’m going to be introducing some of the key goals and objectives of the project before I invite \nChuck Cardella from gates and associates to go through the design iterations that you see before you that we feel addressed the concerns and questions that we heard last time we were here \nto recap the goals of the project on behalf of the city. the city seeks to enhance the community engagement with the bay. Through this project this project seeks to mitigate against sea level rise. \nDRB Meeting Room: This project seeks to \nprovide natural restoration of a blighted site. Right now\, it’s a very\, very challenged site. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’re trying to enhance public access into the water\, not just around and about it\, but actually in it. \nDRB Meeting Room: and provide a park for cultural reflection. \nThe appreciation of nature and family enjoyment. \nDRB Meeting Room: as you may recall from our last presentation and the reports that have been provided to you that the the city has done extensive community outreach. We’ve had over half a dozen community outreach events we’ve \nsent out. I think\, 7\,000 emails to solicit interest. We’ve had pop up events. We’ve met with the Kymanu Canoe Club. We have met with the tribal community. We have met with the Lost Boat Memorial Society. \nand in all of that\, over 13 years we feel that the goals that we just listed represent what the community is looking for. that this project \nDRB Meeting Room: is delivering 100% of the bay. \nthe the B. C DC. Jurisdiction Landside\, B. C. DC. Jurisdiction to the community. There is not a single portion of the B Cdc. Jurisdiction that is excluding the community or the public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: 13 years of development negotiations with calcos development\, where you saw we have pulled out all of the buildings that we’re within the 100 foot band. Because we we share in your goal \nthat we want to bring the community to this park. And we want to take an area that has suffered for decades and turn it into a gym of a park. \nDRB Meeting Room: So with that\, I’m going to hand it off to chuck to take you through some of the changes. We’ve taken a lot of your comments to heart. \nWe think that they’ve really helped us and enhance this project both in the the phasing in the design and the aesthetic theme. and I’ll leave it to chuck to share some of that with you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, John. \nDRB Meeting Room: So to give you a quick overview of These are a lot of the slides that you’ve seen in the past\, just kind of overview of the existing context of the site location adjacent to the Oakland International Airport in relation to other green space around the community. \nDRB Meeting Room: this slide just shows the some of the graphics that were already covered\, showing the the finalized\, the face. This was the original plan that submitted in December \nof 22\, and so we’ll go through and highlight\, the revisions\, and what we’ve heard from your comments in the past. And this is showing the revised site plan as submitted today. And we’ll get into a little more detail as we go through these \ntouching base on the public access. So going back to where those existing Bcdc permits do exist. we are going to be taking those and enhancing public access and retaining all those areas shown in yellow \nas well as developing everything in green. There will be fully\, publicly accessible. there are parking lots as well that will be publicly accessible. and then there will be shared parking with the hotel restaurants and apartments and market \nas well. \nDRB Meeting Room: going through of what we heard and how we responded to Bcdc’s comments. \nThere were some discussions about providing additional circulation on the top left. So we’ve increased the circulation here. We’ve added a lower terraced trail system \nas well as provide an additional trail connection. The Bcd seeds trail system runs up on the west and north side of the Mulford Point\, so we’ve provided some additional circulation routes. \non the site plan on Mulford Point. One of the big comments was about softening the interior of the lagoon in this area. So in in lieu of using rip wrap\, we’ve been consulting with dill up with a booth and nickel \nabout\, planting the interior base of the edge with planting\, so all of the elevation within the interior lagoon will be planted and not utilize rip wrap. \nDRB Meeting Room: There was other comments related to parking\, and\, you know\, pulling back the the imprint\, the footprint of the parking lot within the center of the site. So we’ve shifted everything to the north \napproximately 50 feet and then reorganize the layout of the Hammerhead to integrate the Hammerhead layout into a public plaza that highlights the restroom facade. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ve also looked at some ways to activate the basin the lower terrace trail would utilize the existing grades that are out there now. We would maintain a trail along the shoreline edge on the interior of the basin. \nWe’ve also created an additional overlook at Pescador Point\, at this place. and then increased the fishing and watercraft docks by about 1\,300 square feet. \nat this lower location here\, where the boat R is going to be added \nDRB Meeting Room: from a connectivity standpoint. There was lots of discussion of increasing connectivity\, so we’ve included the additional crosswalks \nalong the roadway here. so that the residential development on the east can easily connect to the west. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then looking at creating some landscape diversity with the planting palette that we’ll get into a little further as well by creating additional pollinator gardens and habitat. \nDRB Meeting Room: So one of the big key factors of the design. So we’ve utilized the the Monarch butterfly as kind of the main design theme\, and integrated the butterfly wing in kind of this colorful \ndesign layout. You see here. and so we’re using that to mimic and create little nodes of color that we’ll get into a little further. But this is showing what has changed in the phase one graphic. So in the prior December \npresentation this was a very simple phase one\, and so we’ve taken your comments and integrated a additional overlook. at the northern part of Mulford Point. We’ve also added about approximately 33 trees where they will not be impacted by future phase 2 construction. \nWe’ve added that secondary loop path along the lower lagoon edge. the terrorist path we’ve integrated seating nodes along the exterior bay trail \nhere so that will enhance and maintain the existing fishing access that fishermen do use along the side of the bay \nDRB Meeting Room: and then working with Wra. We developed some native pollinator hydroseeds \nalong this area\, and trending developed this to be a very colorful in a playful experience for the public. So it’s not just a a barren field of hydrogen. \nDRB Meeting Room: We also have an interim overlook at the lower southern portion of Mulford Point. \nand then the the boat ramps and Kayak would be the kayak launch and fishing areas would be expanded by 1\,300 square feet\, as previously discussed. \nDRB Meeting Room: from an interim connection of phase one\, we would place a shared use bike path\, pedestrian trail on the roadway. Here \nthat way we are ensured public access from the existing bay trail. and then\, as well down to muffered points\, both \nDRB Meeting Room: looking at the phase\, 2 revisions \nof what we’ve changed. this is\, you can see the overlay of red items. It’s really hard to see at this scale just given the size of this project. but everything in red was the original December presentation. \nbut we’ve revised the layout of the overlook here to mimic the butterfly theme. That goes for the other posit that’s shown behind the Zoom toolbar. Here. \nWe’ve also \nDRB Meeting Room: pulled in the the plaza and the parking lot area at this location revised a parking circle \nthe secondary paths. and we’ll get into a little more of these in the blow ups as well. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is just the image of the existing Bay trail system that exists today. So we have the existing \nA on Street Bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive and the planned access out to Multiple Point \nDRB Meeting Room: as part of our placement of the Bay trail. We were still looking at utilizing a eastern edge alignment \nof the Bay trail. The reason behind that is there was only 2 pedestrian roadway conflicts with driveways on the eastern side versus the western edge has 7 driveway crossings. \nSo that was one of the elements we use to locate the Monarch Bay Trail in discussion with our engineering team. \nDRB Meeting Room: That Bay trail does come around and make a loop on Mulford Point. connecting back to a kind of a traffic circle for pedestrians and bikes \nto make that circular route. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then we also have additional pedestrian connections \nalong the lower edge of the lagoon. Here \nDRB Meeting Room: the construction phasing plan we touched debate a bit on this already\, but this was just showing those \nproposed shared. Use walkways \nDRB Meeting Room: at number 17\, and then 16 as well. So 16 would be a class 2 and 17 would be a shared use by claim. and those would be protected with \ndelineators and striping and planters as well. so that we’d have a a protected pedestrian edge for that experience from the public right away all the way into the park \nDRB Meeting Room: here. This is just showing the overview of the phase 2. Development. \nas we as phase one\, is built out\, these would be existing. and Phase 2 would come in and develop the entirety of Mulford Point. we would at that time do the final tree planting shrub\, planting irrigation systems. \nstormwater treatment\, and then build out all the overlooks to their 100% a development. There’s an overlook at this location as well as well as build out the rest of the bay trail segments in coordination with the apartment development that is being developed by Cal. Coast. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a rendering of the hotel development that coast is proposing. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this Graphic for some reason not showing the hotel background. But this building. The hotel sits within this white space here \nthe hotel access only that is the pool area. So that is the only area of private access at the pool zone is at the pool zone. There’s an exterior courtyard for the hotel that is fully\, publicly accessible. There’s no gates or fencing in between these. \nThis is the overlook in the boardwalk here\, and the bay trail comes down from the north and actually heads this direction as well. so there would be a seamless flow of \nthe public space flowing into the hotel. And through these areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the development of the single family homes and the town homes to the East. \nHere\, there. This is just showing the circulation related to the sidewalks that they’re proposing. and then the additional crosswalks that it will be proposed to provide uninterrupted circulation for the pedestrians and bikes to the park development. \nDRB Meeting Room: Now we’re going to get a little more into the details of the park itself. \nso we’re going to skip over this and go to some of the enlargements and details of signage. There is a at the top here which I don’t know if I can \nget rid of this. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here \nwe do have a bay trail signage and a number one is a gateway monument. So this is existing as an art piece with some Us. flying birds as well as a big Marina Bay sign that would get replaced. \nand we’d also have a public shore access and mile marker signage. Come along the entire bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive. We would have park signs \nas well as directional science\, to ensure that the public is very aware that this is a public facility\, and we’re not trying to hide the park from them. So we’re trying to make the signage as visible as possible and provide signage up on the monarch. They drive \nand then provide directories at key points\, such as the restroom in the overlook areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: So from a programming standpoint\, we’ve \nare developing a \nDRB Meeting Room: variation of on the pollinator gardens. So we’ve actually\, instead of a a solid hydroxide or \nshrubs and grasses we’ve actually focused in creating these habitat generation zones along here and using those to kind of play on the the butterfly wing theme\, as well as creating those highlighted focal areas \nalong the perimeters of these pathways and the nodes. so that helps create some identity and clarification as to entry these\, there’s some small pathways\, a secondary pathways of circulation through these spaces. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then at the overlooks as well as creating the the garden spaces within those overlooked spaces here \nDRB Meeting Room: the tree palettes would be developed further \nas the project progresses\, utilizing. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, the expertise of Wra’s landscape architects and the Restoration specialists \nfor this project. we’ve been \nDRB Meeting Room: looking and considering\, you know the views and not blocking views and then maintaining. \nyou know\, when buffers were feasible within some of these other areas\, because that was a concern as well. \nDRB Meeting Room: here we’re showing the develop revisions of the interior basin planting. So this is that coastal edge planting. So in lieu of ripper. \nthat entire interior basin gets raised and gets planted with landscape versus rip wrap. So that also goes to this protected part of the lagoon \nhere on the interior side\, and then all of the interior. We’re going to this place. The exterior of the lagoon. in discussion with Dyla cannot be planted or landscaped. There’s too much erosion\, and wave action that would lead to failure in those areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: So we did. We did explore a lot of options. And that was the \ndiscussion and outcome of those \nDRB Meeting Room: next just plant palette images. I’m sure you’re \nthese are similar on the \nDRB Meeting Room: from the last presentation. \nand I’ll hand it over to Liz. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hi\, everyone for those who don’t know me. My name is Liz Allen. I’m a regulatory permitting specialist at wra environmental consultants \nand we helped out putting together the seed mixed palette. So this seed mix would be used for the phase one in the hydro seed mix\, and it was designed by our botanist and restoration landscape architects. And it’s designed so that \nall of these species\, if you’re not familiar\, are native to the Bay area and are appropriate for this region. These color palettes have also been designed so that they won’t just be up during a certain time of the year. We selected species that would bloom consistently throughout the year\, so that color would always be present. \nsince we acknowledged that the phase\, one condition\, will be there for a bit before the ultimate project is completed\, wanted to make sure that it looked nice. During that phase of the work \nthe site will be treated ahead of time to make sure the soils are suitable to ensure success of these species\, and there will be irrigation applied as needed to make sure that these seeds do turn into the plants that they are supposed to turn into. \nThe other thing is this\, planting palette was put together with input from one of our Phd level entomologists who specializes in pollinator habitat design and she confirmed that all of these species are \nexpected to to attract the pollinators that we want to arrive so it won’t just look good. It’ll also be there to help provide legitimate pollinator habitats. What’s really interesting is that by clumping colors together. She told us that that actually is better for a lot of the butterflies\, including the monarchs that are known to occur in the area\, but we also were careful to exclude species that could disrupt the overwintering of the monarch butterflies that are known to occur in the area. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then on this slide. I’m going to talk about. What about the lagoon portion of the project? We heard your comment that you guys are interested in hearing how the lagoon is going to be activated. \nWhat we’re focusing on here is the fact that just by removing all of the existing Marina infrastructure our biologists on staff expect there to be a substantial increase in shore shorebird activity in the area\, because part of the reason this marina is getting decommissioned \nis the fact that the basin experiences high rates of sedimentation that mean that dredging currently was needed consistently because of that sedimentation without all the docks and peers. This lagoon turns into a really nice flood mud flat even during a typical low tide. Today it’s very exposed and creates great foraging habitat for these species. \nThe bird species listed here\, most of which are known to be mud flat foraging specialists. in our local to the Bay area. Some of them are even endangered. \nor on this state like us\, fish and wildlife service birds of conservation concerns \nDRB Meeting Room: the. As you guys probably know\, the existing Marina infrastructure has a lot of creos out treated wood that is known to impact water quality. So the removal of that infrastructure is expected to \nimprove the water quality of the basin to better support these species. In addition\, the existing peers provide predator purchase for predators that then preclude these species from being present. It’s actually a very common comment from wildlife agencies to remove predator purchase\, such as pilings when they’re unnecessary\, because they often \nthe predation that they have on the fish and the other birds in the area limits the function\, the habitat function of the whole system. the green that’s noted on the edges here is some limited cord grass that we’ve seen that was observed in the lagoon area. \nwe’re not sure but it’s likely that this chord grass is the non-native Spartina. Largely because this area is not a historic marsh. Even before this \nthe original fill went in\, and the invasive species tends to be the one that shows up where Marsh hasn’t shown up before. unfortunately\, that iding this type of chord grass and differentiating it from the native typically requires \ngenetic analysis or expert eyes. But we’re plan on partnering with the invasive of our China project to determine if it’s the native. or if it’s the invasive\, and if it’s invasive\, the project plans to remove that spark China\, to prevent it from spreading further. If it surprises us\, and it happens to be the native\, we are going to retain it in place\, but it should be noted that it’s pretty sparse as it is\, which further suggests that it’s likely that non-native variety or a hybrid with the native\, which is also considered to be harmful. \nI would also add that I specialize in eel grass. So if you guys want to talk about the suitability of eel grass in this area. I’m happy to talk about that\, but I can just I’ll put it out there that it’s not considered very suitable habitat within the basin for Yale grass. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, Liz. So here we’re getting into the enlargements and detail of the pieces of the plan. So we can further. Look at those. \nso here is Neptune drive. We have our main pedestrian connection. In order to accommodate the sea level rise\, we will be coming up in grade from about 8.2 up to 16. So we have an eight-foot fill \nthat’s going in in this area. So this we’ve looked at the grades. We are definitely accessible. we were looking at creating a different material. That was a comment\, so that the bay trail \nis clearly evident\, and the the secondary maintenance access to the Sewer pump station that’s existing to remain will be a differentiated. So there’s a clear delineation there. This is our project signage. And then we’re also utilizing the. There’s some existing palm trees in the road is playing with it\, utilizing that same theme to capture those palm trees and \ntry to maximize the view as much as possible\, although the grades will be a challenge in that area. \nDRB Meeting Room: Just quick sections \nwant to just fly through these\, so we can get through the presentation. this is the hotel. Overlook this. Everything you see here is publicly accessible. We did revise the design layout of this area. \nso the calcos development. The hotel lobby sits here and there’s a door here. The entire pathway is focused on the door and then to the lobby. And so we’re playing\, utilizing that theme in creating a kind of a terminus overlook at this point \nas well as focusing on the trail Bay trail alignments. So we’re kind of creating an intersection\, if you will\, in developing some places for large groups\, smaller areas\, and then \nsmaller groups down in along the edges. Here. We pulled this back so it’s not protruding over the water’s edge as well to reduce costs. \nand then simplified the overall design and layout of the overlook here at the hotel \nDRB Meeting Room: general sections. parking lot sections. This has not changed since \nyou’ve last seen it \nhere. We’re at the Overlook at Mulford Point\, at the knuckle. Here we’ve revised the Overlook layout to follow a little more of a called modern butterfly wing themed utilizing benches that create some nodes\, nodes\, and individual spaces in between these areas \nproviding opportunity for an art piece at this location. Here we have that secondary path that has been added that provides a little closer access to the water’s edge \nas well\, and then we’ve shifted some of the burns to provide a visual buffer from the vehicles as well as they come in through this area. Here\, you see this. This is the existing rip\, wrap\, and then we have our planted coastal edge here \nthis planting on the outside on the bay side. this would incumb incorporate the new rip\, wrap\, and then everything above the new rep rap line would be landscaped as well. \nAnd that’s what’s shown here on this section of do rip\, rap\, and then coastal edge planting on bay and on the interior side existing riprop with all new landscape. Where the sea level rise fill is required. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a detailed blow up of the revised restroom maintenance building layout. \nHere we’ve adjusted the Eva turnaround to integrate it into the plaza design and then created a focal point at the roundabout at this location\, so that we’re able to utilize this space and turn around both for \npublic use in public as well as for Eva and maintenance truck turnaround for this space. we’re also located the memorial here. This is the lost boat Memorial\, which is the giant torpedo \nwith some seeding nodes at this point of inflection. and then creating the habitat pollinator planting that’s shown in the bright oranges and yellows. Here again we have the additional \ntrail system that’s behind the building. and then our seeding nodes that occur\, but approximately every 150 feet or so along the bay trail edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: and those those are going to be used for additional maintain the fishing access. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is lower area the where the used to be just the giant lawn. So this has been revised to native grasses\, and then we utilize the pollinator and habitat planting. It’s hard to see. But underneath the trees \nin these areas\, defining those edges of the pathways. again\, the seeding nodes for fishing and public access\, and the viewing along the bay trail. \nand here we have the cultural overlook zone that would be pay tribute to the the ingenuous tribes\, as well as provide some signage and educational signage to the historical aspect of that. \nDRB Meeting Room: And here\, at the tip of Mulford Point\, this is the revised overlook again adjusted to follow modern butterfly \nwing. We’ve utilize that secondary trail since we have to go down from about 15.5 down to 9\, which is the existing grade. At this location. \nwe would be sloping down to that rip\, rap edge\, and following that with a bay trail \nDRB Meeting Room: pretty much following the existing rip\, rap alignment at that Point location. \nwe would have a sloped bank of landscape above that\, with some additional seating nodes along that lower terrace trail system. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then here we would still utilize a a large area of in in phase 2. This is not\, hide your seat anymore. This is actual shrub planting. \nof following the pollinator habitat working in coordination with a Wra specialists. \nDRB Meeting Room: We also have the landscape burns for wind control. We’re trying to maintain those at a \na height of\, you know\, maximum 3 feet. There is a lot of septed visibility issues with police surveillance and crime that’s currently being that challenge out on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here we have the Pescador Point overlook and boat launch. \nSo we’ve been working with the Kamano. Canoe Club of what their needs are for their launching facilities. We’ve added dry onland storage for kayaks. \nAnd we’ve increased these areas by about 1\,300 square feet of kayak and fishing deck access. In this location. Here we have the restroom building\, as what was previously shown. But we’ve added a additional overlook public space \nto the rear of that building\, so that the views to the West can still be had at that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is just the traffic circle at the apartments. This has not really changed since the last presentation\, with the exception of \ncoastal planting on both sides\, where fill or where Rip rap was previously shown. \nDRB Meeting Room: and at the lower part of Monarch Bay Apartments\, Pescador Point is just to our north. Looking here at the key map. \nwe’ve revised and simplified. This overlook to be completely on grade and then creating some pinch points for access\, so that those material changes so that the overlooks are clearly defined from the Bay trail circulation\, that these are movements out of the active circulation. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then just the general materials following city of Stanley Andrew standards for benches and trash cans\, etc. \nDRB Meeting Room: that is it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you for that very\, very detailed presentation. \nI can have some clarifying questions from the board here\, and I thought I would just maybe kick it off. that you know you’ve done an incredible amount of work\, and the graphics are really clear\, and I commend you on that. And there’s no question that this is the maps \nimprovement from what’s out there today\, and I think we recognize that of the comments\, or at least I recognize from the comments we gave you last time. I think you’ve picked up the vast majority of them. And I just wanted to. \nyou know\, with with that as a backdrop to say\, there is a couple of comments that we’re at the top of the list of the board\, and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment \non really\, the the basin. you know the mudsl and the rip wrap. The thought was\, is there anything that can be done to kind of aid in the succession of the of the mud. And \nthere was some suggestions about stepping the elevation\, you know\, like removing Rip graph and stepping the elevations. And I completely understand that you’re adding planting \nabove the rip wrap of the ripe. So it’s really not a criticism. It’s more in the interest of clarification\, complete the presentation. I I think the city did \nmake it really clear that\, you know there are lots of good reasons why you’ve ended up where you are\, and I just wanted to see if you could share that with the group so maybe that could. Just. I don’t know. We can \nDRB Meeting Room: get that out\, you know we’ll start and I’ll hand it up to you guys. So thank you for that. Yes\, we took that to heart. This team \nwent through an an an extensive analysis of various options\, looking at steps\, looking at slopes\, looking at beaches\, looking at ramps. \nAnd I’m gonna let Dill up from off at a nickel as well as Liz\, from to kind of articulate. The decision points as to some of the challenges associated with those\, and why we ultimately landed on the design that we have. But\, I can assure you that \nas much as you. We want to activate this space as much as possible\, as much as feasible\, and in a way that is sustainable\, both environmentally and financially\, for the long term. And so I’ll hand it off to maybe you guys to get into some of the details. \nThank you. in terms of the repr. You know\, it is a pretty steep. It was built as a Marina\, right? So this was an artificial\, artificially created peninsula\, very specifically to provide protection for a marina basin. \nAnd so the slopes are pretty steep. wave action is not very significant\, and so the rock size demonstrates that it’s generally small\, you know\, smaller rock size on the \non the inside. however\, something is needed. Erosion. Protection is going to be needed\, you know. If not rock\, it would be some other kind of hard structural elements. \nDRB Meeting Room: unless\, of course\, you bring in a lot of fill \nand flatten the side slopes. or you cut back into this. You know very narrow Mall peninsula that you have and so\, wherever possible\, you know\, above \nthe elevation of \nDRB Meeting Room: erosion protection we have gone with as flat of a slope as possible for the grading of the fill for the park itself. \nThose will all be vegetated. \nin terms of the basin. Sure. We looked at\, you know. We looked at bringing back some amount of recreation. You know. What can we do with sailing\, or or canoes or kayaks? \nit’s very limited in terms of its water depth\, availability itself\, you know\, you can see that that is not a rendering. That’s an actual photograph which shows the channel. \nDRB Meeting Room: it. It’s a high amount of sediment load. \nHowever\, it’s not high enough to sustain a pickle in Marsh that would\, you know\, come on its own. I think. between rising sees that our pay sediment and the deficit of sediment that we’re seeing in San Francisco Bay. There just isn’t enough sediment to sustain a build from a mud flat. So we do expect that the mud flight will continue Acc. Creating. \nit will probably very likely\, for the foreseeable future mid-century remain a month flat \nDRB Meeting Room: in terms of others\, you know. Yes\, maybe List can speak. We looked at islands. We looked at Beaches. We looked at\, you know\, large restoration projects. I think the project \nthe Marina project. Probably \nDRB Meeting Room: you know it. It were difficult to add a large restoration project onto a Marina Park project itself. There are other avenues\, you know\, so I don’t think the door is closed on future restoration projects. If there is. \nit’s Stewart. If there is a proponent\, you know\, and there is some funds to bring in restoration elements of title fringe marshes you can have for it \nDRB Meeting Room: in certain areas. \nYeah\, I can. There’s Allen again from Wa I can speak more to some of the other considerations we had. We looked into putting out peers that potentially people could launch from We looked at putting out Bird Islands. The reason that we didn’t add any public peers or retain any of the existing structures is directly related to the saltation that’s experienced at the site currently\, where \nthere’s concern that people would get stranded during low tide. Since it’s not just during extreme low tides\, it’s during typical low tides that the majority of that lagoon becomes a mud flat. In terms of the Bird Islands we looked into\, whether putting out structures for birds would be suitable. But from my project experience\, working with East Bay\, Regional Park district and other projects that are fundamentally restoration projects. \nyou have to be careful about creating unintended conflicts between nesting bird habitat and the public And so the concern would be if we put out islands. And then Sushi started nesting\, such as what happened not too far from here\, with least turns in East Bay Park’s favorite marsh project you could lead to conflicts between when they’re nesting and the buffer zones that they need. And so \nthis habitat is really suitable foraging habitat in its current form. It’s not highly suitable nesting habitat\, and I see that as a good thing for this project to maintain or not create unnecessary conflicts. \nand that same comment would be true for other restoration in the area. The existing choreographs\, regardless of whether it’s native or not\, does indicate that there might be potential for some fringe. \nOther cordgrass marsh in this area. But I do have concerns about whether it’s worth putting the effort of restoring that habitat in an area where the marsh has no room to move with sea level rise. \nAnd in addition\, I\, the other agencies that all have the opportunity to issue comments on this project before we receive permits. they typically expect around 10 years of monitoring\, of restoration projects like that. And that’s a cost that the city is not willing to take on\, and would potentially \ncause reductions in other portions of the scope. It’s just a major addition to the project to add that level of restoration\, especially when the longevity of that restoration past the next couple of decades is in question. \nbecause in the current form there’s a nice mud flat. But\, as Philip said. despite the fact that sediment settles really nicely here. That’s largely\, as I understand it\, to the shape of the system\, but that’s expected to reach an equilibrium\, and the sedimentation is not expected to keep up with sea level rise\, and so restoring a marsh here where there was not one previously\, and where it wouldn’t have room to grow up to move up slope just doesn’t seem like a worthwhile exercise. \nI think. supporting this area by just improving the habitat for the short birds which are known to love. The South Bay mud flats as it is. is A is a really great option\, and as I referenced when I spoke previously\, this area is currently too shallow for illegraph. It’s possible that by mid century that that’s a different story. But this is not too shallow for subtitle vegetation as well\, and eel grass is really the only \nsubtitle vegetation that that’s known in the direct region. I’ll add one more thing to that I forgot to mention earlier\, which is that lower trail that Chuck presented is intended to give people a better viewing opportunity of this lagoon to have better bird watching opportunities. \nSo so those birds that you’re showing they’re using the site now\, or some portion of them. Yes. These birds are based on local observations\, personal experience from Wre’s staff biologists\, as well as data collected on I naturalists. So yes\, these are known to occur either locally to the lagoon or in within a mile known to forage and mud flat. I \nwould expect it only a couple of the more common species\, likely frequent area in its current form\, because it’s has a bunch of infrastructure that attracts predators that dissuades a lot of these \nbirds from showing up as well as the nuisance activities that have been prevalent out there. It’s we’re focused more on the fact that these birds are expected to be more prevalent once the lagoon is a more naturalized system. \nOkay? So in summary\, is it fair to say that in order to do what the board was suggesting\, it would take a massive amount of fill which is beyond the \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. There’s one other thing I would add to that\, too\, which is that when it comes to the other agencies as currently designed\, the project is expected to be self mitigating\, and not need compensatory mitigation. \nTo bring in the fill that would be required to soften these slopes would require compensatory mitigation\, which is upwards of a million dollars an acre for cost. So it’s it’s just a it’s a massive burden for a project that’s not whose primary goal is not to restore tidal habitat\, but it could be a great opportunity for a future project proponent or the scientific community to look into. \nOkay\, thank you. I think there is great education for board. okay\, one other thing. And then I’m going to open up to others here. the that one of the early diagrams\, you know\, showed the single family home area. \nyou know\, severely impacted by flooding at mid-century. so I just wanted to. I think that’s something that is coming up more and more when there’s privately owned property in an area like that which is endangered where this may be beyond their capability to mitigate as Homeers Association. are there guidelines\, or for the development of that property? That will? \nOkay\, yes\, the the developer has agreed in writing in the Development Agreement\, and as the project is entitled with the city\, that all of the residential units that you see here are going to be raised to 2\,070 levels\, just like everything we’re doing on the Park as well as the Hotel and multi-family. \nDRB Meeting Room: So they will be addressing \nanyone else\, please. \nDRB Meeting Room: I have a just a couple of questions\, and thank you very much for the presentation\, and \nI remember going to see the site with Gary in 2\,016\, and I really appreciate all of the efforts that you’re making. \nDRB Meeting Room: 2 questions. One was about maintenance \nand about what the city is. \nDRB Meeting Room: how the city is expecting to kind of maintain this area\, especially with this sort of new approach to landscaping\, it’ll be helpful to understand. Are there other parts of your \npark system where there’s similar stuff that you’re dealing with? Or is this kind of a new venture? And then the other one was something that you brought up\, which was crime prevention. \nso sort of natural surveillance in the site. I’m curious about lighting. and if you could sort of speak to those 2 things which seem to be intertwined \nthank you. sure. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I’ll start with the maintenance. \nSo as part of this project\, the city has\, pardon me. put together a community facilities district to fund and finance the maintenance required for this project. \nWe’ve also worked very closely with the city’s Public Works Department\, who maintains their own projects. And so this project has been designed to be as efficient as possible for the maintenance of the project. \nIt’s specifically designed to be able to facilitate their vehicles\, their tools\, their contractors\, and that central node area where the restroom is\, is designed to also function as a maintenance facility where they can have real time\, access\, and immediate presence. To be able to maintain this. This facility. They have a lot of lessons learned from projects in the direct\, the city just to the south \nas well as across town\, and so this will be utilizing some of the the most late up to date\, latest and maintenance technology that we’ll be working closely with them to implement on the project. \nAnd there’s and there’s funding already in place to finance it in perpetuity. \nRelated to the septed principles and lighting. So generally. The park is lit\, you know\, within the hotels and the apartments areas. These areas are lit. \nbut everything within past this parking lot\, down into this area would close at dusk support to all the other park facilities in the city. These would only have. \nyou know\, possibly some ambient lighting as needed\, like around around the buildings. But there’s not intended to be full lighting at night through the park. \nDRB Meeting Room: some of the the vandalism issues don’t even occur at night. It’s middle of the day out here right now. So it’s not the night time. Only element. One of our things we are doing is providing vehicular gates. \nSo when the park does close\, these areas can be closed off to prevent\, you know\, after hours Rvs and side shows from happening out here. \nDRB Meeting Room: And we also have been working closely with the San Diego police department to design this park so that has maximum visibility. So \nNot only do the the the viewing goals that this body has for the public those same goals hold true for public safety\, so that they can have good sight lines throughout the park. That’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to minimize the amount of obstructions and keep it as as low profile as possible\, because that facilitates law enforcement. The gates have been located with their guidance in mind. And and and of course\, then in the areas where there’s parking lots\, there’ll be \nThe code requires that there’s continuous lighting there. So where we need the lighting for crime prevention\, we will have it\, and where we’ve been advised by public safety to close off the park at certain hours we’ve followed their guidance. \nDRB Meeting Room: I have a couple of questions. One. Could you speak a little bit to the eastern edge of the the marina and the connectivity of the \npublic access areas to that interface. And then second. and this is this is on buildings. So I don’t know how much of this is within the jurisdiction. But \ndid you have any consideration of providing \nDRB Meeting Room: retail or areas that would be accessible to the public \nin either the hotel or the apartment building\, and I’m particularly looking at some of those interfaces that are at the entry points of the apartment in the northeast corner of the northwest instead of \nedges that are kind of treated as buffered from public. If they could be enhanced through some kind of program at the ground floor of the building that can make it a little bit more inviting. So \nany any thinking behind the location of retail and public uses. \nI think \nDRB Meeting Room: I think you’re asking about the area right in the middle of the project. Right? That’s that’s grayed out that we’re not touching right \nfor the first question. \nDRB Meeting Room: On the upper edge of that is a restaurant called Horatios\, on the southern edge of that is an existing hotel called the Marina end \nthat is currently not a part of this project. There are\, however\, existing acts of public access permits in place that will remain in place continuously throughout the project. \nthose are under current ground lease agreements with the city that last for a number of years. and so for us to make improvements at that stage. At this stage it would delay the project as much as a decade or more. \nSo what we’re doing in this project is basically focusing on the areas that we can improve. the city is currently in negotiations of those ground leases to put conditions in place\, to be able to make sure that those areas themselves mitigate against sea level rise\, and the existing public access permits and requirements will remain intact throughout the duration of both the construction and and continuous\, so the existing condition will remain unchanged. \nDRB Meeting Room: as it relates to or retail. \nSo if you look on there\, you’ll see \nI’m wondering with the regrading of the public access improvements that are happening to the north and south of that area. How how would that connect? And it’s tricky? And and we have our civil engineer to explain it. But there’s going to be some unusual contours where you’re going to be a little bit higher and have to slope down into the parking lots right? There might even be there might even need to be a retaining wall. I don’t know but it there might be a situation where we have to raise the grade and then contour down to land where they are. \nThe good news is in in in certain areas here. They’re actually higher there than where we need to build or where the developer is building the hotel. So we believe that there are \nsolutions that are Ada accessible that allow for continuous pedestrian interaction in there. But it’s something that it does have to be further studied because we’re going to have some interesting driveway approaches to make sure that we are still maintaining the existing grades where we’re not raising the sea level\, right or mitigating sea level rise while also addressing areas where we’re not or where we are\, I should say. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \nDRB Meeting Room: retail. And other access. If you go to the other. \nthat that \nDRB Meeting Room: go to the one that shows all the buildings\, the whole\, the whole set. There you go perfect. \nSo number 3 is the hotel\, as you know. Number 4 is a restaurant open to the public like any other restaurant. There’s a El Torrido there now. So we’re essentially providing a new restaurant where an old one exists\, it’ll be open to the public. It won’t be restricted by the hotel in any way. The Associated parking for that is open to the public. \nNumber 5 is a market. So as part of the development agreement\, the city\, like like you’ve wondered as as is requiring that the developer build a market\, it’ll probably be a place where. \nYeah. it might be like a trader. Joe’sish kind of place. You see where you where we that we that the city\, believe that it. It’s it’s the kind of place a family can go to and get snacks and sandwiches in a picnic basket\, and then go to the park. \nor you can stop on your way as you’re riding your bike on the bay trail. Get a drink\, have something to eat\, so there’s a retail component at both of those. And then\, of course\, the hotel is open to the public. But it’s a hotel. \nOkay? \nDRB Meeting Room: And the hotel will also have a restaurant as well. \nYeah. \nwell\, first of all\, thank you for the presentation. Very detailed. And it’s great that you brought a team with with experts with you. It really helps us understand and have confidence in what’s being shared with us today. \ncouple of questions. One is. Well\, first of all\, I’d say\, I think. What’s I appreciate about the approach here is that it’s not your traditional. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, nineteenth century Park. It’s really looking to naturalize as much of this \nhistoric piece of infrastructure as possible. So I think that’s really wonderful. And it stands in contrast to perhaps some of this open spaces nearby. as such as kind of. It’s kind of a little piece of ecology unto itself. And \nDRB Meeting Room: I think you’ve answered a lot of my questions regarding your grass and mud flats and and things like that. So that’s that’s great. \nOne question I did have\, though\, was with the shore birds\, and the proximity to airport is that perceived as any potential conflict. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s not expected to create any additional conflict beyond what I already exist\, and that’s mainly because larger concerns happen \nI should back up. The mudflat. Specialist species are not typically the same species as what creates conflict with airports. That’s typically typically what we see is marsh habitat. And the actually\, it’s actually a good point that it’s another reason the creation of true marsh habitat could become the problem. \nwe’re far enough away from the airport that it’s not a direct constraint on the project\, and that the airport doesn’t have say over it\, and that also goes to the fact that this project sequence document is already complete. Where they would have the opportunity to comment. But no\, the increase in foraging habitat that already exists is not expected to create any new conflicts. \nand then maybe this is more\, for landscape is Has there been a study of the prevailing winds\, as you mentioned firms being put up. and how the prevailing\, how those respond to prevailing when? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So a lot of the prevailing winds come from the west. \nit’s typical in the bay\, headed towards the east in this direction. So where we’re looking at placing firms is primarily on the western side of the park\, so that the \nrecreation zones\, ie. The native ones. Areas are protected from the wind. somewhat. It is when I’ve been out on the site. It is usually very windy. and \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, short of building a wall\, there’s not going to be a lot we can do to it. And then we’re also trying to mitigate the pay attention to the Sept as well\, and not creating very tall burns. We’re looking at 3 foot high burns on that western edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: Can you go to the section that shows the \nokay. \nthe lower tier \nDRB Meeting Room: or the \nyeah. Oh\, you were. You were close. \nOkay\, if you look at the section there\, at the bottom there is about a 5 foot. elevation difference between the lower tier and the upper tier. \nWe anticipate placing benches up against backing up against that tier. Now we know wind has a way of getting around\, but we’re doing our best to kind of create a bit of a wind shelter\, so that the folks that are on that lower tier that want to take a break do some bird watching and sit on a bench\, do have some protection from the wind at their back. \nPerfect thanks. \nAnd this is probably a question comment which you start to address\, which is that? I think it was mentioned about the seating areas on the west side of \nthe Peninsula for fishing being every 150 feet. I was curious. There’s there’s a extensive other system of paths where there’s no seating or other kinds of amenities indicated at this point is that something that is part of future development of the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: we can definitely look into it. A lot of the circulation pathways inside was more about producing or or providing for movement. Throughout the park \nwe placed the benches where we think they maximize the views\, maximize interaction with the water\, and specifically on the west side of of the Mufer point. There\, where Number 2 is. \nwe have found\, at the city\, and just a personal observation as well as the city’s years of observing the existing fishing pier\, that folks don’t use it for fishing. They \nscramble out on the on the western side of the edge and fish out into the open bay. So rather than fight nature\, we want to place the benches in place the fishing availability where it’s best for fishing. That said we did it. Extend the docks at the launching the boat launch. \nSo if there was someone out there that loved to fish in that spot. They still can. But it’s our understanding that it’s not ideal fishing right there. Given the siltation and the in the lack of movement. \nYeah. And if I might follow up with that\, I think. But there’s other reasons for seating along the trail you mentioned the bird watching. So I was just curious if there was other. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’ve placed some where where we where we think they make sense benches are easy to add right? And I mean\, I can even see a scenario where the city observes the usage and realizes that certain areas might deserve a bench where we’re not \nA lot of it is observing how it gets used. We want to be able to allow people to enjoy the grasses and have a picnic and lay down a blanket. we also want to allow them an opportunity to maximize these to the views and the bird watching them. So \nthat’s kind of at this early stage. That’s that’s kind of our decision point or our our direct. \nthe and the way we’re headed\, I guess. But we’re open\, you know. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further questions from the board. Yeah\, just one more \nback to the water. I totally understand what you’ve explained. \nDRB Meeting Room: kind of morphologically\, I guess. so. My\, so my question is. \nis there going to be active management of this mud flat. or could anything happen? And are there bad things that could happen there would need to be fixed or mitigate\, or something like that. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m having trouble thinking of what bad things could happen. I think that what will happen\, as I said previously is that the depths will increase here\, and eventually\, mid century or late century. There \nmay not. It’ll might be deep enough for other vegetation or other habitats to develop like you. I can’t think of any concerns or management needs \nfor what you would manage\, for in this space\, and other than just making sure people\, I I guess\, because you mentioned about invasive species\, oh\, and and trying to encourage something that made me think that there was going to be active management. \nDRB Meeting Room: The invasive Spartina is really the only \nspecies I can think of. And there’s it’s extent in this location is limited enough that it should be reasonable to get rid of it here at this time. That’s not the case in other parts of the bay\, where it’s become intertwined in existing marshes. \nOther invasive species it’s really the only one I can think of that would take advantage of this area and those Mars species. Part of why we’re not proposing the vegetation is because even if they do arrive they won’t last. But the Spartan is really the the only marsh invasive species. That’s it. More of a generalist than the species it competes with that I could see arriving here. And I would imagine that if we’re removing it as part of the project\, that the city would see that through and make sure that if it shows up again it’s taken care of. But the invasive for China project is a great \nnonprofit partner on all those efforts throughout the bay to help make sure that it’s managed and eradicated. Where possible. \nis there? \nI mean\, mitigation project would have monitored and stuff like that. But we’re not in that category right? \nRight? typically\, the removal of vegetation. It’s possible that other agencies\, namely\, the waterboard and the army core of engineers\, particularly the water board in this case\, may ask for some \nmonitoring to make sure that if the Spartan is removed\, that it’s truly removed\, but that would be done in coordination with the invasive part time\, a project\, and may even be led by them as this part of the project. We’re not at that stage\, since we don’t even know if this is the invasive or not\, but we will be working with them to determine that I again\, I think it’s likely that it is. But since this is the only plant species that’s out there\, and it’s very limited. \nThat’s a pretty straightforward eradication project compared to what they usually contend with. It’s don’t have to discriminate between other plants. You can just go in and get it out of there\, and there’s enough. It’s there’s just not that much of it compared to other projects. I work on that deal with it in a much more challenging capacity. \nSo just to make sure I understand. dear an invasive maybe coming in. other species may come in after that\, as saltation builds up. \nand then\, as sea level rises\, they may go away\, and they may get back to open water with the R \nDRB Meeting Room: in a point like a 2030\, 40 years from now. \nAre you asking if it would become open water? Yeah\, would it be return to open water. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know someone\, I would say the first part to your question. Yes\, there will be some management. There will be management or debris at the very minimum. There’s going to be management of floats and and debris that is in the bay. \nthat the city would be\, you know. as part of their maintenance function here. \nDRB Meeting Room: in terms of sedimentation and and the progressive build up of vegetation. It’s \npossible that \nDRB Meeting Room: that the good variety of chordgrass. \nif it can be encouraged. not planted\, but encouraged. \nDRB Meeting Room: can lend itself to better retention of sediment from the suspended water column when tides come in in the future\, and so it could build its way out further. \nthat would be the goal. And then\, I think\, at some point \nDRB Meeting Room: just like with Bunker Marsh\, and just like with the other marshes on. You know\, this side of the bay itself. there will be collaboration with regional efforts. You know\, the invasive part on our project is a large project that is\, coastal conservancy\, sponsored and funded. Easter. A park district pays into it. \nIt’s possible that the city\, you know\, would become a partner in that also. This is not the only mar they have Bunker Marsh\, which is a very large one\, just out of here. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, I think that’s the adaptation at this point. It is not a \ndeliberate action to bring material in and create marshes\, because I think that itself is getting to be a pretty large action. That one was not covered in sqa to the Restoration Agency is really lash on to something like that and say\, if you’re building something\, you need to monitor it. \nand then\, you know\, there are \nDRB Meeting Room: our success criteria and goals\, and if you don’t meet those\, you know you get dinged for doing something good. \nCould there be odors from the mudflat that could be offensive? \nYes\, I think in the existing condition it would be the same as the proposed condition\, and that yes\, there are likely existing low tide odors from the exposed mud flat. But again\, with sea level rise. This mud flat is not expected to last to \npast till when do you think it will? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. But I would say the order issue is associated with with outfalls and discharge and things like that. There isn’t \na historic marsh here that generates hydrogen sulfide\, which really is\, you know\, the issue with many of these historic \nDRB Meeting Room: this is sediment that’s coming in. \nIt’s \nDRB Meeting Room: words and sediment that you know\, falling out of the water column itself. with the Bmps \nwith all the other stormwater treatment that is planned. \nDRB Meeting Room: The rest from outfalls\, I think\, are going back to the source system itself. There’s no so in general\, it would be far better than the Marina. The marina itself\, I think\, is probably the biggest source of condemnance right now \nDRB Meeting Room: within the basin\, so removing that. \nyou know\, it’s going to help with water quality improvements. \nDRB Meeting Room: And generally\, I think\, with the use an attraction by the local\, you know\, feel birds. \nand I want to make sure you caught what Dill Up said about the hydrogen sulfide\, because it’s a really good point that the rotten egg smell you typically think of with exposed areas at low tide comes from the sulfide that’s released by vegetation. So that’s why marshy areas tend to think more. It’s it’s a direct chemical. \nThat’s where it comes from. So he’s right to say that it’s I can’t say directly how what what the current state is. I don’t expect it to change. And yeah\, the vegetation is actually the main reason for that odor. All other odors are the man-made variety. \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s it’s a great opportunity. I’ll tell you this. If I had\, it’s a great restoration opportunity. I would love to do what I’ve done at Bear Island\, and what I’m doing in Hamilton and at Belmar and Keys and others\, you know\, there’s a lot of you know. There’s there’s a \na a complete set of different agencies and goals that come in with the Restoration project\, and I think bringing the 2 together at this point might offset the schedule for this project substantially. \nWhat? But I think we can still keep it open\, and I think that’s what we would recommend in the city that you know they stay open\, and. you know\, pursue \nDRB Meeting Room: double a grants pursue other sort of\, you know\, opportunities with agencies to see if there is someone who would like to create a wetland here. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I might add\, I mean\, the city school is to solve a problem now as soon as possible. \nand restore an area that right now is an attractive nuisance for crime\, and make it into a place that the entire community can enjoy\, while at the same time not doing anything that precludes us from doing something in the future that could restore this project. So what we’re trying to do is do the most we can right now\, and leaving the most available options for the future. \nGreat! Thank you so much for all that. That was one of the more extensive question and answer periods with that. so let’s see\, I think that concludes the board questions. Unless anyone has anything else. \nwe can open the meeting to the public public comment. If there’s any member of the public attending in person. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to comment. \nand if you’re attending online please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nDRB Meeting Room: There’s no public comment\, but we did receive a letter from Bay Trail staff that I will summarize at the moment. The comments have been forwarded to the board and will be included in the meeting summary. But to summarize the Mtc. Staff recommendations. \nthe Bay trail provided\, or should provide more of a loop experience than the out and back elements. Alignments that are currently shown with the high potential use at the site designing the bay trail consistently at 26 feet wide. \nwould be recommended\, the 18 feet being the minimum width per vital guidelines. \nDRB Meeting Room: all Betra are all proposed. Betrayal. Improvements be completed in phase one\, and not split between the 2 phases \nand the addition of the other trail amenities\, such as drinking fountains with bottle\, fill stations and bicycle repair stations would be much appreciated. \nDRB Meeting Room: And that concludes patrol comments \nDRB Meeting Room: right? And the letter was proposing essentially a trail on the inside of the basin right? Going around pretty much the entire basin. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, they. They wanted a loop experience. Not just the out and back. Yeah. Facing inward to the basement basin. \nOkay\, great. Thank you. If there’s no other comments we can move on to the board discussion for the board discussion. I’d like to ask everyone except the Board members to turn off their cameras so there could be a focus discussion. \nClarification is necessary during the discussion the representative of the project team may speak briefly to the clarification at the discretion of the board chair. So \nagain. I’ll just summarize The 7 objectives for public access\, make public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: feel public\, make public access usable. \nprovide\, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and shoreline. maintain and enhance the visual quality of the bay\, shoreline and adjacent developments. \nDRB Meeting Room: provide connections to and continuity along the shoreline. \nTake advantage of the base setting. \nDRB Meeting Room: ensure that public access is compatible with a wildlife through citing design and management strategies. \nAnd then \nDRB Meeting Room: staff questions specific to this project. \nDoes the Peninsula feel public and allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people space inviting with sufficient facilities to support public use. \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s concern about making the space feel usable and welcoming before the project is fully completed. \nDRB Meeting Room: are there clear connections and way finding to the shoreline from the Community and Monarch Bay Drive? Does the proposed bay trail alignment\, a long monarch\, drive Monarch Bay\, drive\, complement the current and planned \npedestrian and bicycle circulation networks. Does the phase one design adequately provide for southbound Bay trail of traffic? \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed shoreline protection approach \nenhance the experience of the shoreline? How could the design improve these physical and visual connections? \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed design provide adequate opportunities for fishing without creating points of conflict with other users? Is the design of Pescador Point and the boat dock adequate to accommodate current and anticipated user groups. \nincluding public recreational use and a commercial water taxi service. \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think \nI hope that works generally to consider all those factors\, and for each board member to provide their provide their their comments\, and then I don’t know. Ashley May\, if you feel like we haven’t addressed some of these adequately. Maybe at the end we can do a wrap up\, or something. \nDRB Meeting Room: Would anyone like to kick off? \nDRB Meeting Room: well\, I I listen to the whole presentation\, and and I thought \nI didn’t hear any part of it that seemed to have big holes or flaws honestly in terms of the basic landscape design circulation. I was not really in favor of what \nthe patriarchal folks were saying about ringing every single shoreline with \nDRB Meeting Room: the trail\, because I’m always more concerned about \nbikes and dogs and kids conflicts. so \nto support with some of those things coming up there. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t know. I I I just think that there was a you know\, a good good faith\, effort here to to address everything we brought up. \nI was awesomely impressed that Dill and and \nfrom Wsa. yeah. really thought this through\, and I was expecting to be like. No\, you just can’t just say nothing. Nature take its course. This is just back during it\, but I I am convinced now. \nfinally\, about the proper taking the part\, of course. So personally\, I’m generally satisfied. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, Tom. \nCan a building what? Tom? Saying? just thinking about this betrayal access issue. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m a little torn\, because. \nI think\, thinking about the Bay trail as a sort of recreational access versus something that would encourage all users all multimodal users to basically access the site. \nthe attention that you made to sort of orienting the market and the restaurant to Mulford Point drive and having that sort of be a new \nDRB Meeting Room: entrance on into the site\, I think is really good. \nthere’s a class 3 by claim there. But I wonder about that piece\, and about sort of making that \nDRB Meeting Room: it you sort of a multimodal usable front door for everybody. \nAnd that feels in many ways sort of more important than the \nDRB Meeting Room: Pascad or Point drive \nconnection in terms of closing that loop. particularly if that’s just a residential building in that location. This idea about sort of putting the public access on the parameter is \nmore in keeping with the way you think about the bay trail in this part of the same the intro But So here’s a question that I’d like to think about is \nDRB Meeting Room: in the next phase. \nor when in the adaptation strategy that you sort of think about down the line when Horatio is on the hotel\, basically turn over. Does it make sense to you actually shift the bay trail \nto the west side of Monarch Bay\, drive onto the shorter line in that location. and when you do that\, then is that when you actually want to get a loop created. So instead of bringing the bay trail \nall the way to Monarch B Drive\, now\, where the connectivity in that location may not be the best thing. Do you do it in the future when you actually can complete that loop \naround? the entire \nformer Marina. But does that mean that you want to think about again that multi-point drive connection a little bit differently. because \nDRB Meeting Room: right now it does make sense to sort of push people to the edge. But in the future \nyou actually might want to get people across Multiple Point\, drive along sort of a newly activated front door. Once ratios goes away once\, you know\, once that’s it turns over \nAnd if I follow through getting to the point that the maybe that makes the northwest corner of the apartment building more important than \nthe northeast corner in terms of activating that for future public use. \nWell\, while we’re on that subject? Can we bring up a an image so that we can see? So we can look at some monarch day drive. And some of these circulation issues easier to visualize. And and then I just wanted to ask \nstuff on \nDRB Meeting Room: You know\, they’ve they’ve addressed the issue of crosswalks that we that we brought up\, and at the same time the Bay trail issue that you’re mentioning requires a criss crossing of Monarch Bay to get to the shoreline\, because it’s on the east side of the road. \nSo I understand that the they all these driveway curb cuts to provide a conflict. There’s a there’s a diagram that has the little red dots showing all. Yeah\, if you go to page 18\, I think that’s probably the most useful \nsort of regional diagram\, or it’s page 18 in the lower right hand corner. Yeah\, that one. Yeah. Yeah. So I want to focus. And I think the other question there\, too\, is that there’s this breaking up of the big block. \nwe on the the hotel site\, and I think that’s beneficial. But then. \nDRB Meeting Room: trying to sort of understand? \nDRB Meeting Room: how that actually would be used. \nYou know the pedestrian access from the roundabout getting to the shoreline\, getting around sort of the front edge of those buildings. And so another way to sort of think about making that \nDRB Meeting Room: increasing the multi-modal access in that area would just be to rethink that section of of multi-point drive. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, beyond just a class 3 facility. on that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m looking at it through the lens of. \nyou know. \nDRB Meeting Room: if I took my kids to the shoreline on my extra cycle. \nand we needed to make that stop because they were hungry. \nI would just go to. I would. I would take Mo. 4 point drive on my bicycle because there is a portion of that where it needs to be a non recreational experience. but I know that\, you know. \nthere’s a great variety of sort of public that actually needs to access that point. \nDRB Meeting Room: How about it? Yeah. \nWell\, I I think you raised a good point\, and I think for me\, one of the the big questions on the bay trail was less the question of the loop and more the the continuity along the shoreline \nnorth of this project and south of this project\, as you can see from understanding this correctly. \nDRB Meeting Room: the bay trail north and south of us is on the west side. \nand so I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: I didn’t hear if there was any reason other than the driveways for not locating it on the West side\, because it just. It just seems to me that \nDRB Meeting Room: for reasons of continuity\, the reasons of not having to cross Monarch Bay Drive\, which is going to be busier than any of the driveways\, I would imagine\, because it’s cumulative traffic. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then all the public amenities are on the West Side as well\, so I think it would be worth considering and and seeing\, because I think it will feel more public\, Frank. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then I think the other comment I would have\, and this was related to my question about seating \nis right now. It seems like \nDRB Meeting Room: The trails south and west of the apartment. \nthe trails between \nDRB Meeting Room: the the the fishing\, the west edge of Mullfer Point and the hotel\, and from the hotel back up to the access point on Monarch Bay. \nDRB Meeting Room: They see all of those walkways seem very much at the scale of the car. There is the street\, there’s occasional trees \nand the amenities. The places for people to actually enjoy that space are very far apart\, and they feel like what they were described as which was kind of like through put places and connections. And I think that really the reality is that when you’re on foot \nDRB Meeting Room: people tend to move at a different pace. They look for interest and activity at a different interval than one might find in a car. So I think \nin the next phase\, I think it’d be great to see some more talks about that. It may be seating. It may be amenities. and I also think that there is opportunities for more cross connectivity \nfrom the \nDRB Meeting Room: the bayside to the \nI guess the the cove the question for both days. So the small bay on the east side to the the but the San Francisco Bay that there’s these parallel trails\, and it just seems like there’s more opportunity to provide connectivity back and forth. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then the last detail on that is \nin my understanding it correctly. It looks like on the south side of Pescador Point that there’s no trail there which? Yeah\, so and that’s that’s actually where \npedestrians are getting out of cars and buses. It looks like. And so\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: boat trailers. And so it just seems like\, that’s where people are arriving at the site. There should be a trail along that southern edge to connect everything. \nThank you. Thank you. Good evening. \nYeah\, I \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m \nI’m torn on the loop. But I guess just to start. Thank you for the presentation\, and it’s really\, I think\, amendable to see the before and after with the aerial\, how much gray and asphalt as kind of being turned over to soft space and usable public \nspace. The outlier is a little bit. You know\, the area that Leo is just talking about Southern piece does feel like it’s still pretty vehicular in its focus. And I wonder about \nDRB Meeting Room: plaza moment at the toes of \nthe southern trail\, and if there’s a softer a space that is made to be softer and more generous\, paired with that as \nmore usable area. And on the loop\, I think \nit’s \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m getting caught up on where the gray dash line is shown. I understand the re-grading and the challenges to connect \nBut I also think\, as pedestrians\, if there was\, if there were attaining walls or things that felt like they were cutting off access. It would make some of these great improvements that you are doing. \nbecause you would be forced as a pedestrian to then walk all the way up or find other routes. that are less convenient\, or make you feel like you should just get in a car and drive \nout into those areas. And so if there is a way for the lower trail\, forget what it was called the Lower Basin trail\, I believe\, on the northern side. If there is a way for that to connect \neven if not the higher ground\, and all of the extent\, I think\, that could go a long way in making that feel more seamless. and \nDRB Meeting Room: to the extent that \nthere may I\, you mentioned \nDRB Meeting Room: bike\, repair facility? Or if there’s consideration of those types of programming. I think the apartment building having one of the corners. \nand I’m kind of going back and forth now between\, is it the Northwestern. Is it kind of one of the other on the southern\, where you have already have the lobby and courtyard areas? just to help make more usable that space that is quite generous with seeding and planting paired with the apartment building. \nSo those would be my 2 kind of focal areas of. \nDRB Meeting Room: but really great and very \nreally inspiring to see with all the constraints\, and thank you for explaining all those challenges as well. \nOkay\, so I I have a comment about this bike lane on on Monarch\, and I I don’t know if this is a valid comment or not\, but it just seems like one \n2 smaller bike lanes\, one on each side of Monarch Bay instead of the 18 footer\, would be more. What’s that? A a class\, 2 facility instead of a class 3. \nYeah\, yeah\, I mean\, it seems important to have something over there for the scenario you describe stuff on. I mean\, I I \nDRB Meeting Room: I do. I would be concerned about trying to cross that that road on bicycle. \nIt’s hard enough for an adult. If you have kids. you know it seems like it can lead a problem. Anyway. I I don’t know how you arrived at that\, and whose jurisdiction it is to determine \nthose things. But that’s one thing. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then I think a lot of the other comments that I \nhad it been covered. Well\, I just wanted to say there was one comment about the single family homes would comply with the 2\,070 guidelines for sea level rise. \nand just wondering if that’s\, you know\, 50 years is an adequate lifespan\, you know\, for a single family home\, you know. I don’t. I don’t know if it would. It would ratch it up as the guidelines change\, or if that’s locked in it. \nBut you know\, by the time it’s built\, you know\, you’ll be pretty close to a lot closer to 2\,070 \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m not sure how. How\, again\, out of our purview. But it’s something that comes to mind\, you know\, building on sensitive sites that are influenced by the bay. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay. Are there any other comments? Or Ashley? Do you have anything that you want to \naddress? \nDRB Meeting Room: If you could speak more to possible user conflicts\, or if the Shoreline Bay trail\, the exterior Bay trail is meeting those needs with the notes for anglers. \nDRB Meeting Room: and pedestrians and bikes. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: oh\, And the \nboat\, Doc. \nDRB Meeting Room: If it’s adequate to provide for \nrecreation users and water taxi. \nand what that might trigger on the lands. \nI don’t. I don’t know if I I’ve seen enough detail and understand the scale enough to really be able to address that I mean\, we’re looking at this thing very globally at the moment and not. And these are \nDRB Meeting Room: questions about whether something is scaled or scaled appropriately. I’m not sure \nthat I can cover that\, that I would be that I have a \nDRB Meeting Room: valid thoughts on that at this moment. \nDRB Meeting Room: hmm! \nWhat about the land side services that would be associated with those 2 different user groups. Is there adequate passenger loading? What facilities might be needed on the land side to accommodate those different uses. If you have any recommendations for that. \nDRB Meeting Room: just to clarify what different uses are you talking? This is the water taxi plus the boat launch users. So the contemplated uses at the boat ramp \nare non-motorized small boats. Kaya. there is the Outrigger Club. There’s motorized boat ramp. There is a proposed or a contemplated water taxi. \nsmall water shuttles. and fishing. \nDRB Meeting Room: Got it? Okay\, thank you. \nIs it possible to see a detail of that area. \nI wonder if it might be the topic of a part of a subsequent presentation is helping us understand what the anticipated and intensity of uses for each of those different user groups are. \nit’s hard to say. You know\, water taxi is. it could be many different things. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think you know\, the specific design of that would be be helpful to understand what are the use groups and what the anticipated load from each of them is. \nDRB Meeting Room: on 1 point. I’m not an expert fisherman\, but I have to say I would imagine fish probably are not going to congregate around a boat. R. \nSo it’s there for recreation as was mentioned. So whether it’s fishing or recreation that \nit seems. Okay. \nDRB Meeting Room: there’s other \naccommodations of the meeting for fishing. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s valid point\, are there other areas? actually\, that we should focus on like this? Because I think when you see it at the scale and you have a minute to to to think about it\, that we can get better comments \nif there’s any way we can do this with without having the proponent come back for another presentation\, and they could work with staff on those areas. I think that would be better for my point of view. But but I think if \nwith your recommendation\, we could probably go either way. \nDRB Meeting Room: So if we maybe we could identify areas that would require some further study \nwith Staff. \nDRB Meeting Room: you can direct them to work with staff further on these \nspecific areas. and we’ll work with them on that. Okay\, I think we’re all eager to to move it along. Yeah\, I think so. yeah\, I think it would be great. I I think it’s a really important point that’s being raised here. I just don’t feel like we’ve had the time or the detail and the scale to figure to really focus on that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I don’t know\, I think\, are there other \nchannels for soliciting board advice on isolated items. I think we’ve discussed that in the past. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. \nI think we can reach out unofficially. And you guys are always welcome to follow up with the follow up a board meeting with comments email to us and we’ll share them on. Okay\, great. Thank you. \nI just think on the water taxi question. we we we could identify. The applicant could identify what kind of both can fit in there\, and what kind cannot \nI mean. \nDRB Meeting Room: and which ones are likely to be used\, and which ones are seem unlikely? \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further comments? \nIf not\, then that would conclude our comments and recommendations. And if the proponent would like to speak on any of these issues\, please feel free. \nDRB Meeting Room: just a couple of things. Thank you for your offer. I hope everyone agrees that we can work with Staff to keep going\, because we’re anxious to to get this project built. So thank you for that. \nThese are all very good points. I know the city also wants to put the bay trail on the west side of Monarch Bay Drive\, and if that ends up being a condition for approval\, we’ll do it. I will say to the point about the bay trail loop \nif you. We don’t have to go back to this slide. But what we are proposing is about 100% more bay trail than what’s in the Bay trail plan now. So we are adding Bay trail around the hotel where the Bay trail currently is not envisioned. \nWe’re adding Bay trail around the apartment buildings\, and the evening is over\, you know. So we take. We definitely take their points to to heart. We care about bringing bikes to the market as well. We. I want to feed my kids when I’m out there\, too. \nbut we are trying to maximize the bay trail access more than what the bay trail guidelines have given us. so yeah\, we would. And and the the usage of the of the boat launch. It is a work in progress\, we expect it to be the majority of the used to be the non-motorized craft. It gets very little motorized boat used now very little \nthat will get very\, very rare training exercises for the county fire to to launch. and the city is currently negotiating the terms and conditions for a potential water taxi service. But we need time to flesh that out. And so your offer to let that work out with staff as we approach the the final stage would would help us a lot. \nSo those are our only comments. We very much take your comments to heart. We want to maximize access to this to the people and provide a safe biking environment as well as a safe pedestrian environment as well as a a scalable pedestrian experience. It’s a very large space. We’re doing everything we can with the resources we have\, and we thank you for your guidance. So thank you. \nYeah\, thank you so much for all your really hard work and all the people here who contributed. Yeah\, thank you. And if I have Ashley’s permission to adjourn this meeting. I can entertain a motion to do so. \nSecond. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, I believe. \nPardon. Tom has made a motion and move to adjourn somebody. Second. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, if there are no objections\, this meeting is adjourned. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-7-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230726T150000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230726T150000 DTSTAMP:20231018T060918Z CREATED:20230727T055527Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231018T060918Z UID:10000060-1690383600-1690383600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 26\, 2023 Joint Meeting Design Review Board and Engineering Criteria Review Board DESCRIPTION:This joint meeting of the Design Review and Engineering Criteria Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board members are located at the primary physical location. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85846452073?pwd=UkZXTU1SQ3JrbTBqaGhOSVAvdTB0QT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nStaff Briefing on Bay AdaptThe boards will receive a briefing on several key initiatives BCDC staff is undertaking to implement the Bay Adapt Joint Platform\, a consensus-driven regional strategy to protect people and natural and built environments from rising sea levels. The staff will highlight work underway to create a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\, which will build on the Bay Adapt visioning and result in the development of a guidance document for sea level rise adaptation plans for the region. The staff will also highlight its work to improve the permitting process for coastal adaptation projects that meet regional goals\, to develop a long-term equity strategy for the Bay Adapt program\, and to track and measure implementation of actions in line with the Joint Platform.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; danabrechwad@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF) // Shoreline Plan Overview (PDF)\nPublic Comment\nBoard Discussion\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording & Transcript\n \nMeeting Transcript \nHere. vice chair\, Jim French. that’s present. board member homes. \nnot present \nboard\, Member Gail Johnson present. or in her Bob B. Italia. \nPresent Board. Member Jima Casali. \nPresident. \nBoard\, Member Rumi Kolesarkey. President. board member Nick Sitar. Yeah. \nBoard member Chris. Nay. \nhere. board member Paula. \nNot present board Member Justin Vander \nhere. Remember\, Dill\, it trevettes \nwe didn’t make it \nEcdc. Staff attending this afternoon include our executive director\, Barry Goldspan\, technical staff including myself\, Ashley\, Tamerlan\, Eerie Jewett and Jen Hyman and our Bay. Adapt folks\, Dean of record\, and Ethan Levine. \nWith that I will turn out meeting instruction on part I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting. So it runs as smoothly as possible for everyone online. And in the meeting room. Please make sure you have your microphones. \nAre your Anna phones muted to avoid background noise for board members? If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it is on. So everyone can see you for members of the public. If you would like to speak during the public comment period\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nFirst\, if you are here with us in person\, we will ask you to form a line near the staff table and speaker cards are available at the door. You will be asked to come up up to the mic one at a time\, to state your name\, your affiliation\, and provide your comments during the meeting. \nAfter all\, individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely the second way\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nif you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it is raised. Finally\, if you are joining our meeting via phone. You must press in Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand\, to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. \nWe will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised. \nAfter you are called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks. You remember you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in civil manner. We will not tolerate hate\, speech threats made directly or indirectly and or abusive language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission for public comments. If you are attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voice and your view. Your video will not be enabled. \nIf you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option to view in view settings in order to see all the panelists. audio and audio\, for in-person panelists is recorded through the room’s audio system and is not synced to individual panelists. Videos. \nFinally\, everyone now and then will hear me refer to the meeting host\, Yuri\, Vcdc. Staff are acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us if it’s needed. And now I will turn the mic over to our executive director of Larry. We need to declare the meeting with them. And since we have a quorum present\, we are truly constituted to conduct the business. So meeting is declared open. \nWe we can\, we can actually there we go? Okay? and Yuri\, would you please check to make sure that the gallery view is what is set for people who are not here? \nactually\, or Danny had a marvelous view of Tom Leader for about 5 min there\, which was\, you know\, and we like Tom. But you know it’s not necessarily everybody. \nSo thank you all. Thank you all for being here. My name is Larry Goldzband. I’m I have the honor of being executive director of BCDC\, I know some of you\, not all of you\, and I want to explain why that is \nWhen I took this job\, one of the things that I learned really quickly. And one of the things I’d learned actually earlier is to learn very quickly what you don’t want to know or what you don’t need to know. \nand My predecessor\, Will Travis\, who is\, was a professional architect\, still is\, I believe\, was very cognizant of that. \nand I became very cognizant of that\, and I realized early on in my tenure that I could not add anything to a DRB meeting. because I don’t do what you all do\, and I don’t see the world the way you all see. \nAnd candidly\, that’s good. because you all are tremendously creative and tremendously talented at what you do. and I’m simply not part of that. And candidly\, the last thing I am as an engineer. \nAnd so my sitting in and a Dr. On an Ecrb meeting is equivalent to my to. When I started learning Hebrew to be honest with you\, and thankfully you do read from left to right as opposed to right\, to left. \nbut I simply couldn’t really add anything to it. And so what I learned was that I needed to hire people who were really really good at what you all do\, and learn how to lead you. \nWhich is why we have Jed and we have Ashley. because I think they do a tremendous job at helping you help us. and that’s really what we ask you to do \nto help you help us as we move forward as on permits and all sorts of other things. With that being said\, I think it was my idea\, but I’m not positive\, Ashley\, to put you to the DRB and the Ecrb together to start understanding how Bcdc is moving forward with regard to rising sea level in an overall policy context. \nyou see this individually in your meetings. you talk about safety of fills\, and you figure out how in the Permit side a construction project needs to be put together to ensure safety of fills. \nBut you really don’t see the other parts of the project\, and how that really fits into resilience the larger scope. You see this marvelous\, these marvelous examples of how things are put together. But\, unfortunately\, or fortunately\, BCDC. Receives projects on a parcel by partial basis. \nAnd so you don’t have necessarily the. We have not enabled you to look at a larger scope. region-wide sub-regionally about how BCDC. Views resilience. \nYou do a marvelous job at making sure the project is resilient\, and that the project has tremendous public access. But we want you today to start stepping back \nand to think a little bit larger about your jobs \njobs\, not as though we pay you a heck of a lot to be here. But your roles. How can we have\, you help us look at resilience in a larger scale. \nHow can we have you help us think about what resilience means for public access and for safety on a larger scale. How can we be able to work with you in a way that enables you to help us on that larger scale? \nSo what we’re going to do today is introduce you to 2 really tremendous staff members are assistant directors of planning and regulatory for climate change. \nwho have been tasked with the very difficult responsibility of working with the community\, working with stakeholders and working with the Commission \nto help them lead us through the issue of resilience. large scale Bay wide. And we want you to step back and think\, okay\, I’m part of this. Now. \nhow can I help? What does BCDC DC. Need to know. What do our Commissioners need to know? What do our staffs need to know? What questions do we need to ask? \nSo that’s really the purpose of this discussion\, and we want it to be a discussion. I don’t know whether it’s whether Dana\, whether it’s you or Ethan who have discussion\, questions that will be put up. But there will be discussion\, questions put up that we hope you will actually try to answer. \nand if you can answer them. Let us know why you can’t answer them. And what we need to provide more information about\, or whatever to try to get those answers. \nDoes that make sense to everybody? So that’s why we’re asking you to be here. So with that\, I’m going to be quiet and turn it over to Jacinta. \nThank you\, Larry. And thank you\, Ashley\, and thank you. All the team here from BCDC. DC. For staging the meeting today. We really appreciate it\, and I know\, on behalf of the Dr. B. This is something that I think\, as we have been evolving over the last 10 years\, that a number of us had been on the board. \nYou know\, this question of thinking about the bigger picture is something that’s been pretty consuming for us\, and we’ve certainly been evolving in that direction. So I think today’s sessions got to be of incredible value. And we just with the opportunity here today\, because I think we we don’t get together face to face. very often. In fact\, I think this is the first time in 10 years. \nSecond time. Yeah\, maybe I missed the first time somehow. But but I think it’s incredibly important for the different disciplines to get together in this dialogue. \nI don’t think there’s any difficulty amongst any of our DRB. Members in weighing in with questions and asking appropriate questions. And I think these questions of \nresilience and sea level rise\, climate change. The implications for the projects we reviewing have become just more and more compelling\, especially in the last\, I’d say the last\, probably 4 years. \nyou know\, it’s become quite challenging\, reviewing some of the projects with the limitations of the site to\, you know\, to be able to really speak to. So I’m very excited to to be able to have that opportunity with everyone today. And look\, I do want to welcome. We haven’t got everyone here today\, but we do have new board members and alternatives that are just coming on like on board. And we have the \nYou meet An. And with us today a new board member. We also have earlier Chao new board member and alternatives. Patricia Fonte\, Cody Anderson. \nWell. that’s it\, and potentially more alternates. But I really see this. As you know\, we’re talking about resilience in the pay today\, but I think resilience in each of the boards is also really important\, and you know\, 3\, 3 of us \n4 of us. I think it’s been on the board for close to 10 years\, and so I am very excited\, as my colleagues are about having new people come in\, so that we can for carry forward with a lot of strength and become become better as we go forward\, is it these pretty challenging times? So thanks again for organizing today\, and we’re looking forward to it. So \nso the 2\, you see\, I’ll be. \nhey? Thank you\, Jacinta. I’m rods. I was the chair of ecrb and this is a really wonderful opportunity for for all of us to get together. And \nyeah\, think and take that step back that Larry’s talking about to consider sea level rise and other changing conditions that are there that are going to happen. \necr bes goal\, or there\, you know\, our yeah\, our goal has been to look at the safety of fills or individual projects. And \nI think we’ve started to talk about sea level rise and what we need to do. I’ve been is\, you know\, my day job. I’ve \na little concern that sometimes we are overreaching. But I’m here to to learn and talk and kind of share my opinion\, and I’m sure all of our board members \nas well have their opinions\, and we’ve had some pretty good conversations over the last couple of meetings. And you know I welcome this all\, and and and thanks again for organizing. \nSo I’d like to introduce Anna Breckfield and Ethan Mavine\, who will be presenting or presenting the they adapt to briefing today. \nThanks\, Ashley. We’re just getting our presentation set up \n1 s. \nOkay\, \nthanks for having us. Today. I’m Dana Breckwald. I’m the assistant planning director for climate adaptation\, and I oversee our be adopted initiative as well as our adapting to rising tides program. so I’m going to walk you through the first part of the conversation\, and then turn it over to Ethan. \nCould you go to the next. even sitting right next to me for those of you? Not in the room. So if I turn my head a lot\, it’s talk to him in person. so today\, we really want to give you an overview of our major Bay adapt initiatives. How badap came around\, what we’re doing now and then\, as you listen to our presentation. here are our discussion questions we’ve posed\, although\, of course\, the discussion can go really\, any way that we see fit. \nso for you as board members. How and when would you like to engage in the Bay adapt process and the projects that we have going on right now and then. What do we not know about? What resources. Would you recommend to support these initiatives? There’s a lot of information out there that’s already been thought of around adaptation. And we want to make sure that we’re being additive and not duplicative in our work. \nSorry which? Okay\, there we go. So I’m I’m sure you’re all at least somewhat familiar with Felix vulnerability here in the Bay Area. but what I like to remind people at every presentation that I give is that while this is the California coastal wide issue. It will be felt most acutely here in the bay\, with two-thirds of the impact in the state occurring here along our Bay shore line. \nand also that climate change is not just a tomorrow problem. Temporary flooding today at King tides\, signals the areas that will be permanently underwater in the future\, and in addition to overtopping\, we are also facing erosion along our shirling edges\, beaches\, and wetlands and groundwater rides. \nThis is a multifaceted issue that is real for us today. \nwhen we look at the interconnected systems across the bay area that will be impacted if nothing is done\, a stark picture emerges. and as little as 40 years. If we could see impacts to our up to 5 million daily car commuters and 60\,000 \nrail commuters. tens of thousands of existing housing units and planned housing units as well as existing jobs and planned jobs. nearly 30\,000 socially vulnerable residents\, and 20\,000 acres in depression\, wetlands\, lagoons\, and tidal marshes that could drown. \nSo it doesn’t really matter if you personally live near the shoreline. This will impact everyone in the Bay area. \nbut it also is true that in the Bay area many aspects of sea levelized vulnerability have been extensively studied already at with a local and regional level. These maps show what we have called hotspots in our 2020 Art Bay Area report \nor areas where flooding impacts multiple critical assets at once. like transportation infrastructure\, vulnerable communities\, job centers\, housing growth areas and natural conservation areas. \nThe 2 maps on the one on the left shows early hot spots at 24 inches of water\, and what will they merge later? At 48 inches? You notice on the maps pwl stands for total water level\, which is a term that the adapting\, pricing tides program uses in our baseline flood explore to describe any combination of permanent inundation and temporary flooding. So\, for example\, 24 inches. Total water level could mean 24 inches of permanent inundation. \nsimilar to what we may see around 2\,060\, or it could represent 12 inches of inundation and a king tide. which we’ll see sooner before 2020 50. \nSo recently BC. Partners and Pca. Bags to develop a cost estimate for how much this is all going to cost. This study was focused on protecting 4.9 feet of total water level\, which is our best estimate for permanent inundation and a hundred year storm by 2\,050\, \nand the cost estimate was developed by inventorying\, existing and planned projects\, as well as creating hypothetical placeholder projects for areas of the shoreline that would will experience over topping by 2\,050\, but don’t yet have a project identified or planned. \nThe total that we came up with in this study is the a need for 110 billion dollars for strawline adaptation by 2\,050\, which includes 52 billion in known or planned projects and as well as 3 billion for sediment needs \nthis map that you’re seeing here shows the total for the region broken down by project type\, gray\, hybrid\, green or placeholder project as well as by county. \nYeah. Well\, 110 billion may seem like a staggering amount of money. We also know that if we fail to adapt our losses by 2\,050 could be in the magnitude of 230 billion\, or greater\, as private property and infrastructure become flooded and lose their functions. \nSo without a doubt\, sea level rise is going to require a radical reimagining of our base shoreline\, as well as how we make decisions about how to proceed as a region adaptation is already occurring locally\, but it’s not likely to happen fast enough\, efficiently enough\, or in a way that advances our larger regional goals. If it occurs on a site by site or city by city basis. \nThis is largely because flooding doesn’t follow jurisdictional boundaries\, but up on the flip side\, decisions made along one part of the shoreline can have unintentional impacts in neighboring jurisdictions. \nFrontline communities are most impacted and have the fewest resources to adapt without additional support. Central habitats such as wetlands are at the frontline and at risk of being lost. There’s currently a patchwork of approaches along with shoreline\, not a cohesive strategy. \nThere’s a different use and interpretation of quote best available science. there is limited funding available\, and if everyone goes it alone\, there will be greater competition for funding\, and we are less likely to seek collaborative multi-benefit opportunities. \nand ultimately\, without working together to define a shared vision of what we want to achieve. We can’t know if we’re moving towards success\, or what success for our region even means. \nThis is where they adapt comes in in early 2020 BCDC. DC. Started with a hypothesis. and we bring together leaders across a wide variety of sectors\, public\, private community\, nonprofit and academic. \nand come up with a consensus-driven strategy that lays out the actions necessary to adapt the San Francisco based shoreline to rising sea level to protect people and the natural and built environment. \nThe adapt was guided by a set of guiding principles developed by our leadership Advisory Group. And these served as our North star throughout the process and include things like putting socially vulnerable communities\, first \nsolving interconnected problems\, at the same time recognizing that we need to support existing efforts\, but also plans for the long term and also recognizing that strategies will be different in different locations than at different times. \nThe accommodation of the bayed act efforts thus far over the course of 2 years was the adoption of the bayed up joint platform platform. In October 2\,021\, \nwe engage with over 360 participants through public workshops worked with 81 practitioners and experts through multiple working groups. including the local elected officials\, staff and technical advisors. \nWe held focus groups\, including with community-based organizations\, environmental groups\, business groups and planners and gave over 50 presentations around the region. The joint platform identifies 9 actions and 21 tasks \nthat don’t specify specific projects along the shoreline\, but instead are designed to overcome common barriers and set the stage for faster and more equitable adaptations. It has since been endorsed by over 50 cities\, counties\, and special interest groups. \nSince the adoption of the joint platform we’ve identified and received funding for 4 major undertaking to implement the tasks in the joint platform. First building on our equity principles\, we are focusing on frontline communities particularly disadvantaged and low-income communities of color. \nPrimarily at this point\, through the development of a region-wide shoreline leadership Academy. Second\, we are leading the development of a regional shirling adaptation plan which I’ll describe to you next. \nThird\, we’ll focus on regulatory improvements\, and those are from Ethan about this task. And then\, lastly\, we are committed to continuing to serve as what we’re calling the backbone agency for bay adapt. \nThat means keeping the conversations going\, convening\, coordinating\, and tracking\, and reporting our region’s successes and projects and progress. Progress. \nso I want to go into some detail now about the regional shoreline adaptation plan. This is one of the major components. We see. Your 2 boards could potentially offer some valuable insight. \nThe regional shoreline adaptation plan wasn’t actually specifically outlined in the joint platform\, but it is named in BCDC’s 2\,011 climate change policies\, and draws on several tasks in the joint platform. \nsuch as setting a standard vision for what adaptation success looks like for the region supporting local planning to coordinate towards regional goals. linking lots of money towards voluntary compliance with standardized guidance guidelines\, and tracking the region’s progress towards \ntowards this vision that we’ve established \nso the regional shoreline adaptation plan will create common standards\, goals\, and priorities. Aka\, what we’re calling guidelines for multi jurisdictional adaptation plans. the projects identified in these plans\, once they are created\, will together form a comprehensive plan for the Bay shoreline. \nWe’re working with a 40 person advisory group to develop the guidelines based on a long-term regional vision and engaging around the region to ensure that the guidelines enhance rather than hold back adaptation\, planning already underway. \nThere is also active legislation on the table this year that would mandate beef. Cdc. To review and approve sub-regional adaptation plans. It remains to be seen if the plans that we’re outlining here will be voluntary for mandatory. \nIf you think back to the slide that I showed earlier that highlights\, the challenges of not approaching adaptation region wide the regional shoreline adaptation plan is designed to conveniently avoid many of these pitfalls. \nWe think that the shoreline regional shoreline adaptation plan could result in adaptation that coordinates neighboring jurisdictions. and\, in fact\, finds multi-bent multi-benefit from improved collaboration. \nprovides priority\, access to resources to frontline communities. enhances the long-term wealth of health wealth wealth and health of wetlands and increased habitat diversity and abundance. \nprovides a strategy for how implementation should proceed around the regions that it occurs at the right time\, and the right place develops common standards and methods for applying science\, which can be supported by our own data and mapping work \ncreates a funding pipeline that reduces burdens on local jurisdictions and gives us the ability to track and evaluate our collective vision of progress. \nSo rather than a single document or plan. We’re using the term regional straw and adaptation plan to actually describe 3 key parts. The first is developing a regional steel with seal overized adaptation\, planning guidelines. \nThese guidelines will so establish a common approach to local adaptation\, planning and be rooted in our shared vision and region-wide adaptation goals. The second part is providing funding and technical assistance to apply these guidelines towards multiple sub-regional or multi-jurisdictional adaptation plans around the region. And lastly\, we’re developing an online mapping platform that will be used first to help users access relevant regional information. To prepare these sub-regional plans. \nBut once these plans are completed\, the strategies that are locally identified in these plans will be knit together at a regional level to form a comprehensive plan for the entire Bay shore lines. \nThis work will be phased with the creation of the guidelines occurring between now and the end of 2024. Then we’ll transition into the development supporting the development of the plan and the mapping platform will be developed simultaneously with 2 distinct phases\, first\, building the platform as a support tool for developing the original plans\, and then a second phase where the information from the completed sub-regional plan will be sent back into the mapping platform. \nThese sub-regational plans are really a critical piece of the overall puzzle. We’re still working out exactly what they will look like. But we know that each one will include vulnerability assessments that’s somewhat standardized across the region in terms of what science it uses and what it assesses. \nWe know that they will identify and evaluate adaptation options in a way that uses a common set of considerations across the region. and that they should all include a a quote\, final option. \nadaptation\, pathway for all vulnerable sections of shoreline. The final options is what will then be fed back into the region-wide mapping platform. \nSo the guidelines that we’ll be developing should be that should should be comprehensive and standardized while still reflecting local conditions and needs. While this list here is still in flux\, these are the topic areas that we believe the plan should include. So the topics that we will need to develop guidelines on. \nObviously\, each of these topics can contains many facets. \nAnd we’re currently in the process of adding detail. And these topics have been identified because they are responsive to known risks from sea level rise in the bait area. \nThey acknowledged shared land land boundary of flooding impacts for implementation\, coordination and or cross bay impacts. They\, they represent\, they address networked systems or biophysical connectivity. And they reflect our regional priorities. \nI also just want to set out some\, since we don’t have the guidelines yet with some expectations about what we think they actually are and what they are not. So first\, what the guidelines are important to be. I know we use the term guidelines a lot to describe project design guidelines\, but these are guidelines to guide the creation of plans not necessarily projects. \nthey will be best practices for vulnerability assessments identifying an evaluation. You shoreline plan and developing adaptation pathways in that consider issues the region. Things are important. \nthis point\, as I said they\, they are voluntary\, non-enforceable\, incentive\, driven. We want them to be aligned with the existing planning processes\, especially if a city already has some sort of adaptation plan in place. \nAnd\, importantly\, not all guidelines will be applicable everywhere\, so they’re up to only where they’re relevant in the region\, i. I. E. Where our condition exists to the board that the guideline applies to. \nThey said. They’re not project design guidelines. They’re not mandatory or enforceable by BCDC. Permitting or other legal authority. We don’t want them to be an additional burden on top of existing planning processes. \nand they aren’t intended to be top down blanket rules. But don’t consider local conditions needs for values. So lastly\, we have planned significant engagement with stakeholders. As part of the process of developing these guidelines. \nwe have a handful of leadership groups that are are directly helping to guide this process. beginning in August\, we’re kicking off our regional vision and goals phase which will include pop-up events in a public workshop. \nNovember through July. We will actually be drafting these regional guidelines\, which will include number of local meetings as well as 2 additional public workshops\, and we aim to go to public comment in August and September of 2\,024\, \nwe could. It did also do potential additional focus groups presentations as requested. And of course we are looking to see how we can continue to engage with these 2 groups as well as part of our engagement. \nSo at that I will turn it over to Ethan. \nThanks\, Tina. Sorry\, for I’ve been on a few years like I have a hair trigger here on my computer. But good afternoon\, board members. I’m with Mobile\, and they’ll be introducing a a new effort. They’re working on under bay. That’s banner \non regulatory improvements for both BCDC’s program\, and the way that we coordinate with our regulatory partners. \nSo why are regulatory improvements in area of focus? For they adapt and produce it easy. First and foremost\, the need for this work became evident because of the consensus stricken\, planning process that created the bay. That train platform \nand the stakeholders who took part in that effort identified the getting adaptation projects approved by regulatory agencies and getting them built can be a big challenge. So they laid out a vision that permitting should not hold back\, but actually accelerate resilient shoreline adaptation projects that align with regional goals. \nAnd there’s more. There’s a few things that have to do with how BCDCdc. Hopes to grow as an agency. First\, our recently adopted strategic plan. the new strategic plan stresses the importance of closely integrating our regulatory and long-range planning efforts \nto better succeed in adaptation planning. And second\, we’re developing a racial equity action plan that will identify objectives for improving our permitting program to advance equitable outcomes \nand achieve greater community engagement in decision making. \nSo that was all. Why we are working on it\, and the rest of the presentation is going to be about how we’re going to go about it. And when we initially presented this concept to a select group of commissioners. \none caution does that changing? The process isn’t going to be enough and paraphrased a quote by the management consultant Peter Drucker\, who said. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. \nWhat he meant is that establishing new rules\, policies\, or procedures? Option doesn’t work. If the people who apply them or implement them haven’t embraced the mindset behind the changes. \nAnd that’s because people can always have rigid or unrealistic interpretations that frustrate the intended changes. \nSo for all that we admire about these uses culture. recognizing that it needs to evolve in response to the changing world. the question is\, well\, how do we do that? And We came across the study that they’re really happy to see that actually helps us sort of conceptualize how that might work. \nThere was a really fascinating paper published a few months ago by Dr. Amy Nichol\, from Cal. State\, Sacramento. and Dr. Nichol looked at the cutting\, the Green Tape initiative which many of you will have heard of. It’s been embraced by the California Natural resource agencies \nand agency\, and many of the departments and agencies that are that are working in the State. you to BCDC. And cutting green tape aims to increase regulatory and permanent efficiency for multi-benefit environmental restoration projects in California. \nDr. Nickel says that cutting green tape may be on the verge of shifting the paradigm around the problems and setting out to address and to make the case nickel borrows from the work of historian and philosopher of science\, Thomas Kuhn\, who introduced the term paradigm shift. \nI’m just going to describe quickly what Queue’s idea on paradigm shift was. and looking at science. Q\, and said that science doesn’t actually follow a gradual linear evolution towards truth\, but that rather it goes through big changes when established. Theories simply don’t hold up anymore. \nSo the changes in ideas can be rapid and they can turn everything on their head like how scientific thought changed radically with the emergence of germ theory or Darwin’s theory on natural selection. \nHere’s how the process works. It starts with the current\, well-established paradigm. That’s the current way of doing business. and something occurs outside of the paradigm. That that is it. He no longer makes sense. In certain circumstances. \nIt’s initially viewed as an anomaly \nand When there are many anomalies\, people start looking for new explanations in ways of doing things. \nAt some point a tipping point is reached and the current point\, the current paradigm no longer works under the conditions. and there’s a shared perception of an impending crisis. \nPeople respond by developing new ways of thinking and alternative paradigms are developed \neventually\, an alternative idea that does a better job of explaining the anomalies and the current one does emerge and it’s embraced. And in that point a revolution occurs where people embrace the new idea\, and it becomes the usual way of doing things. \nAnd as a result the paradigm shifts and the alternative paradigm replaces the previous one. \nSo how does that hold up with cutting re-tape? Is it shifting the paradigm. You start by defining the current paradigm. It’s the model we’re familiar with for environmental regulation. And it’s behind the types of laws and the frameworks that Bcds uses\, and that many other regulators have \nwhich are based on preventing harm to the environment to restrict enforcement of what can sometimes be a cumbersome regulatory process. and that really really well in the context\, that in which it was created and California was able to avoid significant damage to its environment by instituting a complex set of processes to review projects. \neven if this complexity sometimes came at the cost of time\, effort\, and money for the people trying to get projects built. \nDr. Nichols says that climate change is the anomaly that’s challenging the status quo. It’s harmful effects on people in the environment is already evident\, and will continue to emerge rapidly. \nThe current paradigm does not make sense for restoration and other environmentally beneficial projects that are necessary responses to this threat\, though\, because it’s close them down. we need them fast. \nSo for years our colleagues\, inside and outside of government\, have studied\, written about\, and proposed alternative solutions for how regulators should approach climate adaptation. but also something really interesting about paradigm shifts is that they happen when they’re embodied by practitioners\, not necessarily just theorists or outside critics. \nAnd this point goes back to the comment and culture each strategy. \nDr. Nickel interviewed practitioners and concluded that a tipping point has been reached because they recognize the current paradigm is contributing to the crisis\, and protectioners are including all of us. Here are we need to really evaluate the way that we do our work. \nDr. Nickel thinks this means that we might be entering the final shift to this age. And we’ll know that we’ve achieved a culture ship. \nWhen the agencies permanently reject those aspects of the old way of doing business\, they contribute to problems of filling down environmentally beneficial projects. And it. I really do want to stress here that this is not a throw the baby out with the back water kind of situation. \nIt doesn’t mean eliminating permits or for going analysis necessary to prevent environmental harm. Rather\, it means elevating the goals of effective nature\, based and equitable adaptation \nand ensuring that the old safeguards don’t prevent us from succeeding in the face of the newer challenge. Where they do\, we need to look at how to change them \nso you could look at all this as an effort that we’re trying to do to shift the paradigm here at PC. And to the extent that we can be effective and promoting it more widely within the larger regulatory environment. For San Francisco Bay. \nWe’re trying to make that happen by identifying the anomalies that are challenging our existing program. finding new alternative means of addressing what’s not working well as it needs to. and engaging in discrete projects that will result in shifts in thinking and shifts in action. \nWe’ve identified 5 key actions. \nSorry about that. That. we’re going to focus on in our work. And the first one shown here is that we’re working to make permeating faster and more efficient. So we need to spend less time and fewer resources\, permanent adaptation projects that do align with the regional goals that Dana was discussing. \nInstead of relying on doing things the way they’ve always been done\, we’ll make changes to make our process more efficient and predictable. and the goal is to reduce the amount of time and money that good projects spend in order to obtain. \nWe\, we permit some regulatory approvals. \nSecond\, we’re working to navigate our regulatory program to make it easier to navigate. We don’t want applicants to the public to be uncertain about how BCDC works or what our goals are. \nSo we’ll develop resources so that less time and effort goes into understanding our program. And then more goes into working together to build good projects. \nThird is\, we want to remove roadblocks to effective nature-based adaptation projects we’ve committed through bay adap to prioritize natural infrastructure solutions that benefit ecosystems and the health of the day. \nThese projects prevent some unique challenges for permitting\, because they involve uncertainty whether that’s because the efficacy of certain approaches hasn’t been firmly established yet. \nbut because we may have to consider trade offs between certain ecosystem functions. So we’re planning to put time and effort into addressing the problems\, and we will work to convince the applicants who might undertake these projects that we’re partner to work with\, and not an obstacle that they need to overcome amongst many others. \nFourth\, we’re going to work together with our regulatory partners. we certainly can’t go it alone. You see\, you see\, is just one of many agencies that plays a part in reviewing and approving the adaptation projects \nthe region needs to build. so we can do a better job of coordinating\, aligning our processes\, and possibly even piloting new approaches\, the ghastly streamline. The process adaptation projects need to navigate to in their approvals. \nAnd\, alas! We’re working to reimagine these roles in the region. adaptation presents issues that were never considered. When the legislature wrote the laws that established BCDC’s authority and jurisdiction. \nSo\, building on the outcomes of the regional Showing adaptation plan\, we take a close look at whether the region has the regulatory framework. It needs to ensure equitable and effective adaptation outcomes. \nIf there are gaps that BC\, you could fill\, we’ll work with commissioners\, board members\, and other interested people in organizations to understand how we might evolve as an agency to help implement the region’s adaptation vision. \nThis is a a very simplified version of work plan in the first stage where we’re assessing the current challenges and the methods to address these challenges. \nSo I just want to highlight 2 projects that we’re working on as part of this assessment. the first one is with the Department of Finance\, who we’ve engaged with to conduct a mission based review of our permitting program. \nAnd that mission-based review is going to focus really heavily on finding efficiencies in our existing permitting process. It’s a pretty unique opportunity for us to have a a small expert team come in from the outside and view our program. \nAnd we’re gonna get some recommendations from the really great staff there to help us find improvements in our existing workflow. \nThe second is some background research that one of our newest staffers\, Dominic Mccormick\, who’s in the room. I don’t dummy as you can. has undertaken. He just joined us in May\, but in the last month though\, do right in and analyze a great wealth of research and policy work related to this very challenge. we didn’t want to reinvent the will. \nSo Dominican inv in identified 31 recommendations that provide a menu of options for us to consider as potential avenues for further work. \nfor example\, one of the big lessons that Dominic identified was their very large range of opportunities for us to coordinate permanent review with our other regulatory partners. you know\, these these include everything from aligning policies and practice. \nand\, you know\, could even include implementing new forms of integrated permitting to streamline adaptation projects\, approval processes. \nOkay? So after we assess\, we’re gonna take the findings of the assessment and create a plan that prioritizes key projects and initiatives and defines the needed resources and timelines to undertake these\, and actually sets out a roadmap for implementation. \nAnd then\, of course\, comes the work to advance and implement our projects. so that work involves a work internal to be Cdc. As well as the work of the undertaken joint partnership with the regulatory partners \nto help achieve better outcomes on our notation projects. So that’s where we’re headed. We’ll provide you with updates as we define our priorities and begin to implement our projects. \nAnd of course\, today\, we’re really interested\, as we move into the discussion to hear more about how you think this work\, my interface with the processes that are happening in these 2 boards. \njust to plug. If you want to know more about any of the content you heard about today. or dive in on the joint platform\, they adapt as a updated website that they adapt to work. \nI believe we’re gonna pause here to do public comment. And then\, After the public comment is over\, we’ll put some discussion questions up on the board for you. Thanks. \nThank you\, Ethan and Dina. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nRemember\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9\, or your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment and to unmute yourself. Press star 6. \nIt looks like we have no public comment. \nWe will take it to board clarifying questions and discussions. \nand I’ll just before we start out. Here’s the the discussion questions we’d post for you\, and of course we welcome any other thoughts. But Initially\, we put up as Advisory Board members. How and when would you like to participate? \nCan engage in the efforts we just presented. And what resources would you recommend to support these initiatives? \nOkay\, well\, there’s a great deal to digest there. And thank you both for those excellent presentations. you know\, and even that we\, a couple of us\, had the opportunity to participate in this just \nI don’t know a couple of months ago\, and I can see you’re already\, you know\, making a lot more progress. So reporting prices. Thank you. \nSo I’m just thinking to make this as valuable as possible for the from the Dipp standpoint. I’m sure everyone will have some questions\, but I think one way to get these 2 questions\, and perhaps some other reactions would be to think about the challenges that we have encountered when we’ve been reviewing projects in the last couple of years. And that’s sort of extending out from\, you know\, to the ultimate step in the work that you’re doing. But I really think that in this challenges. \nyou know\, bigger picture thinking to really succeed. You’ve got to be able to move from\, you know\, region down to sites back up to region to test. And I think. \nyou know\, that will be something that we should\, as a board. think about appropriate points to engage with you on\, because\, you know\, we are looking at that type-specific challenge of adaptation all the time. So we could think about that in the context of the timeline that we showed and some key steps. \nI think we’d all be really happy to engage with you at appropriate points along that timeline. there are. There were a couple of things that \nIt’s not exactly addressing those 2 questions\, but a couple of things struck me\, and and it really relates to some of the challenges that we see. And \nI I think the first point I would talk to is is just the subregional adaptation plan for the work that progress that you’re showing there\, and I think one of the struggles we have is you had a slide that showed all the issues that you’re considering in those. And \nI think that’s sort of the fundamental challenge of land use and current land use. Basic designation is something that we struggle with\, you know. Should we even be reviewing a housing project\, you know\, in this position along the bay. \nSo I\, you know\, I’ll just put that out there. We don’t have to talk about this right now. We might want others to weigh in with with other things that struck them. But I do think if we if we’re looking at a sort of a longer term integrated view around the bay. I think this question of of land’s designation becomes really critical. \nAnd then I think 2 other things that strike me because we talk about these issues all the time\, you know\, in the anomalies. you know versus nature. \nthings that are being down versus nature- adaptation. And we talk about this a lot\, and Bob often takes the lead. Thank you\, Bob\, for moving us in that direction so well. \nbut I think there’s often a challenge about. You know the consideration of the 200 foot designations that we have to where we really\, you know\, have the primary responsibility to determine how access is provided. But importantly\, you know how. \nyou know\, a Nature-based adaptation plan might work. And I think sometimes the you know we we we’re not always debating closely about. You know what could be done in that band\, or could extend further on. But I think\, as we get deeper into this process it would be \nit might be good longer\, you know\, looking out \nover the horizon. And the bigger picture this sort of thing is that 200 foot band. How do we think about that? Down the track? And then I think the other question that comes up with us quite often now is \nthis question of fill. And certainly when we all\, 10 years ago\, you know that that was a line you really didn’t cross. You know we didn’t talk about. We tried to avoid filling the bay\, but in nature based \nadaptation solutions. you know. Sometimes I’m sure the Ecrb talks about this a lot\, but the you know the question of\, you know some fill to accomplish a better outcome for Nature-based adaptation could be. \nyou know\, worthwhile thinking about. So I think that that issue is something that we we could spend some time on refining. I love the fact that you’re all reimagining \nwell in the region\, I mean\, I just think\, this is a very exciting time for BC\, DC\, because. you know\, you’re stepping up\, taking a strong leadership role. It’s always hard to see around the corner. You know where it’s misleading. But I think the \nnormally examples that you that diagram we showed us is\, you know\, I I completely agree that we are at the point where we sort of looking around the corner on that diagram to \nwhere a new paradigm shift just the way sustainability was a massive paradigm shift. Back in the early 2 thousands. \nNo one talked about sustainability. Everywhere else in the world people were not everywhere\, but in a lot of developed countries. They had been talking about sustainability for 10 years and doing great work in that area. And then America\, United States got on board. And suddenly this tidal wave of change Tab happened. So you know that anomalies diagram is is very important. \nSo with that\, I’m just going to hand to other members here to Just build on those few points to take other points. If you want to. lead off\, we’ll just come down the line\, I think. \nsir\, I’ll try. I’ll try to go first here. Thank you very much for those presentations. It’s actually really beneficial to have a better understanding of what you all have been working on \nI don’t know how to answer these questions\, but I’d like to build on a couple of things that you said\, and then I just sent in\, and maybe that will raise some other issues. the \none of the key things that comes up for me when thinking about a sub-regional adaptation plan is the vehicle through which that gets implemented. \nand that the jurisdictions we’re setting an expectation. I I think I’m understanding this that they would do some area planning at a at a local level \nthat would actually address these issues\, that you’re providing guidance before locally. And you mentioned vulnerability. shoreline adaptation\, and the notion of creating an adaptation pathway. \nand that. \nyou know\, I in in my other day\, Job\, I see this through the lens of of housing\, you know\, housing production and what the State’s doing to basically accelerate that. And then they’re saying that most planners are actually really greatly overburdened \nthat you don’t have a lot of extra capacity\, and there’s always that notion of like Oh\, my gosh! I have to do another plan like I have to participate in this other thing. I have to deal with this whole other thing that goes beyond \nmy capacity\, but also my area of expertise and sort of look at\, and looking at it through that lens. Those of us who are planners who \nare doing this work\, but we’re not necessarily trained to do this work. and sort of understanding that burden. But I’m also thinking about the notion that \nour our role becomes more important when the difference between what the local jurisdiction is telling the applicant to do and what BCDC. Is telling applicant to do are are far apart from one another. \nAnd this notion of us actually sort of providing discretionary guidance about what happens in that shoreline. By the end it becomes more important when there’s not clarity between those 2 agencies. \nand burling game is a community that they made a \neffort to engage in shoreline planning through their general plan and through their update to their zoning ordinance. \nAll right. \nin a way that you could say it. Actually it. It increases the amount of clarity between what’s being proposed. And this sort of great area that happens a lot where we’re in situations where we raise this question about what should be suitable in the shoreline band. \nand the local jurisdiction says\, Well. you know\, our building setback is actually only 10 feet. and you know this has gone through all of these approvals. So there’s not much we can do at this at this point\, because\, you know\, we’ve given sort of permission. \nSo I guess the \nthe Shoreline adaptation plan being able to reduce the difference between those 2\, or be a mechanism for that\, but also provide some guidance for the jurisdiction. \nThe entity that needs to implement the plan like\, how do they do this? Is it another chapter to the general plan. this Opr provide guidance for that\, so that it’s really easy for them to understand what those executions are. Those are some questions that I think they’re sort of going on in my mind. \nAnd then the last thing I’ll say now and then. maybe I can talk more later. is this this idea that at this\, at least at the state level\, there’s a lot of legislation\, that is. \nit is geared towards incentivizing entities to do the right thing. And so there. I I I basically\, I’m asking this question about. Could there be sort of a pathway to streamlining \nwhere habitat creation and sort of a more objectively defined outcome for what happens in the shoreline? The end would actually result in \nminimizing or reducing the need for discretionary reviews of that project. But there being an incentive to say\, You know what we need to come to the board to make these decisions around permitting \nwhen was happening in the shoreline band is not clear that if 100% of the strongline band is actually being created and reserved for habitat restoration and public access. Does it reduce our role\, or does it reduce the necessity of our role? Or does it actually \npotentially reduce the timeline or. promote a streamlined outcome? It actually can accelerate the the of that project. I’m going to make one more comment\, and then I’ll shut up. \nThe What strikes me to about the sub regional adaptation plan is that the jurisdictions by a role locally in jurisdictions. There are silos that need to be overcome \nin that. Like the shoreline adaptation plan. In some situations it could be entirely on private land owners\, or it could become a land\, use regulatory issue in other situations. It could be\, while 70% of our shoreline band is actually public right away\, public right of ways \nand public works actually needs to be the primary decision maker\, the primary implementer. And we see a lot of projects where. when it gets by the time it gets to us\, the \nthe \nthe the hurdle of crossing the silos at the local jurisdictional level has not been made \nright. We see a project through the lens of planning. You ask a question related to public works\, and they say\, well. we talked about that early on that we\, you know\, there was no way to collaborate within the jurisdiction within the silos\, and so that couldn’t. We couldn’t think more creatively about something like a shortline adaptation. \nand there’s other parts of the of the Bay area where\, \nand railroads retail transportation systems. They they are going to play an outside role in what happens at the shoreline\, and they would sort of need to be involved. \nAnd that’s a big question mark for me about how that happens consistently. and how they can come to the table in a way that actually has a consistently productive outcome. \nThank you. Thank you. Tom. \nthanks. Thanks for your presentation. I’m total concurrence with the company step instead. And I just have really more generalized\, maybe abstract sort of \nyou are the subject. \nI think\, touching on incentives. It’s critically important in this work. \nI think that in motivations have to be understood. \nthe I read it quantified. But why do I want to do this? I don’t understand why I want to do this. What are you supposed to? \nThat’s the problem. Because\, you know\, cancelling a negative. You know that that doesn’t get you anywhere better. And people mayors\, I see people they want to \nenlarge their reputations. They want to\, you know\, have a feather there. Cap or developers want to make money\, or all these kinds of things that actually make projects \nproceed is the is the sense that we’re going to be better off. We’re going to be. Our our growth will be accelerated. We can quantify that. I mean that we can understand dollars and cents. \nhow we will be identified. It benefited an honest\, precise schedule. Otherwise we don’t get on our stand. We’re talking about. We just sort of resources or or understanding for that. So \nI don’t know how that’s done\, exactly how how motivation and incentive these kinds of ways of measuring knowledge of people can enter the this process. But it seems like it’s it’s critical. \nyou know. and people need to envision. what could be which? And this you know\, from the design side\, we we have tools we can use to to energize people \nrenderings\, video stories. things like that that will help him imagine something they haven’t seen yet. It’s always critical. As a designer you have to convince somebody that \nthis really could be. And this is how we can proceed with that and there have to be\, I think\, credible. they have to be credentials. \nIt’s got to be some some increment. or which everybody can say this\, this works and this got done. and we see the path. You can see the benefit and the and the value that we can count up \nhow many people are benefited. You can kind of how much money somebody made. Whatever it is it would get. They would get people out of the chair and really want to do something like\, I don’t know just all the some of the different \ninitiatives we’ve been involved in in the last 10 years. It’s always there’s a somebody\, some voice that is there saying\, you know I don’t. I don’t have time for this. Why do I want it? Why do I want to do this? That’s the basic question. \nAnd I’m not. I’m not very good at identifying all that it’s the policies and and directors they’ll bring that about. But there\, it seems like that’s that’s kind of the key \nhaving credentials that people can in sight. I think it was fiftieth anniversary of 10 years ago now. And \nyeah\, and there was kind of a form of 4 time. I think it was. And Bill Mcdonald came to that. and he was probably probably all heard this\, but he was saying\, You may. It’s just not no good just cancelling a negative. You’ve got. The project has to not only \nhelp people save people\, but it’s got to advance into positive territory. And that’s kind of where I came off thinking that \nthe work we were doing. We had to. We had to do that and his designers. We\, you know\, we do have that potential. We do have the tools. We need. A you get in the hard nosed \nengagement with economics and politics to to generate. You know \nthere is motivation. I think every project needs to answer the question\, Why\, why do I want to do this? Remember\, I’m sorry this is so abstract. And I was just thinking about this for a period of time. Now it’s kind of seems like the without motivation\, because I just \nI see difficulties advancing. \nSo \nthanks\, Tom. Yeah. Very helpful. any any comments? \nI think\, just to start off. I’m thrilled to be here. This is my first hearing\, and I’m still getting my bearings as a design board member. So this is a very exciting presentation. Thank you for All the details that were shared. I’m thrilled to see the vision and the big ambitions of thinking of this holistically as a bay\, and \nthat is some of the roadblock that I see in my day. Job as an urban designer is the very narrow blinders of specific projects that we have. so I have a couple of very specific questions\, the first of which is \naround the sub area plans\, and if there will be guidance that will either lay out a foundation or a framework\, or provide incentives for cross sub area or cross project coordination. \nand how? How can we help streamline that or create systems that different jurisdictions could latch on to so that this can help become a useful tool for \nsome of those silos that both of you were describing. that. And then a second question around. I think\, Dana\, you touched on it remains to be seen how voluntary or mandatory some of these guidance might end up being\, and I’m curious to understand \nwhat the pathway for that decision of the level of peace. But some of these guidance thesis could have is\, and how much of that is already happening and underway\, and what milestones there might be to \nmaking those decisions. and will they\, do you anticipate that they may vary kind of jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Or is it a similar level of teeth for the bay as a whole. I guess just\, you know more \nlooking forward to keeping up with some of this work and on the milestones\, and when and how I think it would be very helpful to hear I was thrilled to hear the lessons learned. There’s been a lot of good thinking\, a lot of work that’s been done day wide by a lot of different jurisdictions. So updates on the lessons\, learned updates on the community meetings that were planned. And the I think \nthose would be great opportune moments to bring together feedback from this board with the conversation in the wider community. Excellent points. Thank you. Thank you. And I don’t think we need to sort of answer the questions right now\, I think what we’ll do is corral all these comments get around the rules. \nOkay\, how are we doing on time? So we need to. \nOkay\, I’ll try and keep it brief. I also very\, very inspiring. You know the the presentation. I have to say I’m really\, really encouraged\, and I as a more of a designer\, mind\, I don’t completely understand the mechanisms for getting there\, but I. But I do understand the diagram for paradigm shift\, and I really want to engage in that. It reminds me very much of \nyou know some things that I’ve read\, that jar and diamond wrote about how an individual who’s having a crisis or a nervous breakdown is the same as a society or an institution or a government which is having a crisis. \nIt involves the honest\, the value on a self-evaluation commit to change throwing out the things that are dragging you down and holding on to the things that are that are working. And I think you’ve already described that that this isn’t a total start over that you’re going to keep the things that are working\, and you’re going to build \nAnd so then\, when you get into how to make the bridge to projects on the ground. I think it becomes much more difficult for the reasons we’ve been hearing. \nI\, Tom\, is kind of inspiring me to to think about. How are all of the projects come before the board\, the short-term goal\, short-term financial plan\, and a schedule\, and everything that you just talked about is about long-term costs. \nand how how can you incorporate? You know\, long-term cost of society from a project? So I from there\, I just want to go to maybe a couple of specific examples of \nproject types that we look at all the time where I come away feeling like. you know\, we’re doing what we can within the rules that exist. But I don’t feel like. you know\, we’re we’re doing enough. Or maybe we’re understanding something that we should even be approving \nthat we don’t have the ability to turn it down and out. Just generally speaking\, I think\, for the last couple of years\, many\, many of the projects that we’ve been looking at are in the part of the bay that is going to suffer the biggest impact. So San Mateo\, Berlin game\, foster city\, so on. \nWhy are we seeing so many projects come before us on the most problematic sites? That’s a question I have. And I think I you know\, I can speculate and try and develop theories\, but that’s a question \nrelated to that is the levies that are being built that I don’t think is broadly known among the public\, or even among the board. \nI’m thinking specifically at Foster City. which is shocking to to go down and look at and drive along there and see these 20 foot walls rising in front of homes that formerly had safe views. \nI’m thinking about a Lisa where there’s a massive project underway right now that I don’t think anybody knows about unless they have a reason to go to a visa for some reason. So I I asked the question. You know\, how is it \nif those projects can happen independently of the kind of oversight that that you’re talking about. and finally\, I think the other is as Jacinta mentioned\, and we’ve talked about many times are I have in my mind to a very separate category for single family projects and condominium projects on day\, you know\, sites that are endangered. \nbecause the cost of implementing the 100 year adaptation plan or building a levy or a Se. Wall later falls on the Homeowners Association. \nand we do approve projects where we’re kicking the can down the road. You’re you’re approving a project. A developer is. it’s making some money. They’re getting out\, and the city or the region\, or somebody is going to be left with a map of massive costs \nwhich is not in. I mean those sites. yeah\, I I feel bad about about The deferred cost of that. So I will leave it at that. Thank you. Yeah\, thanks for all your hard work. \nSo do you want to wrap up the the dab? Yeah\, I’ll be quick. first\, in terms of engaging. Well\, first\, let me say\, thank you for the presentation. It’s great. It’s nice to be in the room. \nBe part of this really appreciate what you’re doing. But in terms of engagement I think it is really valuable for the boards to be updated and informs \nabout what Ecdc. Is is doing that we can do our jobs. And so I think we do that I don’t know. I think it is better to have some meetings and make a show up and listen and talk. \nbecause a lot of us \nI have lots of things to do\, and an email may fall off the list occasionally. \nsecondly\, on resources. \nI think the Ecr. BCDCould be utilized to a broader extent. You know\, the Foster city levees is an example\, I don’t think that came in front of the Ecr because it wasn’t \nNew Base Hill. And but it’s a lot of big detail with geotechnical issues and personal engineering issues. So but I think also\, the other thing to recognize is that the Ecr\, the \nis working with engineering criteria that are not available at a national or even at state level. We have policy\, if you know\, drivers and we have sort of arrived scenarios which are \nfind space by definition. But it’s not. There’s no ase code for that I’m aware of\, for scale will rise for public access versus something over the water versus \na shipping terminal or a very landing\, or anything like that. So we’re kind of making it up when in a way we’re we’re leading\, I think. \nBut I think the Ucrb could help with that perspective. If it’s useful as you go into these regional plans and stuff like. how would that translate to \nlogic design criteria\, you know. also the California Coastal Commission. I think you’re in contact with them. You know\, there’s these coastal groups that talk in the States that I think that they’ve had to deal with \na lot of similar things. And in it\, for example\, a lot of different future conditions mapping. I’ve worked on some of those. And I know Justin’s working on the theme of maps. And and then there’s the cosmos to you. So you have all these maps\, and \nyou know\, what do you do with them? How are they used? And then\, of course\, the applicants to do something else. And you know\, so I think they have a lot of experience. From what I understand in that world \nit might be worth could be some shared benefits. As far as my general comments. I just this is great listening to what the Drd folks said. \nyou know\, I really just want to highlight Tom’s motivations. topic. Because what we realize is that \nthat paradigm\, that different people are different paradigms. Some people are like\, okay\, I I like it because it’s close to the coast. And now I need to build a sea wall. That that’s it\, you know\, if that’s the paradigm \nand Whereas planning might consider other things. And that’s it can be a different. So there’s paradigms within paradigms. And it’s interesting that how you motivate people which I think is \nclassically\, would be to identify those externalities and try to get those internalized into these parcel level local decisions. \nBut you know\, anyway. and then the other thing that that Gary mentioned is what I would call legacy issues. I was going to mention this later. you know. So we designed for something\, and we know it has a life\, and \nyou know it’s got to work economically\, or put it clear\, or whatever. But what happens at the end of that? Because sea level rise is going to continue. And what we’re dealing with now are a lot of legacy issues. \nAnd so it may be in economics. You have a close out consideration. But then. you know\, you don’t want to stop development. So I don’t know. I think that’s a big challenge legacy stuff. And how this plan? \nWhere does it leave us? Recognizing that sea level is going to keep going up? Is it likely? so it’s a couple of quick comments. \nso we’re moving in a we’re living in a moving frame of reference now\, the LAN the census. Talk about the zoning or or land use planning. \nyou know\, we’re every that’s moving that that sees coming up and the shores moving in\, and the groundwater is coming up. And it’s more precipitate\, higher precipitation\, intensity. So it’s blood planes. \nSo you know. that we have. Your plan has the term shoreline. A lot of people use the term shoreline\, which is\, I guess\, an old English navigation thing which is around me in high water\, and that’s how \nour laws are are based in our regulatory framework\, and there is the bay on one side\, and what’s not the bay on the other side\, but in reality it’s all like a flood plane. and so I don’t know if we want to call it. You might want to call it the \nyour plane\, or or the Bloodland\, or there’s a Shoreland or something. But but you’re actually not managing the shoreline necessarily. If you’re really being resilient\, you’re you’re maybe working out into the bay. \nand maybe also likely\, considering landward of the shoreline. So what is that? Where is that? Where is that going to be? So \nthose are. Yeah. I’ll just leave it at that. I could. I could go on forever. But okay\, so good enough\, probably. Thank you. \nOkay\, thanks. Thanks. Bob. And and everybody on the DRB. I there’s a lot of I real I \nunderstand. And I agree with a lot of things that you’re you’re saying. I you know. Personally\, I think this dynamic or this this \nreference frame that Bob just mentioned is really important. \nIf you’ve got a condo association that is trying to replace a a retaining wall. are you? And and say the owners are going to be there for 10 years or 15 years? I don’t know what the the average of home ownership is. But if you’re forcing them to think about \n100 year\, to think a hundred years into the future and pay for that. it doesn’t seem as \nrealistic or equitable if you’re forcing that kind of decision and that kind of resource use on them. I you know I I almost feel like we need to have economists in the room here \ntalking about what\, the how we allocate our resources. If we’re going to be talking about shoreline and and big changes. There’s this whole \neconomic and and that kind of or the and how you fund any of this. \nthe the management of your short one? because\, you know\, I know that things are going to \nthe change. But I just you know\, I think that just it really for me it’s the timeframe of the change\, and what your and if you’re going to build a bridge\, you’re going to want to have a hundred years of of life. \nBut what you do\, what you do at the end of that 100 years\, have you? Just do you just build a new bridge. the tire\, or it that that kind of decision making\, I think\, has to be \npart of this process\, and I think that in terms of what they adapt does. I would really. you know\, like to see that type of thinking and incorporated into it. \nso I’ll \nlet me just. I’ll get out. Well\, one more thing I to answer directly these questions? You know I would really love\, I agree. I I would really love to have regular update meetings and meetings like this\, where we are allowed to hear what your progress is\, and \nyou know to be able to offer some input and guidance from our perspective. \nAnd in terms of the resources Bob mentioned American society civil engineers or design guidelines. I I think they are working on those things\, but they are a long way \noff. you know\, we’re in technical committees\, and we’re just talking about frameworks right now. I know the Navy is putting together workshops or a workshop on dealing with climate change\, not just sea level rise\, but \nthe storm intensities and things like that. And and that’s just an effort that’s starting. But there\, the idea is\, how do they change their design criteria? \nFor there\, you know. relatively important structures or facilities to deal with kind of this uncertainty and changing of the climate. \nSo anyway\, I’ll get off my soap box now when you pass it on to the Chris. \nThank you. and thank you for the presentation. It’s really great to see the progress that has been made. and it was really good to hear you mention rising groundwater. So it’s not just sea level rise. \nIt’s really important. But I really also want to urge you to include precipitation based flooding. I think many communities around the bay are very focused on\, protect\, protect\, protect. \nbuilding the walls like at Foster City. and if they do not consider all of the sources of flooding\, it will be mal adoption. We saw in 2\,02313 back to back storms. \nbomb cyclones. Those bring elevated bay water levels and intense precipitation at the same time. So I think it’s really important to that. We bring that in. \nI also like the components talking about a paradigm shift and anomaly. 2023 is an anomaly. We’re in a wonderful bubble here in the Bay area. \nbut the rest of the world is struggling under intense heat. we’re recording record\, high ocean temperatures\, ice sheet melting. We could have passed tipping points. \nScience right now\, is going at light speed to try and figure out what’s going on. So it’s the work that we are doing. That you are doing is is really incredibly important. \nto go along with the literature on paradigm shift. There is a growing body of literature that’s on transformative adaptation. which is very similar to the process that you discussed. But it is specifically focused on climate adaptation\, equity centered. So I would encourage you to explore that base of literature if you haven’t done it already \n110 billion dollars. I think that’s probably an underestimate But when you think about it\, state level country level\, it’s it’s huge. And at the shoreline. \nwhere we have all of these compounding hazards. It would really be good to see the guidance embrace planned retreat. I feel like \nwe. Really it’s an uncomfortable conversation for people to have. But we need to start having more guidance and discussions on plan retreat\, because we are going to need to do it. \nmaybe by 2050 or sooner. So if we don’t start talking about it now\, we’re not going to be able to get there. I think it’s you know. It’s going to need land use changes. Policy changes \nthings that are outside the engineering criteria Review board. But I think they’re extremely important. And so I would encourage you to include that in the guidance that you’re looking on \nwith that compass a suggestion \ngreat. \nWith respect to the first question\, I I kind of ask myself a separate question of like\, what is the relevance of these activities to the Ecrb in terms of evaluating a project \nand just trying to think of like how these might interface with the Project level Review. and to some extent\, I think some of the things I noted\, you know. Maybe there’s some sorting out of like\, what’s the responsibility of the Cdc staff versus the Ecrb. And and that’s fine. \nbut I was trying to kind of imagine a future world\, a future Youcrb meeting\, where a sub regional implementation plan exists and we’re evaluating a project that kind of fits within that \ncontext. and so I think you know\, one thing that would probably come up would would be sort of how to evaluate an individual project within the context of a of a plan\, you know. Is it consistent? \nHow does it work with other projects and adjacent shoreline areas? thinking about the the feasibility of that project with respect\, you know\, within the plan and its adaptability and things like that. \nAnd then also thinking about. is the project consisting with and compatible with the adaptation pathway that has been laid out in the in the implementation plan. \nso those are a few things that came to mind there \nwith respect to the providing input on safe development of the planning guidelines. I think that potentially there could be a role for Thecrb to \nmaybe provide input like to the extent that the planning guidance would include they suggestions on different types of adaptation options that could be considered in an implementation plan. \nmaybe these here we could provide input on feasibility or suitability of different actions along different parts of the shoreline within the bay\, for example. And then\, with respect to the second question and other resources. I mean\, I’m sure the Dcdc. Staff are \nare as aware\, more aware of. You know things within the Bay area\, but I might just throw out that there’s probably other non bay precedents that could be looked at in other parts of the country where \nyou know. And maybe it’s like state level or regional level plans that have been developed. But just looking at how those kind of regional plans had been laid out. And you know just kind of \nRodney. The perspective. I know the Bay area is usually a leader in the space\, but there may be other examples. It could be pulled in as well. so yeah\, because of my comments. \nI I just like to reiterate a point that Rod made what the struggles we have with how to how to address different types of \nproperties consistently. And in my line of work we work on a variety of projects from new developments\, where we\, I should say\, redeveloping \n2\,000 feet of shoreline\, transforming an industrial wharf into a pedestrian promenade or individual homeowners\, or H ways \nthat are trying to do repairs or large industrial facilities or petrochemical facilities around that that maybe have more money and can afford things \nAnd we we need to find a way to to address these consistently and be able to apply policy to the different types of projects. And that’s where I think we\, as a board struggle. \nAnd I think that’s something that we’d like to get some some guidance from. Ec. DC. On how to address. Thanks. \nyeah. Talking as a geo-technical engineer to a non Geo technical type of topic at sea level rise. I do have a number of comments\, I guess\, as representing representing the engineering Criteria Review Board. \nit seems like engineering criteria\, sea level rise topic per se might be a practical\, tractable problem. I’m not sure that the policy issue there \nas as easily tractable. couple of questions that I have\, that\, I think should be addressed and be useful for the engineering criteria for Thecrb to have in hand is it was talked about best\, best best available science. \nAnd I’m curious. You know how narrow or broad is the best available science is there consensus? Is there a lot of dissent? It was mentioned earlier. \nThe idea that maybe the boards are overreaching. what does that mean? Are we able? And if these are non-mandatory issues it’s sea level\, is there a number that’s mandatory issue? That’s a mandatory number? You have so many feet in in 2\,050 somebody feed in 2\,075. Somebody feed in in 2\,100 \nor \nBut \nand what is the design like who design sides of the design that you have a homeown\, and it’s going to whether they’re an average of 15 years. We normally think of 50 years\, but 50 years is kind of a \na stand in number that says that the last 50 years it’ll last forever. I mean that that’s kind of as far as we can imagine. all right. And and that’s basically stable. But that’s different with sea level rise. Because 50 years from now is different than 25 years now\, and different than 75 years from now. \nSomehow\, someone needs to start thinking about what those who who decides divine life and what is mandated about that? If we’re talking about engineering criteria\, the criteria is a mandate almost \nanonymously. I lot of these issues are not mandates. So what is engineering criteria? Then? I had \na question about probabilistic sorts of studies. Maybe if there’s uncertainty about what sea level rise means As a genetical engineer we deal with earthquakes and earthquakes are. \nin a sense. so the type of number that who knows? How do you put your finger on what’s gonna happen? And we put our finger on that. We thought that the Hayward was going to go again 10 years ago\, and we’re not there yet\, so \nthat we have to design for it. So But you know\, maybe there’s a way that we come up and say\, you know this is the Median number that you want you to design \nfor 2\,050\, which is the one you know\, the one Sigma\, the median plus mean plus one sigma value. And and that’s what single-family residences of that with subdivisions up to 10 units in the that’s what a a sea ball around Foster City for trying about. \nyou know. racy\, just to say\, you know\, engineers\, doctors have it easy. They just risk killing people one at a time. Engineers what \nyou know cities it. So the criteria for Foster City is\, is it? You know what? What’s the statistical number that you’ve got on that it shouldn’t be a Median number. It’s probably not a a a one sign number. \nIt’s probably a 2 segment number or something like that that we think that this \nreally. \nyou know\, something we really don’t want to see a problem with with loving around Foster City. And then I have a question. Some of these things are not mandated. \nWhat is the permit means? If it’s not mandated\, or what is a permit denial? I we need to get forward. you have to figure out what is Mandated? And then what is it \ni’m an engineer\, I don’t deal with it. \ncriteria and management. \nthank you. What a very good exchange here. First of all. it’s almost 50 years to a day. I first got introduced to the Cdc. To a guy named George Maker \nthere. and At that time the mission was to keep the from getting fields. To mention was\, you know\, no more feels But \nI think what we’re talking about is\, how do we keep the day from flooding us out? And so the point that it’s really not shoreline. It’s the coastal flood zone that we really have to consider and what is going to happen within it. \nand that requires a regional approach as an engineer. the engineering solution. If you want 20 food walls. we can build 24 foot walls. Do we want to live in an area \nthat’s basically surrounded by large moats. That’s an option. But I I don’t think it’s a desirable. You know. Hard engineering solutions are possible \nsoft solutions. They require regional approach. We really have to start thinking regionally the jurisdictions. Somehow we have to get the jurisdictions together. Think about it \nholistically. You can’t have San Mateo having one approach in burling them another approach and call it perfect solution for everybody\, obviously one of those. \nThey both may work\, but they don’t lead to the same outcome. So\, as as I said\, from the engineering standpoint. in a way\, once the criteria\, once the societal criteria are established\, it’s really what does the society like? What we we want \nthis to to be and keep in mind. It’s not just the bay little sea level that’s going up. If the base level goes up. the whole delta goes up. We’ve got I once you got flooding there. \nIt’s it’s a system. And and so\, you know\, I heard the suggestions of barriers in the bay like Venice. I’m sorry this is not Venice. This is a much larger area barriers. \nyeah\, you know\, for a few years my pork. But we have a venture like this one that’s gonna work. Okay? So that’s that’s one thing that I was thinking. So looking at the common approach and the issue of 100 year horizon. That’s an interesting point. \nSan Francisco. August system is more than 100 years old. Still working. It’s amazing. We East pay much the same way. It’s amazing what was done to not thinking about a hundred years. But \nas to last. So what we find is a lot of these engineering. you know\, infrastructure solutions. They acquire a of their own\, and we have to sort of think about it. You know\, we have the \na short freeway network. Both sides. \nAt some point there will have to be sea walls around all of those\, or they will have to be elevated and become the levees that everybody’s talking about. So I think \nI I like this idea of engagement\, and and especially looking at it holistically. I think that’s why? Because we need to as engineers. Really\, the society needs to provide some guidance \non what is the outcome? That your desire? Because that can\, you know in the end. It’s money. I’m sorry\, you know. It’s 100 billion or more. But yes\, we can do it. \nBut we have to have a common purpose. That’s the way I see that as an engineer I can help in that process. But I need to for some. you know\, buying from But he questions. Yes\, we’d like to have your help \nrather than being there\, saying\, Not yet. You cannot do this. \nthank you. \nI think the bad part of sitting at the end of the table is\, everybody who is so smart basically steal your thunder. But I think the elephant in the room is a global issue \nthat needs to be addressed on a project level. You can never do that unless you tell people\, hey. you are submitting the permit to Bcdc to do whatever development you want. \nYou have to consider 5 photo of sea level. That’s the only way that you can address it. because you cannot \nhave this being a mandatory or voluntary. you have to address that. If you want to talk about incentives\, you have to what they they are. \nOkay. Tax incentive. The insurance incentives? Are they some sort of a credit against some other people almost like trading carbon incentives? \nSo so I think engineering wise like Nick said. is easy. You put a stupid looking barrier in front of the beauty of the bay. And yeah\, it \ndon’t plot your development. That’s not what any of us want. \nSo I think \nwhat I think is going on here is \nreally \njust a a forum to discuss a global issue. And how do you bring it to I local project levels \nand I don’t think you can. This has to be addressed regionally. There is no other way you can. You can handle this and how that is done is really the 110 billion dollars question. \nwhich I think is probably a lot more than that\, maybe by a factor of 10. \nSo that’s my 2 cents sitting at the end of the table. Thank you. \nWell\, I mean\, you’re very good at. \nanyway. Thank you very much for the presentation. Most of what I had written down were things that I mean just talked about. The only thing I would add to it is also at what Chris shared\, that \nit’s not that sea level rise\, but you know a flood in from other sources is also part of it. Yeah. what \nit’s hard for me. It’s the fact that this time is being looked at on a global level. in a holistic kind of way. \nI think the issue of. you know\, trying to determine what we break to it. It’s we are far from that. we have to get to a point of basically the only way that we can deal with the sea level rise like through a means that has to be original. \nNow\, even if you there was a mandate\, that if you are developing a property on a shoreline and you have to put in a 10 foot tie wall. Well. \nthe C. Is not going to respect that temporal tide. Wall\, it’s going to go around it right? So so you have to cover the whole shoreline\, or you have to cover the whole region \nSo I think that society would have to basically decide that this is a crisis which affects us all and be committed to approaching it \non the suicidal regional national level. I mean\, we talk about climate change. I mean\, part of the challenge that they’ve had is that different countries\, you know\, have different levels of commitment. \nbut the one doesn’t respect the. And so if we in the Us. establishing all these policies to deal with climate change. \nBut China is not. Oh\, Mexico is not. I mean\, we are not being protected. So there has to be a sense of thanks\, there being an agreement. \nyou know\, on a suicidal level that this is so important that we are willing to command resources to dealing with it on the global type of level. \nI think he talked about reimagining our role. I think it’s so true because the things we do now me nothing. If we had to look at things on a global type of level. \nhow we would come in would be join in with everybody else that society is committed to dealing with the issue on a societal level \nwe bring in\, and our expertise\, you know\, and coming up with solutions to address the problem on that level. \nThank you. \nGail\, do you have? And another comment \nthat was\, I was raising my hand on behalf of my colleague\, Mr. French\, here earlier. \nsince we are sharing a camera. \nGary. \nvery quick\, I think. 15 years ago I I I tend to talk about how the manager tree would be solved by insurance companies. And I think in the last couple of weeks we have seen that it’s had a big impact as they pull out. And that is something that I think \nyou know\, transcends our ability. I think it addresses some of the things we’re we’re hearing\, you know you can. We can say as much as we want. What we think is the right thing to do. But I think identifying what mechanisms there are to \nbring into your policy. Evaluations are to inform people who are investing in the shoreline. Maybe maybe there’s something there I I would like to hear has. It’s more knowledgeable about that. \nI’m just looking at timeline here because broad you my one way into actually the screen. just so much really important feedback from everyone. I think we could easily extend this for another couple of hours\, going backwards and forwards. As we focus our minds. \nwe particularly some of the Atlantic comments. That’s What should our plan be? It’s by the clock. So What do you? What do you suggest \nnext on the agenda is adjournment? I think we heard very clearly that everyone is interested in engaging in this process more in the future. And so perhaps \nwe can schedule more dialogues like this. \nI will look to Larry right. I I just wanted to say you know very frequent attendant of the the DRB. I always get to hear \nvery incisive comments at the project level. And it’s It’s just interesting to be talking about such a big issue in here\, these high\, level thoughts and \njust really giving us a lot to think about. So I just wanted to say\, Thank you for for all the comments. \nYeah\, I I mean\, I as much as it would be great fun to talk about this for another couple of hours. I think you probably have a lot to digest\, and we probably also have a lot to suggest. I mean\, we both were taking just pages and pages to know your comments were all just so insightful and thoughtful. Some stuff that we have thought about\, and some stuff we haven’t yet. So \nI’m not 100% sure how how we want to proceed forward. And in terms of coming up with a maybe just a briefing schedule or identify key points where\, you know\, we can bring you just really specific \npieces of information. but it does sound like it would be really mutually beneficial to continue this conversation. maybe just not nice. \nCan I just make a conclusion remark on just on behalf of the DRB. I mean\, I think you are already making really important progress. And you know\, if we think about the beginning of the cycle of a project where a developer comes to you. Maybe a developer comes to you \nright. and they have a project they want to develop. And I think it would be really helpful\, for even at this point to the still something quite simple from everything that’s being studied at a more macro level. \njust to distill to the developer that you know and use language like\, even though it’s not figured out in details. But you know that \nyou know shoreline adaptation that adopts a natural approach is something that you’re going to view very favorably. you know they might be 3 or 4. Keep it simple\, but you know\, based on what you heard today. \nJust things that you could already start in that first meeting with a a developer that might be helpful\, because I completely agree. You know\, these global macro \nissues is something that at a project level\, we can’t necessarily impact. But we can impact. You know\, the next 25\, or 50 years\, and I think we should. you know\, within the realm of what we can do. So \nI think that would. I just would like to suggest that. But we\, you know that we move ahead. We don’t to awake for 2 years before these conversations are held with potential developers and projects. \nSo you know\, I in my day job kind of involved in 7 and a half miles of protecting 7 and a half miles of shoreline \nI and I see how big a job that is. See how hard the you know our staff and our consultants are working to make this all all fit right\, and \nthe the amount of resources involved are just mind mind-blowing. I I And so \nthis is all I think really great. And \nbut I I just it feels like to me. It I see it on a day-to-day basis\, and it feels like just a absolutely impossible task. But I’ve got\, you know. But there are people who are running the program. \nWe’ve got this idea in their head that it’s going to work somehow. So you know I’m I’m very hopeful\, even though personally\, maybe I’m like overwhelmed. \nyou know\, I think this is all super It’s a very noble pursuit. right? And I I really encourage the staff to to think about the things that we’ve brought up. I mean\, I still. \nI still think that you know the timing of the sea level rise of what it means\, you know\, 20 years down the line\, 50 years down the line\, 100 years down the line. \nI I you know that at some point even the tallest\, you know\, 8 foot 9 foot 10 foot wall that you build is going to be overrun at some point. \nAnd what have you? And you’ve made all of these decisions now\, or in the near future that are going to have to play out. And people. The next generations are going to have to live with that. \nAnd so I you know\, I think it really does require a lot of consideration and care on our part right now to to make sure that we’re making you know the best decisions that we can\, but \nalso have some flexibility so that people can pivot. you know\, in 20 years or 25 years. \nNo. sorry I’m getting off my my so box again. \nSo if I can\, a couple of things. I I think the next step is to have a stiff drink. and and I mean that sincerely because this is the kind of discussion that thankfully Rod just said something at the end that I think we all need to hear. There are optimists here. \nI think all of us are optimists here because I don’t think you would volunteer for BCDC. This. You’re optimistic about the way the Bay area can change. And the way the Bay Area needs to change. So with that\, with that being said. \nyou know\, I don’t think we have to have a zolop\, you know concession out the door. I think there’s a reason that we can be optimistic. \nmy suggestion is that Dana and Ethan will compare notes and work hard to try to make something out of those notes that actually gives us \nsome type of organizational framework to use in terms of what the questions are that are really raised by this nationally\, and and Jen will certainly be part of that \nand we’ll share that with the chairs of the DRB. And Ecrb to make sure that they \nthink that that’s somewhat at least consistent with what you heard. So at least we’re working off of a framework that we can that we can use. and then what they’ll have to do. What we’ll have to do is Staff is figure out how those issues \nare going to be raised\, and when they’re going to be raised in this bay adap discussion. And as we do that\, as we see that framework\, we will then come back to you all in preparation for that\, so that you all are prepared for those kinds of discussions to be had. \nnot only probably as part of your meetings\, but as part of you know the Commissioner working group on rising sea level\, to which you will all you know\, to which you are all going to be notified and the like. And and as those issues bubble up to the surface\, we want to make sure that you’re involved with at least understanding how the Commission’s viewing this. \nSo that’s sort of the logistical way that I see this happening. I will end by saying this. regulatory agencies\, such as BCDC. Are created in order to provide certainty of the public. \nThe FDA exists so that the pills we take in the morning don’t kill us. They actually solve things. We get into airplanes that are certified not to fall out of the sky\, and the pilots are trained to make sure that doesn’t happen. \nBCDC is a regulatory agency that is facing an environment that is uncertain and permits are contracts \nand contracts are based upon some kind of certainty. And so one of the things that we need to think through with you all and and and with all due respect. I think the engineers were really totally on target on this\, because they see certainty. That’s what engineers do. Right? You can build a wall that’s going to last for 110 years a certain as long as we give you the specs or the the idea\, you can build whatever you know\, you’ll figure it out. \nbut we don’t know what’s going to be like in 20 years or 80 years\, and for someone who has a 19 year old kid\, and hopes that his grandkids\, you know\, live in a prosperous Bay area\, we have to be adaptable. \nSo all that basically is a mishmash of I don’t know how we’re going to do this. but we’re going to depend upon your input as we move forward to try to figure out how to do it best. \nSo with that\, I want to thank you all for participating\, because it’s something that we haven’t asked you to do before. And now it’s something we’re going to ask you to do more. So we thank you for your help. \nCinder. Would you call it your name? \nIt’s I propose. We had joined the meeting someone. Second me. Thank you. Tom. Meeting adjourned. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-26-2023-joint-meeting-design-review-board-and-engineering-criteria-review-board/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230710T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230710T170000 DTSTAMP:20231018T055520Z CREATED:20230711T052548Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231018T055520Z UID:10000059-1689008400-1689008400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 10\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meetings will be conducted in a hybrid format.  To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82670260379?pwd=eTAyc1h2S3ViQjV5UkttVldVNzJrdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID826 7026 0379 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for December 12\, 2022 (PDF) and April 10\, 2023 (PDF) Meetings\nStaff Update\nFerry Building and Ferry Plaza Alterations in the City of San Francisco\, San Francisco County (Second Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board and Port Waterfront Advisory Committee will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by Hudson Pacific Properties to make interior and exterior alterations to the San Francisco Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza at various locations along the ground floor and the building site.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650 katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit (PDF) // Public Comment Letters (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-10-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230605T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230605T170000 DTSTAMP:20231121T030045Z CREATED:20230606T052440Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T030045Z UID:10000058-1685970000-1685984400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 5\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-5-2023-design-review-board-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230508T050000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230508T050000 DTSTAMP:20240213T224211Z CREATED:20230509T051935Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T224211Z UID:10000057-1683522000-1683522000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 8\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meetings will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with  SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nYerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center 375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3657 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83638159063?pwd=YTl1LzNjcWQ1ekFFbXZ6SXdQTlVrdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID836 3815 9063 \nPasscode460758 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nStaff Update\nB9 Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County (First Pre-Application Review)The Design Review Board will hold their first pre-application review of the proposal by BioMed Realty Properties to develop a new life sciences campus at a mostly vacant 12.67-acre site at 300\, 400\, and 301 Island Parkway and 800 Clipper Drive with three 9 to 13-level office buildings and a new 12-story parking garage. The project would make improvements to the O’Neill Slough Trail and create a publicly accessible plaza with public art installations\, diverse seating areas\, and native gardens\, and provide public shore parking spaces.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654 shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.govPresentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Summary\n Draft Summary of the May 8\, 2023 BCDC Design Review Board Meeting \n\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review. Design Review Board (DRB) Chair Jacinta McCann called the hybrid meeting to order on Zoom\, at approximately 5:00 p.m.\nBCDC Board Members in atendance included Board Chair Jacinta McCann\, Board Vice Chair Gary Strang and Board Members Bob Batalio\, Kristen Hall\, Stephan Pellegrini. \nBCDC staff in atendance included Ashley Tomerlin\, Yuriko Jewet\, Shruti Sinha\, and Katharine Pan. \nB9 Island Parkway Project Team: Ethan Warsh\, BioMed Realty; Marcel Wilson\, Bionic Landscape Architects; Ellie Knecht\, WRA; Geoff Smick\, WRA; and Cecily Barclay\, Perkins Coie \n\nStaff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update to the Board Member Recruitment and announced the selection committee’s recommendations for appointment\, Leo Chow for the Architect Board Member\, Patricia Fonseca Flores\, for the Landscape Architect Alternate\, Guneet Anand for the Urban Design Alternate\, and Cody Anderson for the Engineer Alternate.\nB9 Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County (First Pre-Application Review). The first pre-application review of the proposal by BioMed Realty Properties to develop a new life sciences campus at a mostly vacant 12.67-acre site at 300\, 400\, and 301 Island Parkway and 800 Clipper Drive with three 9 to 13-level office buildings and a new 12-story parking garage. The project would make improvements to the O’Neill Slough Trail and create a publicly accessible plaza with public art installations\, diverse seating areas\, and native gardens\, and provide public shore parking spaces.\n\nStaff Presentation. Shruti Sinha provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.\nProject Presentation. Ethan Warsh and Marcel Wilson provided an overview\, with a slide presentation\, of project goals\, background\, local context\, existing site conditions\, and a detailed description of the proposed project.\nPublic Comment. Gita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter. Submited a leter in addition to calling in. The comments included concern for the site proximity to the Redwood Shores Nature Preserve; the facades seem very glossy so please apply bird safe design\, and minimize night lighting from building and exterior lighting as it’s adjacent to the slough. Additionally\, she expressed concerns with the bio safety levels of the development and wanted to make sure the building is not up to a level 3. She also stated she understood the large plate design needs\, but in light of OneShoreline and other requirements\, it’s important to respect the 100’ setback and have a gentler slope like 20:1.\nBoard Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation\n\nClarification on intensity of site development between existing authorizations and proposed project.\nClarification on risk levels and applicable building code requirements related to bio safety levels.\nClarification on site vehicular circulation including loading access\, passenger drop offs\, and parking.\nClarification on location of lobbies in relation to the roundabout and ground floor uses where adjacent to public access areas.\nClarification on the public access space required by the City and if there is distinction between green/gray spaces and does it include/exclude emergency vehicle access route.\nClarification on TMA/TDM requirements.\nClarification on existing flooding conditions on site.\nClarification on requirements for an emergency access plan related to flooding.\nClarification on designed life of project and buildings.\nClarification on extent of improvements along Concourse and Island Parkway; existing bicycle circulation and access from Oracle bridge.\nClarification on whether developer will hold or sell site.\nClarification on food and beverage services and tenants.\nClarification on phasing of development and when public access is constructed.\n\n\nBoard Discussion. The Board discussed how the project addresses the seven objectives for public access found in the Public Access Design Guidelines\, provided feedback on the proposed public access improvements with respect to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise\, and environmental justice and social equity\, and addressed the staff questions listed below.\nThe seven objectives for public access are: \n\nMake public access PUBLIC.\nMake public access USABLE.\nProvide\, maintain\, and enhance VISUAL ACCESS to the Bay and shoreline.\nMaintain and enhance the VISUAL QUALITY of the Bay\, shoreline\, and adjacent developments.\nProvide CONNECTIONS to and CONTINUITY along the shoreline.\nTake advantage of the BAY SETTING.\nEnsure that public access is COMPATIBLE WITH WILDLIFE through siting\, design\, and management strategies.\n\nStaff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration: \n\nHow does the project proposal result in public spaces that “feel public\,” and does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people?\nWhat additional improvements would improve the public access experience to and along the shoreline?\nAre the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adaptive to sea level rise in balance with ensuring high-quality public access opportunities?\nDoes the design provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike/pedestrian networks to draw users into and through the site to the O’Neill Slough Trail and shoreline?\n\n\nSummary of Key Issues\n\nSite Design\n\nThe site is located in a particularly ecologically interesting place with the nearby nature preserve and existing habitat value. It is hard to reconcile a much-loved recreation complex\, the ecological significance\, and the proposed massing and paving of the project immediately adjacent to those uses.\nThere is so much building on site that the vehicular circulation doubles as the public walkways. The Board questioned whether this would truly feel like a public space. The 25’ foot path is really adjacent to the building face. There needs to be a greater horizontal buffer and mediation between building mass and the public access area at the ground plane – use bigger trees to lower perception of adjacent buildings.\nThe project should be consistent with larger regional goals and ecological wellbeing of the area. The site is tight and developing a site so heavily doesn’t leave room for adaptation and creates a situation that will demand a future levee and there are already so many levees.\nThe Board understands the pressures\, complexity\, and numbers for development but it’s the DRB’s job to push back to maximize public benefit. Board recommends pulling Building 2 away from the shoreline to relieve the pinch point\, provide greater buffer for public spaces and habitat\, and provide greater capacity for future adaptation for sea level rise. Consider shifting building towards the road or changing configuration of drop off to create space. Until you have an adaptation strategy\, maintain the space and capacity for future adaptation.\nPublic Comment letter: Understand needs for large plate design\, but in consideration of the OneShoreline and other requirements – it’s important to respect the 100’ setback and have a gentler slope like 20:1. \n\nThere is a lot of parking\, it seems that there is 1 spot per employee (400 SF/employee). Explore opportunities to reduce number of parking spaces and define shared needs between Campus and City uses. Parking demands for the Campus and City uses don’t seem incompatible and could be better coordinated. For example\, can more City parking be accommodated within the garage outside of business hours?\nThe Public Access seems to be encroaching into the marsh where typically we want to give more buffer to sensitive areas.\nBuildings\n\nThe public frontage along the promenade needs animation and an active ground floor use seems unlikely as shown. Explore a layered approach or give more attention to ground plane and the building edges: create seating areas\, explore articulation of façade to provide depth\, and enhance areas of landscaping to make it a more interesting experience. A more permeable design could benefit the project in terms of complementary ground floor uses (cafes etc.) that may benefit the overall project.\nThe height of the buildings compared to what is immediately adjacent is concerning. What is happening with shadows and public space? There is good southern/western exposure\, but what happens with the wind? It is necessary to understand and design with the microclimates of public access areas.\nPublic Comment Letter: The facades seem very glossy. This site is adjacent to the Redwood Shores Nature Preserve; maintain bird safe design\, and minimize night lighting from building and exterior lighting as it’s adjacent to the slough.\n\n\n\n\nCirculation. The introduction of more connectivity along slough is welcome. This is not the Bay Trail but it directly connects into the trail network and is well used even as an unimproved trail.\nSite Arrival\n\nThe scale of the north vehicle drop off is not necessary and should not be used as the placemaking feature of the site. Central entry/drop off should be minimized.\nWhen driving to the site from Island Parkway\, the first entry you encounter is the entry into the parking structure and it doesn’t feel like an entry experience. With the size of the garage and the assumption that employees will be driving themselves\, explore reducing the size of the north drop off area and enhancing the south arrival point. There is a lot of current use at the existing surface lot; explore enhancing this arrival point.\n\n\nOnsite Circulation\n\nExplore the opportunities of reducing the surface lot and shrinking the north drop off to create more significant public spaces\, improve connections\, and allow for a softer slope at the shoreline. The city-owned parking lot should be a more significant connection to the Bay Trail at the south. The public access terminates at the garage.\nThere’s a clear opportunity with a 12-story garage to reduce the need for surface parking; project needs to identify the needs for all the site use. Explore reducing the size of the surface lot in order to provide better connections with the trail network and the Bay Trail.\nIt is strange to see a public walkway turn into the loading dock of buildings. Board questioned if approaching from the street\, does someone really want to cross the loading areas.\n\n\nStreet Circulation\n\nThe Board questioned why Island Parkway was so wide.\nThe Board noted the potential for conflict where cycle tracks cross vehicular areas\, explore moving track or going with conventional lanes on north side of Concourse.\n\n\nShoreline Protection\n\nA slope of 2:1 for a living shoreline is not something you would consider as a natural geomorphic slope for an edge and will limit ecological value. With sea level rise. the higher marsh plants may migrate up\, but the lower portions may not facilitate lower marsh migration.\nThe plant palette does not seem to be native or appropriate for marsh.\nThe Board wanted clarification on whether the elevations shown accounted for settlement.\nThe Board recommends consideration of other flooding sources beyond shoreline overtopping\, ensure higher water levels are being studied.\nThe Board stated it is important to frame plans in the context of bigger adaptation strategies for the sloughs.\nThe Board wants to see the plans and sections. Water comes in from all directions.\n\n\nPublic Access\n\nThe Board supported the opportunity of creating a more open and welcoming public access along the slough. There are a lot of amenities and opportunity for a good landscape.\nThe Plan is generally consistent with BCDC guidelines albeit scrunched up and tight. Ensure adaptative capacity.\nThe Board requested clarification on whether the Master Plan envisioned an EVA counting toward public access.\nThe deck is an effective focal point/terminus. As the frame/bird blind comes to life\, explore additional uses/animations to provide more justification. The precedent image of the bird blind is interesting\, but question whether the design is appropriate to this project.\n\n\nCommunity Engagement. No environmental groups listed on interested parties; since the Sierra Club wrote a leter\, we encourage reaching out to them.\nThe Design Review board directed the project to come back for a second review. \n\n\n\n\n\nMeeting Adjournment. Vice Chair Strand made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Member Hall. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 PM.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording & Transcript\n \n \nTranscript \nDRB Meeting Room: Board members. Please speak directly into the microphone in front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. \nAnd please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on\, but your audio is disabled. \nOkay\, thank you\, Ashley. \nDRB Meeting Room: So let’s start the meeting. Welcome everyone. My name is Jacinda Mccann and I’m. The chair of the B. Cdc’s Design Review Board \nI’m located here at the Metro Center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and those who may be participating online. Although I think we have everyone here \nwhich is terrific. Our first order of business is to call the role board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond\, and then mute yourselves again after responding. Can you call the rolls. Please \nchair\, Mccann. Present vice-chair string \nboard Member Battalion. Is it? Board? Member Hall present board Member Pellegrini right and staff attending tonight. Are myself Ashley\, Tamerlan. \nYeri Jewett Katherine Penn and Trouti-senha \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, very good. \nWe have a quorum. So we at the meeting up. \nSo thanks\, Ashley. \nDRB Meeting Room: Let’s \nstart with some instruction. and i’m going to read them\, because quite long. So I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible \nfor everyone who is participating online and in the meeting room. please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise for board members. If you have a webcam. Please make sure that it is on. So everyone can see you \nfor members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period this evening. You will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nDRB Meeting Room: for members of the public who are attending our meeting in person in our Headquarters building. Please complete a comment card found at the meeting room door. \nThe Board Secretary will call you up to the podium for public comments \nDRB Meeting Room: wearing masks is optional\, but recommended in this building. \nyou will be asked to come up to the podium one at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nIf you are new to zoom and you join our meeting. The zoom application\, click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised. If you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. \nWe will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are raised during the public comment period for each process. \nDRB Meeting Room: After you are called on you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nPlease state your name. An affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. but everyone has a responsibility to add in a civil Atlanta. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abuse its language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission for online public comments. Please note that we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled \nDRB Meeting Room: if you are attending the meeting in person on the Zoom. If excuse me if you’re intending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists \naudio. For in-person Panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced to individual panelists videos. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties. List to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects. \nplease call or email Ashley\, Tommy and his contact information the screen\, and can also be found on the \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, every now and again you’ll hear me refer to the meeting host. \nYuri. you’re use our B Cdc. And up Bcbc. Staff are acting as hosts for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us needed. And now the Board secretary will provide us staff. \nThank you\, Chair Mccan. I do have a couple of updates tonight. First\, an update on the board member recruitment. The selection committee has been busy over the last few months working on identifying candidates to recommend for the board and alternate opening. \nWe received 17 sets of qualifications\, and interviewed 10 candidates for the 4 openings. The committee has the following recommendations for appointments. \nVo chao of som for the architect\, board member. Patricia Fonzeka Flores\, formerly with a calm Esa and Wendy for the landscape architect\, alternate \nthe neat amount of site lab for the urban design alternate. and Cody Anderson from Sherwood for the engineer alternate. You will be giving\, with the recommendations to the chair of the Commission \nfor concurrence at the May eighteenth meeting\, and the new appointees should begin their terms in June. \nDRB Meeting Room: Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, June Fifth. \nand will be a review of the Port of Oakland\, Middle Harbor\, Shoreline Park\, Seventh Street Connection. This was previously went to the Board last October \nDRB Meeting Room: for newly reopened public access. The breakwater trail at Loch Lom and Marina and Janathob has recently reopened \nthe project\, raised the elevation of the trail 2 and a half feet to 9.5\, and installed a 100 foot long boardwalk with bird viewing platform \nfor for project updates. We have 3 previously reviewed projects going to the Commission for permits in May and June. Oyster Point phases 3 and 4 in South San Francisco. 5 5 7\, Bashore and Redwood City\, and 7 7 7 airport Boulevard and Berlin game are scheduled to be presented to the Commission in the upcoming meeting. \nThat\, concludes the staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board\, and if there are none. then we can move on to the next item. \nI’m just going to jump in for a minute. So our board members and I first of all just want to say thank you to Ashley and Gary Gary for being on the interview committee with me and Ashley for organizing quite a series of \ncomplex scheduling to get everyone together for the interviews. and we had really high quality candidates. I just want to thank all of you for putting forward ideas \nit makes. And so I think you know\, we’ve got a \nDRB Meeting Room: a slate here of recommendation recommended candidates that are really going to see the Board through into the next era \nboard. Members \nthat of a sort of roll off in coming years roll off so to be able to have this \nany comments from anyone. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, anyway\, thanks for you to\, since it for \nthe charge\, and we’re super happy with how it turned out\, and as he said. we’ve got a couple of people who are going to really show up. you know\, are going to bring a lot. \nThis conversation. looking forward to that being a deeper in. \nYeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: very happy about that. \nAnd so actually\, these will be likely approved\, and the candidates will be\, or these recommended candidates are being notified. Yes. not yet. They have been notified. They stated that they were still interested in serving\, and so we brought the recommendations here\, and then the recommendations will go to the Commission \non the administrative listing or the chairs report\, so it’s \nthere. There will not be a vote on it. \nAnd so\, just thinking in terms of timeline\, we might be able to see the architect at our \nDRB Meeting Room: July\, June\, July\, possibly June\, but certainly July \nfor meetings. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, the terms are supposed to start in June\, and the June Drb. Is June sixth\, so that might be a tight turnaround. That’s what July meeting. I would definitely want to have the architect on board. Yeah. \nExcellent. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: good. \nSo we’ll move to the next item on the agenda\, which is public comment on what on the board Secretary’s report. If anyone attending \nyeah online would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak and remember all of the guidelines that I just said before\, is there anyone raising their hands for public comments? \nWe have no public comments. Okay\, thanks very much. Good. Okay\, that gets all of the administrative things out of the way\, and we can move to the next agenda item\, which is the first review of B. 9 Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project in Belmont. \nand really appreciate being the team here in person. \nDRB Meeting Room: and we will begin our review on the gender item. For now it’s this: it’s the \nfirst review correct correct \nDRB Meeting Room: of B. 9 Island Parkway development in San Mateo County. So we will be doing the following here in terms of the review. There’ll be a staffer introduction\, followed by the project proponent presentation. \nfollowed by board\, clarifying questions in public comments. then board\, discussion and summary. and then a project proponent respond to brief response optional. But \nyou know\, always welcome. And with that the B Cdc. Permanent analyst\, shudy Sinha will introduce to\, thanks to thanks a shreddy. Go ahead. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Chair Mccain. \nWe just need a couple of more minutes. \nBeen a while. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you again. Chair\, Mcken\, and Good Evening Design Review Board Members. \nMy name is Shrizi Sinha\, and I am a shoreline development analyst. At Dcdc. Before I present the staff introduction. I would like to remind the project team and staff to please turn on your video when you are speaking or answering questions. \nWhen you are not actively engaged with the board. Please turn off your video and mute your microphone so that you minimize distractions on screen. \nDRB Meeting Room: And now i’d like to introduce the project for tonight’s review\, which is the redevelopment of a 12.6 acre\, former oracle campus\, located at 300 301 \nand 400 island pathway\, and 800 Clifford drives. \nDRB Meeting Room: This project is proposed by developer \nbiomed realty. Biomed realty has submitted its application to the the city of Belmont\, received comments and just recently resubmitted an update to their application. \nThe city of Dumont will commence the Sqla Environmental Review process this spring \nDRB Meeting Room: Tonight is the project’s first Drb Review. \nDRB Meeting Room: We would like to begin by acknowledging that the project area was once \nwater and historic tidal flats located near Lampson. The unseeded ancestral homeland of the Ramitosh Boloni. we offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples \nwho are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the bay area. \nDRB Meeting Room: The project is located in the city of Belmont\, just outside of the redwood shore’s waterfront community. \nIt sits at the confluence of Foster City\, Belmont and Redwood City. It also sits at the confluence of the O’neal and Belmont sleeves. The 2 schools wrap around the properties surrounding the project site such that they create a moat-like enclosure of the area\, within. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this area is called Island Park\, by the project that developed the area in the Mid 80 S. \nDRB Meeting Room: The site is surrounded by office campuses\, a Hotel\, and a residential community. \nTo the north\, to the southwest is the Belmont Sports Complex\, owned by the city of belmont \nDRB Meeting Room: pedestrian and bicycle access to this so-called island is provided \nby 3 foot bridges\, circled in yellow along the south of Islands Park. also circled in yellow\, is the land bridge to the northwest of Island Park and the Bay trail at the northeast. \nDRB Meeting Room: The only vehicular access to Island Park is provided \nvia Island Parkway. A pile supported 5 Lane Bridge. \nDRB Meeting Room: which crosses over O’neal’s food from the south\, and terminates at the project site. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here’s some regional context for public parks and trails. \nThis map is taken from the Bay Trail Division of the Metropolitan Transportation. The Bay Trail is shown in dark green. Note that no portion of the bay trail lies within the project site. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map doesn’t show it\, but there is a short line pedestrian path within the project limits \nit. It is an approximately 500 linear foot segment of what is locally called the O’neal Flu Trail. \nDRB Meeting Room: This slide contains\, if you cite photos taken by the applicant. \nDRB Meeting Room: except for the public streets and a parking lot owned by the city of Beaumont. The project site is unimproved for public use. \nExisting use of the site includes pedestrian traffic along the Project’s northwestern Shoreline via the O’neal Free Trail\, and parking on the 400 Island Parkway parcel. \nAssociated with events at the Sports complex. \nDRB Meeting Room: the existing permit was issued to the Oracle Corporation. \nDRB Meeting Room: Although Oracle built out the buildings that exist today \nat 3 0 1 4\, one and 501 Island Parkway\, it did not construct the buildings authorized for 300 400 islands. Approximately half of \nthe authorized project was never built out. \nDRB Meeting Room: Likewise\, the public access conditions required by the permit \nseem to have only been partially fulfilled. based on recent satellite imagery. It appears that some of the above-mentioned public access requirements were implemented and exist today some were implemented and later abandoned\, and others \nwere never implemented. \nJust \nDRB Meeting Room: slide. \nI’ll try to go through the several \nDRB Meeting Room: public access requirements in the existing permit to give you a sense of \nwhat the Commission thought was commensurate with the type of development that would cover this area. \nSo \nDRB Meeting Room: so these are the addresses. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the \nthe shoreline band. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the trail. \nIt’s a pedestrian path that was supposed to go all around the island. \nDRB Meeting Room: and it’s mostly built out \nin one way in one form or another. \nDRB Meeting Room: over a 100\,000 square feet of landscaping was also required. \nA raised turf area at the the Cul de Sacs. a on either side of Concourse Place. \nDRB Meeting Room: 5 foot wide\, bike lanes on Concourse and Island parkways. \nDRB Meeting Room: If I put wide access path to the Bridge plaza. \nDRB Meeting Room: public shore\, parking along \nConcourse Place and \n80 evening and weekend parking spaces in the 400 Island park\, wait lot for \nDRB Meeting Room: for events associated with the sports complex \nDRB Meeting Room: 2 foot bridges \nacross Onio\, Flu and Delamont flu \nDRB Meeting Room: 10 foot wide and 8 foot wide. \nDRB Meeting Room: and that appears to be it. \nand then \nDRB Meeting Room: off to the side. There’s \nsee that there’s signage lighting. picnic tables\, benches. trash with obstacles and restrooms. minimum numbers for those required. \nSo \nDRB Meeting Room: that was for the project was that was only half built. \nDRB Meeting Room: Pcbc’s community vulnerability mapping tool shows the majority of the project site as having moderate \nsocial vulnerability based on based upon the 2\,014 to 2\,018 census data gathered by Bcd. In 2\,020. The social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile for this census block include children under 5 years of age. \nsingle-parent household people who are not us citizens and people who are severely housing costs burdened \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding the potential sea level rise. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding potential sea level\, sea level rise and using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nwe use the medium to high risk aversion scenario for the public access improvements. The bottom row shows what equivalent future total water level. This map corresponds to for each risk. Scenario \nfor the medium to high-risk aversion. Scenario 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean high high water level along with 2050 sea level rise\, which would also not cause \nflooding on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site if it remained unchanged. \nI shaded the project site in yellow because red represents overtopping. according to this key for the medium to high-risk aversion scenario. 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent \nto mean higher high water in the year 2\,090 or the 100 year storm events at mid-century. \nDRB Meeting Room: the San Francisco estuary and institute adaptation mapping tool recommends existing and potential tidal marsh \nand hold your management as nature based as nature-based adaptation opportunities. \nDRB Meeting Room: Lastly\, i’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff report that \nyou’d like the Board to consider in your in its review. First\, please consider how this project meets the public access objectives provided in B. Cbc’s public access design guidelines. \nthen staff has that it identified some specific questions. We would like to ask the Board about the design at this stage. These are \none. \nDRB Meeting Room: How does the project propose a result in public spaces that feel public? \nAnd does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people? \nDRB Meeting Room: What additional improvements would improve the public access experience to and along the shoreline \n3 are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adapted to sea level\, rise and balance with ensuring high quality\, public access opportunities. and 4. \nDoes the design provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike and pedestrian networks to draw users into and through the site to the O’neal food trail and shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: At this point I would like to check to see if the Board has any clarifying questions for me on anything presented in this introduction. \nYeah\, I I do. Could you go back to the the diagram that shows the permit or the permit requirements? Can you switch back to that \nthat you I just want to double check. So when the permit was originally given to oracle for a development of this site. the green area up on the list that \nit says 40\,000 47\,000 square feet of landscape was that part of the permit. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, that that is required in the permit that’s in the public. \nAnd then the second thing I wanted to ask was the line that delineates the 100 foot shoreline band was that in the permit. Originally \nDRB Meeting Room: I \nDRB Meeting Room: it might have been in the exhibits\, but that that’s an approximate that we put in. Okay. \nbut it would have been discussed at the time. The 100 foot shoreline band was clearly in place at the time the person was Yeah. So it would be understood that any development approach. Proposal needs to \nfollows the requirements for the 100 foot shoreline band and provide that 47\,000. It is green space. Is that correct. correct. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Any other clarifying questions. \nThank you for the presentation. I was wondering. \nDRB Meeting Room: The boundary on the exhibits \ndoes it? It seems\, to include sometimes the parcel linking all the way to the Belmont flu \nDRB Meeting Room: Is that part of the site\, or is that not included? \nDRB Meeting Room: So this is the extent of the project \nthat’s being proposed today. \nDRB Meeting Room: Biomed realty actually owns \nYou can’t see my cursor\, but where it says 301 Islands Parkway\, that’s part of the project. But biomed realty owns the the the area\, the campus south of that also \nat \nDRB Meeting Room: it doesn’t show the the \nI believe it’s 401 and 501. Yeah. but that’s not part of this project within the scope of this project\, but all the areas shaded in red are \npart of the project\, including the there’s this little section\, this parking lot at the South. next to the sports complex that’s a city-owned parking lot. \nand the applicant is part of their. It’s part of their project at. I I believe\, as a part of their agreement with the city to \nredevelop that do some like surface redevelopment to that parking area. In some of the exhibits it shows building. One included in the boundaries \nand some of these good T-shirt. I just want to confirm. That’s not part of the \nDRB Meeting Room: so if you flip forward a few slides \nDRB Meeting Room: it it going all the way to \nDRB Meeting Room: oh. \none more \nDRB Meeting Room: like in this one. \nso that that building is not part of it. Okay\, just one \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the other question. \nNever mind that’s it. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I have one question. Can you go back to the \nto the permit drawing that you have at previously? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s the one \nso \non the right it shows a 10 foot wide\, oracle footbridge across Belmont. With \nDRB Meeting Room: that that doesn’t exist. Oh\, it does. \nOkay. \nThat’s already been constructed. \nYes\, 3 foot bridges have been constructed. The pro this shows what required in the permit\, but so you’ll see one \nat on on the onial side of the the slew. which is required to be 8 foot. Wide wooden pile supported foot bridge that’s been built\, and then there’s another one \non that side. so that 2 on the O’neal flu side\, and then the oracle footbridge have all been constructed. \nOkay\, Thank you. \nYeah. I have a question. The sea level rise diagram\, what we showed. I just want to clarify. I understood that at the 100 years storm \nat mid century the this entire area in blue would be underwater. It would be over time. \nDRB Meeting Room: No that \nno \nDRB Meeting Room: 66 inches. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, maybe you could just run run me \nby that one more time. What is the condition? Mid-century? 100 years so \nDRB Meeting Room: 2050 \nsea level rise plus 100 years storm. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, thank you. \nThis is if the site remains unchanged. Right? So i’m looking at the surrounding areas. Yeah. I know we’ll hear about the site. Surely I was kind of just wondering about the access. \nDRB Meeting Room: the \nsorry to backtrack. But can you go back to the permitting diagrams? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, I. I just wanted to clarify those picked to Grants down the left hand side. Were they part of the permit as well? 24 benches\, etc.\, etc.\, \nand 2 toilets that that that indicate some sort of restroom. Yes. \nokay. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. Any other clarifying questions. \nall good. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, it’s really thanks very much for providing that information \nvery helpful. So we’ll go to the next item on the agenda\, which is the project proponent presentation. So we’ll hand to \nthank you. \nHello. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Good evening. \nEveryone can hear me. Okay. My name is Ethan Warsh. I’m. A director of development with biomed realt \njust to one sentence on biomed biomed realty is a leading provider of real estate solutions. For the \nwe focus. We focus exclusively on the \nSo I want to take a moment and introduce my team. I’m. Joined here tonight by Marcel Wilson\, with Bionic landscape architects. Jeff Smith and Ellie Nekt\, with \nCecily Barkley\, our Land use Council with Perkins\, Kui \nespecially. and my colleagues solely and actually hear me both with biomed Marcel and I are going to be presenting our Island Park project to you this evening\, and others on the team will be available to answer questions. And so with that i’d like to hand things over to myself. \nDRB Meeting Room: Good evening to be here \nDRB Meeting Room: just to orient everyone the Island Parkway life\, science campus \nin in Belmont. So\, Jason to the one to one freeway. You may recognize the in the oracle towers. \nsurrounded to the north by a hotel and a dealership. There is a residential community close by\, and then to the and then existing segments of the annual slew trail run to the new. \nDRB Meeting Room: The project say it’s generally flat. \nof mostly disturbed disturbed area and compacted gravel. It’s developed portions of the project includes existing office space and parking areas. \n3 street trees and land. \nDRB Meeting Room: and aside from the public streets\, city owns \nparking lot. At the south end of the project site. The project location is currently not open to the public. However\, people informally use the area to traverse the western edge of the to connect the O’neal slew trail. \nand it’s through the through a gap through the site. If you look at the image on the lower left\, you can see the there’s some carpeting that’s been put down there by users to \ntraverses. So this is A. And then there’s another part of the site which is a parking area to the south end. and that is also in the in the\, in the \nDRB Meeting Room: a variety of trails and infrastructure. The bridges there’s \nto tunnel converge on this site. and their the conditions of those trails are all. \nDRB Meeting Room: The bay trail is located on the east side of the island. That’s the \nyou know. New O’neal slew trail is in green. It’s not designated as Bay trail\, but it surrounds the rest of the perimeter of the island. With the exception of the trail gap that crosses the 800 \nclipper property\, the Dash. \nThis. This is an identified gap\, and you can see the 100 foot set back is indicated in blue. and so along the slew. That’s in the upper part of the drawing\, and then on the lower part of the drawing you see the area shaded in blue. That’s the \nsports complex parking lot which I supports \nDRB Meeting Room: the \nthe future circulation. Here will be bicycles and pedestrians\, which are will move along with kind of orange lines. The larger pink lines are for primary access to the to the shoreline. \nThese circulation routes connect existing trail networks and provide users with site accesses to Delmont and Redwood shores in the greater bay area. So this is a this site can really act. \nIt’s kind of like a a trail head for a much larger\, wider trail that. although it is \nDRB Meeting Room: even is going to walk through the building. \nSo before Marcel walks you through the details of the shoreline design. I wanted to provide a broader overview of the project. So the project i’m about to describe is what’s included in our to the city of Belmont\, and reflects months of close enough. \nDRB Meeting Room: So Bmr. Is proposing approximately 860\,000 square feet of life. Sciences. Space \nspread across 3 different buildings and one parking structure with ground ground floor amenity programming as well. We call our buildings\, building one in the middle there building 2 planned north and building 3 planned east \nbuilding\, 3 includes podium parking. So is self-sufficient. From that perspective\, and the parking structure will serve buildings one and 2\, and also includes ground floor. Amenity programming directly adjacent \nsports complex. All of our buildings are shorter than the the highest point of the \nand one detail I wanted to highlight is that the parking structure also includes 80 parking spaces available to the sports\, complexes\, sports\, complex users. and we are proposing an additional 6 spaces that are specifically designated for users. \nand one other item I wanted to pause on that I wasn’t planning on just because our the rest of the presentation doesn’t cover it\, and I saw it come up earlier is the the bike lanes. And so we are proposing significant bike lane infrastructure as part of the project\, so that includes \nprotected class 2 bike lanes all the way down Island Parkway\, and then on Concourse Place\, sort of connecting the both sides of the island. We’re proposing a protected for a bike lane\, as well as \njust painted class 2 around the \nso filling in all of the you know. would be a very robust. \nDRB Meeting Room: So this was covered briefly by Marcel\, but this slide shows the BC. DC. Shoreline band in relation to our proposed project in blue. You can see that there are 2 areas of overlap\, one which is the primary subject of this project \nadjacent to our building to plan north. The other is within the surface parking lot plan set The this parking lot is existing\, owned by the city of Belmont\, and associated with their sports complex. \nWe are not proposing a new use here\, but the city has asked that we reconfigure their lot in order to streamline the access from the street. and so it interfaces more coherently with our lot\, which\, if you recall\, they will \nto\, and so they really will in many ways operate\, you know\, for the for the same users you can’t find a spot in the surface parking lot. You may want to to jump over parking lot. \nDRB Meeting Room: As a result of the reconfiguration the city will also gain an additional 15 spaces on the surface. Parking lot. They’ll also \nwill benefit from a much improved \ncity and sports complex. \nDRB Meeting Room: So before I hand things back over. I would like to focus for one moment on the portion of the shoreline band that is adjacent to our building\, too. \nthis area of the project\, and specifically the interface and proposed overlap between building 2 and the shoreline band is something that the team has spent a lot of time talking and thinking about. \nwhile our proposal to include a portion of building to within the shoreline band is an allowable use. We also understand the importance of balancing that placement with the need to provide meaningful\, attractive\, inviting\, and adaptable shoreline. \nAnd so with that in mind we approach this site specifically\, this building to site. But you know broadly as well with\, and all of its constraints with a few objectives. So one is that you know \nwe have an objective to build a building that is viable for our tenants. You know our ability to build a campus that attracts high-quality life. Science\, tenants is at the core of our business. and is also what allows us to make the all of these proposals \nto place making and access. We believe that strong place making will make our project a success for our tenants\, for trail users. for nearby residents and users of sports\, complex and clear trail and sports. Complex access is central to our place\, making. \nand 3 harmony with adjacent. So we we do seek to build a project with an interface that makes sense. Given the diverse other nearby uses\, including \nso the proposed building to design. we think\, achieves those objectives in the following ways. \nDRB Meeting Room: The building design is viable for our tenants by providing a floor\, plate\, size\, core design\, and layout and ground floor loading plan that supports their needs. \nOur proposal supports place basic place\, making by focusing on a well-designed ground plane and strong access to the shoreline trail and the sports complex for pedestrians\, bicycles\, and vehicles\, and we do that a couple of ways. \nOne is that we locate. We’ve located building to loading plan north\, so along that eastern that top property line on the on the map there. rather than between buildings\, one and by doing that \nthe area between building one and 2 becomes a central access point for the shoreline sports complex and our buildings and taken together with adjacent spaces\, becomes a dynamic\, multi-purpose open space that really is \nthe central plaza. \nDRB Meeting Room: And lastly\, to create harmony between uses. We’ve ensured with this design that trucks can access the loading area of building 2 without having to loop around the island through the resident. \nwhich is is important to us from the get go. So with that i’ll hand things back over \nDRB Meeting Room: to \ntalk about the improvements. It makes sense to zoom way back and talk about them from outside the and it first. \nCurrently there are views to the slew you can see on the lower left corner of from Concourse Place. There’s big\, wide\, open view aligned to Concourse place\, and and to the \nnew buildings. One and 2 are going to be cited\, as you can see\, in the bottom right corner\, so that there’s a very wide aperture in a sense of the bay Beyond is \nwill be telegraph to people passively. They use the sidewalks. crosswalks to to access the trail. proposed improvements of sidewalks\, crosswalks\, pedestrian safety bike lanes will kind of be aligned \nalso to these buildings\, just sort of reinforcing a the kind of intuitive way finding for the access. \nDRB Meeting Room: These drawings illustrate a a kind of a a visitor or sequence \nto the trail. You’d be able to access the trail from the north\, the east and the south. So so\, and O’neal slew is sort of interesting in its own right as a vestige of a much larger system. There’s a lot there to explore. \nI want to Also\, just point out to you in the plan. Drawing on the left\, you can see that there’s a bend in the trail. and and we’ll talk about that bandit\, how it the sequence. \nSo in in the view one you’re all the way back down down the this kind of multi-purpose trail. It’s at least 26 feet wide\, paves the entire way ada accessible \nand the sports complex is on. and as you move more closely in in. In the second view that you see this trail consistency \nas wide. There’s amendments along the sides of the trail view. 3 actually looks at it from approaching on Concourse Place. big\, wide view to the bay and view 4 looks back at the sports complex. \nwhere again you can see certain the nature-based solutions to sea level rise on the bank. I’ll talk about a little bit more about that later\, and amenities to kind of stop and pause. \nIt’s at this point that you can in view 5 that you can see this kind of vertical element that we created at that turning point. It’s a large frame. It’s meant to in a in a big deck. There’ll be an observation point there\, and it’s really a vertical marker to indicate that the trail does move on from \neither perspective from north or south\, and it’s kind of an invitation to continue through the trail and make it very clear that it’s it’s. \nDRB Meeting Room: This next set of views are\, Show a little bit more of the architectural character\, and give you a \nof what the experience might be. So this is is demonstrating just the the kind of generosity of the street. and the kind of planting and massing of the buildings. \nthe big\, wider views as you. This is on Concourse place\, looking west. the building on the corner building one have a more kind of an iconic presence. you know\, and it it sort of announces itself as the \nI can’t answer. And then the you look at them. The relationship between building one and 2 big\, wide opening. I would say. \nthis is looking from kind of the slew back to the east. This is the plaza where you would arrive. This is where sidewalks and a vehicle drop off All arrive at a kind of public ceiling. Plaza. \nyou’ll notice on the slew edge. There are decks. kind of areas that will welcome people as they arrive to walk right out to that edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then this is a view from from the sports complex doing a pretty good job of showing how\, between the sports complex and \nthe parking garage. There’ll be a very active edge there. and it’s a long continuous connector closing that gap in the system. And then this is at eye level along \nalong the parking garage on the right and the sports complex on the left\, so people would be able to come here\, park. unload and go to the sports complex or continue on \nthe trail. There will be some amenities in the base of the garage activating \nand the sports complex is very popular\, and you \nDRB Meeting Room: and then finally of you. Looking back from this observation deck to the Sports complex \nbuilding 2\, unless you can just see there’s a generous set back at least 26 feet of of trail width there\, and in addition to some. then the the slope of the bank. \nDRB Meeting Room: There’s been some conversation already about the adaptation to sea level rise\, the project will be adapted to or designed initially\, to meet\, projections to 2\,080\, \nand then there are death. Adaptation approaches in scenarios allow us to adapt up till 2\,100\, and this is also sort of pegged to the life of \nbuilding. of of the buildings. \nDRB Meeting Room: It it might be helpful to know that towards the top of the drawing that’s lower and towards the bottom of the drawing that’s higher. The average site elevation right now \non the low side is about 13. That’ll be real 2 to 15. There’s a variety of \nDRB Meeting Room: our our team has developed various options that \nkeep the public shoreline accessible through your 2\,100\, with a couple of different adaptations. scenarios. I’ll show you in in sections later how those \nwork! And it’s anticipated that that potential flooding from other off-site properties could occur in the future there’s a bypass. It’s a bypass to the north\, with a levy only on one side and not the other. \nAnd so these are beyond the control of the project\, but it’s anticipated that this project will be able to respond to any improvements that are made along that edge. In the diagrams that were shown \nDRB Meeting Room: shows that there’s no over topping there\, because there is no ready to. \nIt’s an anomaly in the \nDRB Meeting Room: These next slides show typical sections. I won’t talk through them all. But these 2 are important to note just the general nature-based approach to elevating the site and the existing bank. \nThis project does not do any work in the bay. We have no in water work. but we will be raising the site and planting that edge with with natives and adaptive species. \nAnd then\, if you see at the top of in each of those sections it shows a band that’s approximately 5 feet wide\, and that is a zone where in the future\, if \nadaptation scenarios called for something even taller than what we’ve projected. We can accommodate within that. But right now would would be a a \nkind of future proofing the site through 2\,080. These are other sections in the drawing package I won’t speak to them much more than to say\, Notice the sort of flatness and the ease of transition \nfrom the public streets drop off areas as you go towards the towards the slew on the left. Very easy to get there. Not a lot of visual instructions. \nDRB Meeting Room: Again a couple of additional sections of the condition. \nI will \nDRB Meeting Room: happy to come back to \nDRB Meeting Room: to summarize this. The drawing on the top shows today’s conditions and what we’re proposing to build initially. The drawing on the bottom shows \nhow all of the access and the amenities that are being built will be but I a future proofs through 2\,100. That’s the 2\,100 scenario on that. \nBut \nDRB Meeting Room: the the the decks\, the trail\, the seating areas. \nthe access to the access all be adapted to \nDRB Meeting Room: this is going to be a great place to \nto sort of transition out of a vehicle and onto a bike or your feet to explore the trail system. being sort of gracious to all the visitors that we’re anticipating\, though we’re planning on a variety of amenities. This is where you might \npump up your tires\, fill your water bottle\, get some orientation or information. and then set out on on the trail \nDRB Meeting Room: the surfacing will be on the on. The main alignment of the trail is going to be cast concrete \nin other sort of special areas or off to the sides there will be cast con or concrete pairs\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: and then along the \nblue edge of the trail. The the idea is that that has a variety of different areas to stop and pause. They’re all sort of different for different shaped sort of bodies and in sizes and ages and and just experience \nexperiences to kind of observe. Observe the slew and all that’s going panorama. So. \nand then the nature-based Adaptation. Approach of raising that bank and replanting with natives and adaptives. is\, we refer to it as the kind of native garden. In addition to that\, there will be some interpretation. Opportunities \nabout about the about the flora\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: and there is a a preliminary plant\, palette of adaptive and native \nspecies. This is not. This is for the whole project. but I would maybe point out that we’re fully anticipated paying that aquatic species might migrate up to bank\, and the \nslopes and species that we’re choosing are are all well sued for. \nDRB Meeting Room: and I will now pass back to even \ntalk about the public outreach. \nSo just one note on the amenities that I wanted to add is that you know we are proposing at the ground floor of that parking structure 15\,000 of the that would be open to the public. You know where we envision it now is \nbeverage like amenity in talks with the city and talks with complex users. is what they’re most about. You know \na lot of us at that sports complex. If you go there any given weekday evening\, you know there’s hundreds of people different fields\, and so. the idea being asset to them\, you know. \nYou know\, after a game. etc.\, you know. \nand celebrated. get back together. Talk about the game \nwe’re also providing we’re also proposing a small cafe space \nuse and build 3\, which we also \nthere really is no. except for the hotel and \ndealership on the one. And so we \nand i’ll talk more\, you know. That’s a good segue for me to talk about. \nAnd so to date we’ve hosted an informational session with development. Belmont sports complex users\, and that really kicked off our community outreach this week. We’ll be sending a mailer out to all residential addresses on the island advertising and open house that we’ll be hosting at the sports complex on J. \n7. Following that meeting we’ll also be reaching out to 2 communities on the other side of one on one from our project sterling Downs and home View\, and we will seek to present at their regular fea meetings. But if we need to\, we will also \nspecifically to present our project. And lastly\, we’ll also complete outreach to Residents shores\, although a different jurisdiction\, obviously extremely close to this project\, and we’ll either reach out \nto their Hoa or a separate community organization. \nIn all cases we’ll be providing an email address and other contact information likely my personal email now in phone number\, so individuals can convey their comments or concerns to the project team\, and we will \nconduct additional meetings where follow up is right. \nDRB Meeting Room: So with that i’ll wrap it up. Thank you so much for your time and consideration tonight\, and the whole team is available to answer any questions. \nOkay\, thank you very much. Eton and myself very clear. I’m sure we have a few clarifying questions \nlike to go through this fault. Go ahead. \nThank you. \nSo let’s see. \nDRB Meeting Room: I was looking at the project summary and the exhibits\, and \nI think I calculated\, did I calculate\, 800 square feet of of space building space\, and whereas on the permit drawing it was something \nclose to really \nDRB Meeting Room: 200\,000. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we are proposing 860\,000 square feet. I think the original permit for these \nsites was closer to 235\,000 very different look and feel and quality of \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah\, I Just wanted to make sure I had that. I mean it’s it’s a \nkind of an upgrade\, I guess you would say. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then i’m not super familiar with what is involved in \nbiomedical facilities\, or whatever the term is. But does that mean that you handle\, or whoever on the tenants would handle contagious \nthings like Covid and and the like. And and is there a risk of \nDRB Meeting Room: of that like any kind of a release or anything? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So the types of tenants that we work with handle a wide \nactivities. You know\, that fits under sort of the very broad umbrella. \nSo you know\, we have tenants like lucid motors or \nresearch all the way to the \nyou know\, curing \nDRB Meeting Room: generally\, we’re. Our tenants are regulated by something called biosafety levels\, of which there are for bio safety level\, one being those \nsort of the least risk to human health and safety and bio for being things like that. Ebola. \nDRB Meeting Room: but that are really only dealt with \nin government \nright now. There are discussions going on at the county level about. and if the local on the peninsula about which bio safety levels to allow\, and so we’re closely tracking that\, and obviously we’ll comply with the \nput in place here. Typically\, you know\, we see the majority of our tenants within the bio safety level. We \nDRB Meeting Room: and I’ll just add to that they are also a highly regulated industry. And so there are a number of Federal and State \nagencies that do you know\, ensure that. \nYeah\, Thank you for that answer. And I appreciate the education it’s not something i’m\, that familiar with. But I am familiar with what’s somewhat familiar with the building codes based on \nthe level of life safety risk. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I was wondering what level this building\, being a biomedical\, potentially biomedical activities. \nlocation. Is is there a significant risk to life safety that would raise the risk level to a 3 or 4? The critical facility in the \nengineering architectural Jordan. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, this Isn’t on my area of expertise. But i’ll typically say\, I will say typically\, no. You know the one area that we are\, You know\, sort of you’ll see \ntypically how the building code will interact with us is for lab space and chemical storage. And so that is dealt with in the California building code. And again\, it’s \nlife safety. like how many chemicals can elevation\, you know\, just risk to hazard. And so we comply. We we comply with all. Yeah\, the reason why i’m asking is because \nwe haven’t. I didn’t see a Ge a technical report. But the area is\, you know\, in in the Bay\, and the soils that are typically weak bay Mods and bill. And so if there’s a seismic of that. \nyou know\, that could cause a a structural load that more critical facilities that are associated with life\, safety\, or high density would require \na more conservative or strong\, or more capable of being able to handle an event like that and not collapse. let’s say. And likewise there’s it brings in the risk of a tsunami like flood. \nwhich would penetrate the site if there was one. So that’s why i’m wondering what what level of facility would be from an engineering building code standpoint. And \nit’s okay. If you don’t have the answer for that\, because I I I think it’s just. It’s probably a special case that i’m not familiar with. But that’s why I’m asking\, and I think it’s. It’s important. I think we’re all a little sensitive to the. \nto the virus issue\, and also these are big buildings that may have enough people that raise the risk level. I’m not sure. \nDRB Meeting Room: We are a seismic importance Level \n2. So which is the your typical commercial building. When we have an assembly space increased it. 3. Okay. But we would very rarely in no cases. \nunless you know\, we do have a case for this. \nthat elevator. \nDRB Meeting Room: Oh\, typically we’re it\, too\, and I will also just note that this is a very proven asset class. San Francisco is the \nbehind the bait behind the Boston Bridge area the largest science cluster in the world\, I think. And so and certainly in the country. And so there are a lot of \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. No\, I appreciate that. Thank you for educating me on that. I I sorry to take so much time. \nNot sure. I’m totally comfortable with us\, being in the lead\, and in terms of all that. But I think it’s great that that I have a better understanding. Now\, Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, I have a clarifying question. \nThank you for the presentation\, and the extra background\, too\, on the bike. LAN. I think that was helpful. And I was wondering\, Can you kind of just describe the vehicular circulation on site \nand like\, where is the parking and loading access for the buildings? And then how does the drop off work with parking like? Do you drop off and then go drive to the parking garage or just helping us understand where where cars are and where pedestrians are. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, please \nDRB Meeting Room: always control. \nYeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: especially page 8 is probably a good place to be. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So Island Park is one way in and one way out which is planned south there. So you cross the bridge over \non Island Parkway\, across the bridge. \nheaded Plan North \nDRB Meeting Room: Building one and building 2 are both served by parking by the main parking structure on your left there. \nAnd so the majority of of us \nwould take I first\, or \ninto the \nto access that parking structure. That’s also how you access. The loading area for building \nbetween the parking structure and the \nDRB Meeting Room: users of the sports complex would use that same \nfirst entrance to the parking structure as \nto where access \nDRB Meeting Room: users of building 3 would make the first right \nDRB Meeting Room: off of Island Parkway before getting to concourse onto this \ncoding and parking structure. Loading is located in that same so occurring in building \nby taking a look off the bylaw \nbefore getting to \nbuilding 2\, is really the only \nDRB Meeting Room: site that requires people to \npenetrates the the residential area at all. And so you’d come up to the section of concourse the left. If you were a truck loading\, you would make that first right to clipper and then a left into the \nyou\, and to building two’s loads like I mentioned before. What we really wanted to avoid was a truck. You is required a truck to make a right on concourse\, and a left and circle of \nclipper to access the the rear of building \nfor folks getting dropped off. \nDRB Meeting Room: you would. Each building has a drop off a designated drop off area. \nSo for building 3 you would pull up past that first right for parking\, and the drop off area is located on Island Parkway. On that planned west \nto be dropped off at building 2. You would go up to concourse\, make a left. and enter into that roundabout and drop off there\, and we’ve made sure that that that roundabout is generously \nthe confluence of the different types. Users can\, if need be\, stacked 2 or 3 cars. So folks using building 2 and and likely building\, one also would get dropped off there. Additionally\, there is a drop off area for building a. \nIf you were to go back around that roundabout head back on Island Parkway and pull off to the right to be \nthe right Turn on. \nso there’s no cars going from the round about to the parking structure along the sort of slew front along the slew front. No\, you cannot access like the roundabout and the pathway that circles the parking structure\, or can’t be accessed. \nThat’s good. And then the it is a \nso \nDRB Meeting Room: for building one loading\, so we do show \nthe entire parking structure circled by\, you know\, vehicle access. However\, the vehicle access on the planned west of the parking structure is only Eva\, and very occasional \nloading traffic for trucks that you know\, are bolt gas delivery for building occasional and that loop\, but otherwise that area adjacent to the parking structure and and and \nsports complex is really imagined as a multi-purpose. So it will be designed with the materiality signals shared space. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, Thank you for that. And then for buildings\, one and 2 \nthere. Do they have lobbies directly. I imagine\, on that round about the drop off \nDRB Meeting Room: building 2\, does the building. One lobby is \nright now\, I mean\, these are preliminary designs. But right now the building one lobby is imagined \nDRB Meeting Room: for the in the center of the building a long \nOkay. And can you just kind of describe\, like the ground floor active uses on buildings\, one and 2 \nDRB Meeting Room: for building\, one and 2. So typically our buildings are. Our ground floor or a ground up building \nare 18 feet \nforward\, feeling on the first floor\, and then 6 to feet above that for every other floor. That’s one of the unique aspects building \non the ground floor. The the uses are taken up largely by the lobby and by area\, and potentially by utility areas like interior transfer transformer. leaving limited tenant space or \nthe ground floor. But there is some tendency \nfor building 2 and building one. We currently don’t\, have planned any in any space\, or we typically don’t. Put retail space on the ground floor of our buildings. I’m. Building 3. We do have that \nso like building one has this plaza out front. Is that sort of a plaza in front of a blank wall\, or what sort of nature of that. So i’ll be glazing. I think you want to go back to some. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then it was mentioned that the \nthe whole master plan for this area had a certain amount of public space square footage that was required. Do you know how much public square footage space you’re required to provide\, and how much this \nis proposing. I believe the number that was. What do you something 1\,000 in here? We’re we’re proposing\, I think 1.8\, \n40\, somebody. Okay. just a follow up clarification. Yeah. But can you break that down? What’s the breakdown between green space and \nbut that \nDRB Meeting Room: approximately. \nDRB Meeting Room: I mean looking at the drawing. What would you? Your \nright? \nBut let’s not include that\, because it \nit’d be good to clarify that \nalso. Just wondering. \nDRB Meeting Room: Is there any kind of Tdm required\, or Tma that you have to participate in with the shuttle that’s in the area\, or anything like that? \nThere is a Tdm required will be submitted with the. you know\, for our sequel documentation. and that obviously \nforward. And we get tenants\, etc. One of the measures is. Yeah\, I know that \narea called \non our rate. Okay? And then do you know what the Tbm requirement is? The percent reduction required? \nWe don’t have the exact number\, but we we know that we meet requirement. Yeah. So you don’t know what the number is\, but you know you’re below it. We targeted to be both. I know that\, like \nit’s better than \nGood afternoon evening. I’m Cesley Barkley and I wanted to clarify. We have hired a company called hexagon to do all of our transportation. They’ve prepared a local transportation analysis. \na vehicle\, miles traveled analysis and a separate Tdm program that looks at 25 ways points that we could earn to get \nthat are viable for this project we need to have at least 18 to meet the city’s requirements. I don’t remember right now\, if it’s like 2025. But there is a number. and we have plenty of opportunities \nto meet that number. And One of them is to Okay\, and the shuttle is even mentioned. So we’ve submitted that to the city in our most recent on April nineteenth\, and \nMexican works a lot with the city and their traffic engineers. \nJason said. As this develops\, we’ll have a little more detail\, and we can get you this production. Okay\, but that’s helpful to 20 to 25. Yes\, thank you. \nLast question. I’m. Just looking at the B Cdc’s adapting your eyes inside maps\, and it it looks like this whole area is probably experiencing some flooding today. Do you know\, if there’s any flooding happening in the neighborhood that you’re aware of \nit’s by the neighborhood. You mean. Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: they’re certainly flooding risks. \nand to the north they just finish widening culverts raising the \nthey built a the seawall on top of the Di. \nIt wouldn’t\, because that below. \non the southern edge of the \nDRB Meeting Room: bypass \nthere’s a things levy \nin there \nDRB Meeting Room: so \nthere could be \ninto the \nin today’s. \nAnd to the that one day \nby passes \nproves we don’t know what now. But \nthis project has. \nor whatever that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So there’s no sort of adaptation strategy \narea at a higher level. That would probably I believe that the flight control district question. \nAnd it happens just off of this. \nYeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay. \nOne shoreline is that \nwhole region \nanecdotal. \nI know that ours encounter any flooding. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, Well\, it’s just it’s all connected right? So if you guys raise everything\, but nobody else does it doesn’t \nhelp you so just wondering if you’re kind of aware of a larger or not\, or if there is a one. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t know that. There\, I I think that there I mean I I don’t. I will say I don’t know \naffirmatively\, but I think that there are a lot of people looking. \nbut are looking at this whole region\, and and I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the levy\, the the \nit’s along this \nplanned north. \nDRB Meeting Room: but increase whether or not Belmont right now \nit’s set aside to do it that I don’t know. \nGo ahead. \nI wanted to mention a couple of things just if you saw the if we go back. Don’t need to go back to the flooding\, but when you do\, Island Park itself is out and the sports complex and much of the parking structure. I can’t remember how much you 501 \nas you come up on the island. It’s actually and we don’t ever have a problem until you get up closer to where the shoreline band is\, and then we’ll raise that. And \njust right outside this picture Foster City is putting in a levy for just now. So when you listen a little bit to this talk. there does need to be a levy of some sort or raising of the edge of the island \naround\, and there is a connection between the reservoir in the middle. and there’s a \nDRB Meeting Room: underground culvert that goes out\, and there are ways to manage that covert with gates. \nThe islands so well. This doesn’t\, because our whole site will be high enough. happens to be where the site is\, and then these improvements are on the edge of the high. That’s good\, but I think there will be lots that \nbeing paid but to kind of get the whole park\, and then\, as everybody is noting that Blue went a lot. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, further than just the island. It goes quite broadly\, and \nyou mentioned one shoreline and and other agencies \nnecessarily paying a lot of \nDRB Meeting Room: to this as our \nyou and your entire \nthanks? No more question. \nOther questions. Sorry\, yes. \nIs there any accommodation for like a emergency access plan in the event of flooding\, since seems like that could happen in 2\,050\, some regularity. So \nsomething that would happen. Is there a way to evacuate? Or if you are\, you required to deal with that\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: we have? We are not\, as far as I know\, required to. \nI think the one thing that we are doing is raving the not only the line area that \nthe floor level of all of \n28\, 100 years level. So we do think that residents in the bill \nwe don’t anticipate. We we hope that we are anticipated condition that \nfor our participants firm \ncannot be saved on site. \nAnd then there was a mention about the life cycle of the project as tied to the projected sea level like now. Okay. \nDRB Meeting Room: i’m not sure that we have like a \nspecific. I think I don’t think we have a \nI don’t think we have a very specific license \nmore broad. L. \nIt’s curious. What is that in in this? In your in terms of \nfuture planning? What do you? How far ahead do you look before you is out. It’s. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. I mean it’s extremely hard to tell\, but obviously like I said. \nwe’re we’re we’re adapting to a 28 \n60 years from now\, you know\, because we’re dealing with life\, sign \nthe cutting edge of technology that intermittently with have to make upgrades to it to make sure that \nDRB Meeting Room: for them. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, it’s not a perfect question\, but it’s \nnot a perfect answer. No\, it it’s not a your question. I’m just trying to to educate myself on that. Thank you. \nOther questions. \nand because you \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe briefly just \ndescribe the extent of the improvements along Concourse and Island Parkway that are essentially offsite. You mentioned at 1 point a class for Bike Lane \nand I’m. Trying to read the drawings. I believe it’s on the south side of concourse. Is that correct? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So we’re proposing so our our so typically the streets will work the same way. But we are proposing I’ll just start from the bottom of the plan. So when you come on dial in Parkway \nwe are proposing a hawk signal in order for existing existing bike lanes\, existing bike pads adjacent to the you can see sort of the gray outsport field at the very bottom of the plan. There \nthe bike lane that circles that and cuts across for people who want to access between. We’re proposing a hawk signal for that crossing. We’re proposing protected class 2 bike lanes\, more or less from the edge of the plan on the bottom of the plan there\, all the way up to Concourse Place \nat Concourse Place\, like you mentioned\, we are proposing a class for Bike Lane. So essentially a you know\, protected 2 way cycle track planned north. So if you would cross the street. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry you’re right. Plan plants out so on that side of the street that would connect essentially folks who have access to bay trail from that oracle bridge \nand want a short cut across to the area. And then for the loop that goes on clipper drive. So if you go\, you know\, to the right of the plan\, through the residential area and back around to our building\, too. \nWe’re proposing class 2 typical class 2. \nAnd then essentially\, if you’re on the I guess it’s an extension of the bay trail or the Flew trail. You can pass under Island Parkway if you’re traveling from east to west. \nCorrect. If you were to cross the Oracle Bridge and hook a left. you would go under under Island Parkway. And can you just sort of describe to me sort of if you were coming from that direction\, or from the Oracle direction on a bicycle \ntrying to reach building one or building to you that system along the western side basically would come onto the new promenade. Sure\, if you so\, if you were coming\, let’s say\, from the oracle campus. Now \nyou cross over that bridge to get to building one or building 2. You can make a right and then jump on to that class for a psychopath\, the the cycle track that we were just discussing\, or you can make a left and take the path that exists. \nGo under Island Parkway. You would end up at the sports complex surface parking area at that point right after you pass their parking lot\, and you see a small building that’s they call that the Sports Complex Conference Center. \nYou could make a right there\, and there is a path that travels on the Belmont sports complex site\, more or less following the line of our property line\, to connect with \nwith our proposed path more or less. We’re\, you know\, adjacent to building one or right\, we see that blue shoreline band pick up. That would be a mixed youth mixed. Use path\, or you could circle around \nthe the complex and pick it up in Exactly. \nI believe the city has. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, Thank you for the clarification. \nOkay\, and just a couple more questions for me. Sorry to wrap up. Could we go back actually? Could you just go back to the rendering for building to the ground level. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: I just want to make sure I understand \nyou \nthe \nDRB Meeting Room: that that that’s \nwe could probably discuss it here. So you can see this one was little. This is \nyeah in the \nDRB Meeting Room: but it this would be okay. \nPause here for a minute. So inside there\, that’s the space you refer to. That would be a some type of \nIs that correct and just question\, do you? I’m not familiar with your company. Do you hold the assets when you develop these projects. Or do you sell them on? \nWe are typically long-term owners. We are developers long-term owners. Operators. It’s part of a sure key component of our brand. \nSo would you manage the tenancies? It’s like a ground for it\, or cafe or yeah. So for for ground floor space in this market\, Typically\, because we we know that these are amenities that our tenants require \nmarket to our tenants going to be at. We don’t take a risk with making me like 4 leads retail space. Rather\, we enter into a contract with \namenity\, food\, and beverage operator\, and so we can guarantee that the services that were telling them will be there are there. \nAnd \nDRB Meeting Room: could you comment on\, just have you thought about how the project would be faced? Where would you start? \nYeah\, right now\, I mean. Obviously\, everything is somewhat subject to market forces. But right now we imagine that phase one building\, what we’re calling\, building one and the parking structure phase 2 would probably include building 2\, because it’s \nby the same parking structure that we bills. And then phase 3 would be building 3. And typically you know\, things like these. \nDRB Meeting Room: We are proposing to build these \npublic amenities\, including amenities as part of phase. One. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. And just I. I just want to check. Is there a ground level rendering similar to that for building 2? \nThe package there is on the \nDRB Meeting Room: more focused on the trail experience. But you can see building 2 to the left. \nmaybe goes rendering. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know\, the other one \nwith high quality. \nNow that these are \nDRB Meeting Room: you towards the end\, like right past the \nmoving to \nso on the list there\, and I know it’s early days in design. But on the list we see. Can you describe what that is we’re seeing in at ground level\, and \nI mean\, or something. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So here we’re I mean\, this is really sort of a renderers interpretation of something that a tenant could be doing in there. We are corn shell developers\, and so we don’t program. \nYou know all of the space except that in core building space. So lobbies. you know\, elevate \nlike this. So we would. We would have to. That. Would that would be at the \nDRB Meeting Room: the tenant would get \nExactly. Okay. So the umbrellas and the outdoor representation for the sorry I missed I misinterpreted that I thought so. Interior would be at the tenants \non the exterior\, and we haven’t gotten to the level of programming yet of Carrier Ss: and you things like this. But you know we could and typically do with the ground floor program things like \nfurniture. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. But there isn’t a cafe. \nNo\, the cafe would be farther up at the right when you hit the corner of the parking structure. Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, that concludes clarifying questions \nfrom the Board. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ll move to public comment \non the presentation of presentation. So we’ll open up the meeting to public comment. Any members of the public attending the meeting in person. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to make a comment. \nany comments. \nOkay. And if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual head to speak. \nDRB Meeting Room: We do have one public comment. \nDRB Meeting Room: Kita des i’m going to unmute you. \nand you will have 3 min. \nGita Dev: Good Evening Board members. My name is Peter Dev. I’m with the Sierra Cloud\, and I did send in a short letter \nGita Dev: on Friday\, which I hope you had a chance to take a look at. \nGita Dev: I I want to thank everyone for a wonderful presentation. and as an architect myself I can appreciate a lot of the work that’s gone into it. \nGita Dev: I do have a few comments \nGita Dev: that I hope that the Board will consider. \nGita Dev: and I hope that the that the owner will consider\, too. \nGita Dev: One of them is that this is very close to the Redwood shores\, ecological reserve\, which is all along Redwood shores\, and all along Belmont slew it’s a Federal reserve. It’s a very rich bird watching area. It has a lot of species. You should see the website. It’s really fun. \nGita Dev: So bird\, safe design is a really important issue\, and in looking at the facades they are extremely glassy about the parking. \nGita Dev: and it is very important that we do bird safe design\, and that we \nGita Dev: maintain the lighting\, so that I know that biotech labs often stay up all night. They steal it all night. \nGita Dev: however\, where they are facing onto the slew it’s really important that we have automatic shades that come down. So we do get nocturnal creatures that \nGita Dev: can feed at night. and also for exterior lighting to be sensitive to the purge safe design standards. We’d be happy to provide you more information on that. \nGita Dev: I do want to thank someone for raising the issue of fire\, safety. Life sciences\, labs are bio hazardous. and these are not issues that our codes have caught up with As an architect. I’m very familiar with the codes. \nGita Dev: and even with the State Fire Marshall’s office. \nGita Dev: They are very familiar for a 100 years of chemical hazards and radiological hazards\, but bio hazards are so new that they have not caught up with them. They don’t maintain a database. \nGita Dev: So the 4 bio safety levels. as the client pointed out by a safety level\, 3 and 4 deal with very infectious agents \nGita Dev: and most of the labs do not deal with by a safety level 3. \nGita Dev: But we would like to make sure that \nGita Dev: in such a hazardous area we Don’t get involved in such a serious biohazard that cannot be contained in the event of you know\, serious seismic events flooding events\, interruption of power. \nGita Dev: I just want to let you know. \nThank you. Okay. \nGita Dev: 1 min left. Very good. \nGita Dev: The the last point i’d like to make is that while truly understanding the issue of a large plate design for for tenants. \nGita Dev: I do feel it’s really important from one shoreline’s policy point of view\, and from a safety point of view to maintain the 100 feet of setback. \nGita Dev: and to provide a much gentleness\, slope on the water side. \nGita Dev: The one shoreline recommends a 100 feet set back from the water’s edge. \nand to keep the trail at the land side of that 100 foot\, so as to allow it very gentle slope \nGita Dev: to allow migration of species upland on a gentleness. Look\, then 2 to one\, an eco-tone slope is 20 to one\, but something more than 2 to one would be a much much desirable. I think there may be a way to \nGita Dev: thank you. \nGita Dev: I appreciate your efforts\, and \nGita Dev: and from the Board to manage the design process. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, Thank you very much for that comment. We appreciate it. They are important issues. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, is that the end of public comments? \nDRB Meeting Room: There are no more public comments. Okay\, thank you. \nGood. Okay. We’ll move to the next item on the agenda\, which is for discussion and advice. And so the stage where of the meeting with the Board \nDiscuss with this\, amongst ourselves\, we have been given 4 questions by the staff to consider in our discussion. and the first one is just to make sure that we have maximum sense of feeling of publicness along the shoreline\, so \non that. and commenting the second area just to comment on anything that we could see that might improve public access along the shore. The third one is \nDRB Meeting Room: to make sure\, yeah to our thoughts on the public areas and \nresidency and adaptation. Given what lies ahead. the sea level rise. And then the fourth area was really focused more on connections and adequacy and legibility of quick connections for bikes. \npedestrians from the adjacent by pedestrian networks\, and from the so we’re all very familiar with those \nareas. And so we can build \nDRB Meeting Room: the dialogue around \nthese 4 questions and other things that we think are important. So \nDRB Meeting Room: we set. \nI don’t think we’ll Well\, we we could stop by \nDRB Meeting Room: going down the questions\, if you like\, for 4 questions\, or we could just go by person and have a \npeople come in on what they Thank you important in. But \nI think we might do it that way today. This project. So who would like to lead off? Well. yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: thank you. \nYeah\, thanks for the presentation and and and the answers to our questions really appreciate that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I will may have a list of \nthoughts \nDRB Meeting Room: for our Board discussion \nthat cover \nseveral of the questions. \nMy first comment is a slope with 2 to one\, which I think is the slope where the living shoreline is not something that you would consider a geographically natural slope on a \na wetland \nin the inner title. So I I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, as sea level rises the \nhigher marsh plants could migrate up\, but I think the lower part of the slope would be steep. unvegetated slope\, you know. Once they got to the depth. That core dress couldn’t grow like I see you have. Wra\, so I think they’re going to get on that \nand and work with you on that. But I think the bottom line is a flatter slope would be better. and if it’s not a flatter slope\, i’m not really sure it’s a live in shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: even though they may\, it may have some benefit at the upper part of the \nslow in terms of you know\, some up when habitat. \nDRB Meeting Room: my next comment is. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. The exhibits on page 7 and 8 show the building to encroaching into the shoreline band. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: that\, combined with the the massive \nsquare footage\, makes me wonder if that building could \nDRB Meeting Room: back out of the shoreline\, Dan\, to provide room again for \nflattening the slope on that living shoreline\, and providing kind of more space \nDRB Meeting Room: for adaptation\, but also just for people within. The \nMy next question comment is. this is kind of a funny one. Exhibit 27 be \nDRB Meeting Room: that bird blind looks really interesting\, but I just \nI guess that’s just a generic bird blind it. It didn’t look like the ones I normally see around here. I don’t know. \nLook like you could see people through it which so I \nDRB Meeting Room: not an expert on bird blinds \nit looked. It looked cool\, though. Let’s see the exhibit. 26 A. It shows a boardwalk with people sitting on the edge over the water. \nwhich is something that I think you know people like to sit on the edge of the board walk around the day. I’ve heard \nDRB Meeting Room: that was an engineering joke. I don’t know if you remember this all \nsitting at the dog. Okay\, so. but I have to explain it so. But I don’t know it. Just seems like you might want to have railings or have maybe have that floating\, or have some sort of down ramp. \nyou know\, or something\, just because you don’t really want people to stumble off of that at night\, so I I guess that’s an artistic kind of thing. It isn’t necessarily what you’re going to do. \nLet’s see. \nTalked about the 2 to one slope. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, I think the question about \nother than they water level flood sources. whether it be direct precipitation. run off groundwater. I don’t think groundwater is going to be an issue with your \nhigh grades\, but I think all those factors will probably be considered later in the design\, and I would assume that the applicant would be responsible to \nupgrade there elevation criteria to conform to any additional higher water levels. \nDRB Meeting Room: Exhibit 28 marsh plants \ndidn’t seem to be \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah\, i’m not a botanist\, but they just didn’t seem to be quite the \nnative plants to me. So I assume that’s going to change \nexhibit 29. I didn’t see any environmental groups mentioned\, and the Sierra Club provided some comments\, so I suggest it might be worth reaching out to some broader than just the residents \nand neighbors in the city. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then you know again\, this Hasn’t been under engineering your view. If this is new\, fill \nit would go to the engineering Criteria Review board. But I don’t think it is\, and so \nDRB Meeting Room: there is a question as to whether or not the fill elevations or post settlement. \nbecause you’re adding a lot of hill\, and then\, of course\, around here the certainly the \nDRB Meeting Room: they mud below the fill consolidates with the extra overburden. \nYou get some settlement that can be substantial. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know it could be 2030% of the fill thickness. I don’t know. I mean it’s possible. \nSo I think that’s something that I I would suggest that staff have you check as you move on into your work. So those are all my comments. I guess the main one is\, I like the idea of the living living shoreline. \nI I do think you could move the shore back and flatten that slope. but it might require you to reduce your building footprint on building 2. I think it is\, and maybe some other ones. \nYeah\, thanks\, Bob\, and we will\, as we continue through\, and we’ll probably come back to some of those points of very helpful Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: Do you want to \ncomment on some of the questions or other things? \nDRB Meeting Room: Sure\, I think \nyou know\, welcome others to sort of build on this. I think \nyou know. \nDRB Meeting Room: I I want to say that I I like the opportunity of \ncreating a \nDRB Meeting Room: more open welcoming public access along this blue. \nand that’s you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s the western side of the project. It’s got good solar access. \nIt’s sort of \nDRB Meeting Room: makes a lot of sense to me. I’m \ntrying to figure out why you wouldn’t make a stronger public connection to the Bay trail. with the understanding that the \nDRB Meeting Room: majority of the public accesses with the southern portion of \nthis conference. And there’s this really strong statement that’s being made in front of this project. and it sort of stops \nat the southern edge. You can know that \nDRB Meeting Room: the way it we’re understanding is that the \ncity parking lot is being repaved. So it seems like there’s a really strong opportunity there. It seems crazy to \nDRB Meeting Room: invest in a twelve-level parking garage\, and not figure out how to \nDRB Meeting Room: share that ability with \na \nDRB Meeting Room: as a as this boot field. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t understand why \nthere’s why we still need a surface lot. \nDRB Meeting Room: and it’s I don’t know. \nMaybe there’s enough demand on weekends\, but I can imagine that the majority of the \nDRB Meeting Room: like that there’s got to be sort of a perfect demand relationship between when \na sports facility means parking\, and when people are actually working \nI don’t know it Just even if you could actually make the parking lot a little smaller and create a more significant public space where the patrol comes into \nthis new promenade that’s being created. It seems like there’s a real opportunity there\, and that’s like the fourth point. I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: the staff mentioned \nthe \nin the letter. \nand then I I I I I like the attention to the sort of \nDRB Meeting Room: public frontage and the experience against along this promenade \nthe \nDRB Meeting Room: the like animation of that space. \nIt’s a to be a sort of active. unlikely. \nDRB Meeting Room: since i’m wondering if there’s \nlike sort of another more layered approach. I could sort of imagine a little bit of retail or restaurant activity\, but it also seems like \nDRB Meeting Room: more attention to the ground plane. \nWhether it’s. You know. edges of the building that can sort of become seeding areas\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, some articulation of the depth of the building of the ground plane \nDRB Meeting Room: areas of landscaping on the building side\, just things that can sort of make that more an interesting 2 sized experience for pedestrians. \nI think I would \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe appreciate some attention to that. \nAnd then \nDRB Meeting Room: I I I always have a concern with you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Life\, Science buildings actually are really tall. \nor their their. \nDRB Meeting Room: They really talk \ncompared to what’s around. They’re less significantly taller. And so I would always sort of want to sort of understand \nwhat’s happening \nDRB Meeting Room: with shadow and public space. I think we have good again. \ngood Southern and Western exposure on here. But i’m curious about what happens with the wind. and if there are \nissue with orientation to the bay\, and sort of significant down drafts that would be occurring on the public spaces that are occurring that sometimes that’s sort of a \nI think important thing to think about when we’re thinking about the quality of the public experience in these cases. \ni’ll stop there. Thank you. Thanks. Everyone \nDRB Meeting Room: some really good points right there. I think we’ll keep going along. Everyone can get their key points on the table\, and then we can \nbuild on that. \nYeah\, go ahead. \nYeah. Good point. And I think I think it’s important to put these plans into the kind of bigger picture or planning context. And it seems like we don’t necessarily know exactly what the bigger picture is in terms of the adaptation strategies \nfor the slues. I think that’s helpful to kind of get that understanding of kind of conceptually what’s happening so lacking that\, you know\, if we look at the master plan\, the whole island has\, like a 100 foot set back. \nand this would be the first place on the island to break it. That sort of gives an opportunity to create those levies and have more room for adaptation. and we’ve seen this. \nyou know\, on a number of projects where \nI completely understand the R. And D. Buildings have a very inflexible floor\, plate and dimensions\, and all of that. And then you combine that with the 100 Footstep Academy\, and then the setbacks on the streets and the grade to be able to get up to the higher level and all that\, and I understand it. It becomes constrained \nparticularly for that building\, one building\, 2. It’s just it’s really. It’s kind of jammed in there. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I wonder if \nI just seems like that’s a a big pinch point\, and I wonder if there’s opportunities to minimize that pinch point as much as possible. \nso that there could be more room for more adaptation areas. And maybe you just have one place where it’s sort of pinched. But there’s a lot more other space where you can be more generous with this kind of ecotone levy idea\, and I don’t know if the If B. Cdc. Has \nguidance on exactly what in cotton Levy needs to look like\, or what slope dimensions should be one to one\, or whatever to the one\, whatever it is. But I think that would be helpful. \nDRB Meeting Room: and it just \nDRB Meeting Room: it it Everything’s getting so jammed that\, like public access\, is now kind of encroaching into this March marsh area\, and the slope is really steep. And \nyou know\, when we talk about habitat areas\, we’re generally wanting to create more of a buffer between the kind of the public access and the wetland. And those are things that require space. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I don’t know if there’s something to do there around pushing the building close to the road\, or minimizing the drop off area\, or something that could give you more space to kind of minimize that pinch point \nDRB Meeting Room: i’ll. I’ll also just say \nthe I agree with Stefan’s comments about the access to the bay trail at the southern end being sort of lost in this parking lot\, and then an entrance into the parking structure. \nAnd besides the sort of bay trail there’s not a clear. \nThere’s not a very big\, clear kind of public access entry into this trail system. \nso I think that could be improved. and I also \nDRB Meeting Room: I I don’t know it. \nI don’t think you can consider this Eva area that has loading access on it part of a trail. Specifically\, if there are vehicles coming through there. I don’t know if that counts as public access \nin the way the master Plan conceptualizes it \nDRB Meeting Room: also. Just say cycle tracks are really good for t intersections where they they can be not interrupted\, but where cycle tracks are crossed by roads. \nit creates like a 6 way intersection that can be dangerous for the cyclists\, so I don’t know. Maybe move the cycle track to the north side of that street where you can manage those intersections a little more cleanly\, or just do \na bike lane that’s more kind of a typical condition\, maybe. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then the last thing i’ll say is. \nthere’s just there’s just a lot of parking. A lot of like the arrival to the site is just going to be a lot K. A huge parking structure\, and then building 3 with the however\, many levels of parking below it\, and \nI I \nDRB Meeting Room: I know that those aren’t areas aren’t in the B Cdc. Jurisdiction and all that. But \nI would just encourage you to try to reduce parking if you can\, by using some of those Tma Tdm measures. It looks like you have one space per employee offered right now if I do my math about 400 square feet per employee. \nso I don’t know if there’s some ways to reduce that\, but I think it just. It’s a very to step on’s point. There’s just so much density here\, and I love density. but a lot of the density is in the parking mass. \nwhich \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think sort of. \nyou know\, impacts the public ground experience quite a bit. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, these are. These are all great comments. I’m going to try hard not to be redundant\, but I I agree with so much of what has been said. \nThe West \nexperience\, you know. I think there’s an opportunity for a really wonderful landscape. And you know\, I think\, that you know that’s been demonstrated in this presentation. There are a lot of amenities\, and that are put forward\, and the connection to the trail system\, I think\, is also\, you know\, a big benefit. \nWhat What i’m concerned about a little bit is that you know\, when you when you do get to the West it is. It was a nice experience\, and i’m glad you brought up Stephen with the idea of the South \nfocal point\, because\, you know\, you really have to go deep into the site to get to the turnaround entry plaza. You know where you really have a point of arrival. and the you know the entry experience \ncoming up Island Parkway\, I mean. This is a tremendously wide road\, like an arterial serving the side\, and I I kind of have a question about why why it’s so wide\, and even in the renders \nit seems like I could use more mediating elements\, something between the scale of the very tall buildings and the rather flat ground planes. You know\, more large trees\, or some kind of architectural gesture to make a more human scale experience on your way \nto the the shoreline area. and when you do get to the point of arrival\, you know it’s described as a plaza. There’s a tremendous amount of paving in order to get to the plaza\, and then\, when you get there. \nyou know\, I think there’s a question about whether maybe the plaza is better as a you know as the magnetism. the green burden space\, which is the gateway to the you know\, to the to the water print. \nDRB Meeting Room: I like the you know the deck as a as a kind of a terminus and a focal point at the north end of the \nthe open space. I think that’s really nice\, I think\, is that maybe Bobble\, you’re referring to as the bird blind\, or whatever\, which I think is actually a side sculpture\, you know. \nof sorts\, and and it’s interesting that you were wondering what that was\, and I and I was thinking. Maybe there’s a way of. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, as that thing comes to life that it maybe has a. \nyou know\, sheltering function and starts to do a whole bunch of different things. you know\, for people to pause there. so I I like having a focal point there. It just seems like maybe \nto be. i’m sure it will become more justified as as it goes on. \nYou know the there’s just a lot of paving throughout\, and the and I think the 2 to one slope has been mentioned\, you know\, as an indication that the site is tight. and you know I don’t. I don’t think that \nDRB Meeting Room: the Design Review Board should make a habit of of. \nYou know. endorsing buildings which are inside the shoreline band\, and there are so many converging site\, condition. and sea level rise issues and access issues that I\, I agree with Christine and others that there needs to be \nmore space. you know\, to adapt in the future\, given that there is no future adaptive adaptation plan in place. and i’m sure you know\, something will happen. But \nyou know we really don’t know what economic conditions and timelines. you know\, is is ahead of us. So you know\, it seems very\, you know\, very helpful\, very optimistic\, that that will be solved. I think that \nyou know to date the way those problems are being solved on the bay is with levees. and I need to see more levies around the bay. We’ve seen some really big ones in Foster City and burling game and \nbuilding\, you know\, building a site like this so so happily\, I think it creates more demand for. So \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, given given the times that that it would be great if this if the project had a narrative which was all about. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think i’ll just. I’ll just send it to that. \nThank you. \nIt looks thanks\, Gary\, and I just put a few ideas forward. \nreally stemming from. I think you know one of the early comments in the presentation. I don’t think Staff have made this point as well is\, You know this site located in a particularly interesting ecological area with the confluence of these 2. \nAnd \nyou know you. The \npublic comment and their submission made some very strong points \nhow to And so \nDRB Meeting Room: and when we looked at the permitting diagram. \ngreen spaces. 47\,000 seat\, I think\, in the original permit the there was probably it was envisaged. I’m sure that it’s the green space. \nYou know this is not bay trails per se that connects into a network of trails that connect to the Bay trail. So it’s got some significance. And when I was down \non site the weekend before that. and walking\, there is no question\, as the proponents said\, but this is well used\, and you know the magic on the unformed trail \nbeing tested outside. I was walking along\, and there are cyclists trying to cycle through there and and then. You know the sports park very well used\, in fact. \non the plan. The little white rectangles. It’s a little white square there\, that’s the the small brick building where the volunteer parents serve the hot dogs \nbaseball there in the afternoon\, and and it was just\, you know. I was looking at the site plan on site next to the bleaches where I sat and ate my hot dog and \ncontemplated the drawings\, and and it just. It’s very hard to reconcile a much loved recreation area. \nDRB Meeting Room: and the environmental significance of the adjacent sleuths with the amount of hardscape that’s immediately adjacent\, and and \nif you we’ve got 25 feet right \nDRB Meeting Room: I mean it’s within probably 8 to 10 feet of that little brick building where \nand I was going to hop down and and you know. And so the age to to the point about. you know\, raised in those questions. You know how public this public space field. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know. I think there needs to be more down to just green\, more green space. \nthe site softening the interface with the building talking structure. I mean\, we’ve all worked on many\, many projects over the years space as a promised \nthe ground floor. That will be welcoming\, and uses that \nDRB Meeting Room: may not materialize. \nor it’s originally envisaged. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I do\, you know\, just on building 2\, I \nI just. \nDRB Meeting Room: I really struggle to lift away the \nentry. You know the the loop around the the tree and the green in the middle. I I think that should be absolutely minimized to the minimum amount needed to come in \ndrop set down. You know we see all sorts of configurations and projects \nnecessarily like that. I think the challenge in this project is\, there is so much \nDRB Meeting Room: building on the site that you know the Eda access and truck access really has to \ncircle encircled all of these buildings. So you end up with. you know. basically\, all circulation \nDRB Meeting Room: doubling\, as you know\, the the public \nwalkways. So you know\, I struggle with this proposal as it is currently presenting to really feel public. I you know I struggle\, I I just. \nI think they need to. If you\, if you on question. \nyou know\, if you are improving public experience along the shoreline. I think it’s very hard to see how you can do match with the the current. You know where the 25 \nhuh? \nBasically adjacent to the even with start building too right? \nI think we’ve talked about resiliency and adaptation. \nand I think \nDRB Meeting Room: the point is really well made\, particularly about on the southern entrance. \nYou know there are really 2 entry points here. There’s like \npredominantly. Staff entries to the parking structure 31\, and then there’s the building to drop off that it just seems that the area to the south did you see \nthe city parking lot is. \nDRB Meeting Room: and and there are plenty of people parking there on the weekends. \nSome of probably the neighbors may be great. Go. but there’s definitely uses talking. So you know the city parking lot. I get it. but putting it\, you know\, as you. \nif I\, you know\, right next to really big parking garage. you know. Can there be more synergy between the 2\, and it’s it’s just sort of strange to see the the public \nwalkway sort of turning back into to to \nDRB Meeting Room: it. I find that hard\, you know\, if you’re coming in from the stream. \nwould you really intuitively feel that\, you know. \nacross the \ndelivery area to get to the walking trails? It seems \nSo \nso that sort of where. I think\, if what I’m hearing you say is that that tightness of the sort of promenade and the limitation of the \nyou know \nthe \nDRB Meeting Room: buildings coming right up to that line\, that there’s sort of a real limited \nspace. That is sort of linear that you just described 2 spaces where that could actually broaden out into the larger public space that might be more appropriate for gathering and testing\, and not be so dependent on ground for activity\, and one would be \nreconfiguring at least a portion of the \nDRB Meeting Room: the cities \nparking lot\, a surface lot of the South. But the other one would be shrinking the drop off and looking for a larger public space to emerge at that end. \nYou could be thinking about that. proud to add more sort of a connector between 2 larger\, more significant public spaces. and those are both connecting back \nto the primary access point into the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: not to mention that just the idea of \nDRB Meeting Room: softening the prominent and giving some relief to that space still seems to be desirable. \nAnd can I jump in on that? I mean\, I think there is some space around the turnaround \nDRB Meeting Room: which I think is what you’re referring to when you \nyou can say the plaza and and to flatten the slope without impacting the building. and I think that would still be in the 100 foot band. But I do \nthink I understand all this this isn’t what I do\, but I understand that there’s a need to have or turn around there for vehicular access. I understand it is. but it does seem like they’re \nall along that west side of left side of building 2 \ndown to the turnaround promenade area. There is a space for. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, flattening the slope\, and and providing\, you know\, maybe letting the water in a little bit \nas the whole rises. maybe doing something interesting. so that you can still have the trails that apply. Then maybe you can get down to the water \nin there\, or just passively observed \nWildlife \ndown there\, and then provide more space. And and I think you have more of an Ec tone because below the emergent marsh vegetation is typically mud flat\, and you have a 2 to one slow and \nthe water level. So \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, midslope or higher\, you just have \nwhat their but right\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s not a high energy area\, so it might not a road\, but I just don’t think it’s really. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, for the long term. I don’t think it’s going to be \nall that attractive. \nYou know. We review lots of campus projects. and it is interesting that you know most to see here on the plan on \nIsland Parkway\, which is developed. \nIt is right now. But the first entry you’re going to arrive to is the entry to the parking structure and building one\, and there are lots of campuses where that might be the only entry and building\, too. \nwould walk to building 2 from that first entry point. \nDRB Meeting Room: And so you could imagine \nanother scenario where you actually downplay that Northern circular. But you might. \nand loading access if you have to. but really play down that so that you. you know\, not just trying to think creatively\, how do you catch it \nback? Because we also see lots of sit down with. Nobody ever uses it\, because the staff all park in the garage\, and so \nDRB Meeting Room: there could be some \npotential A with the \ndown to modified \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, it. And i’m still interested in this idea that the \nbuilding square footage is over 80\,000. Where is the the permit? 800? I’m. Sorry. 800. Yes\, I should know that \n800\,000 over 800\,000 square feet versus the old permit drawing to something like 200 and 30\,000 your feet. I was well. and then I realized\, oh\, yeah\, the buildings are a lot bigger. \nbut it does seem like there should be some \nDRB Meeting Room: room economically to move the buildings out of the \nthe line band and create some space. I don’t i’m not a developer\, but it just. My intuition is that that’s something that’s not unreasonable for us to ask for. \nor at least to be considered. especially if it provides \nDRB Meeting Room: ecological benefits\, adaptation\, benefits\, and public access. And you know all the things that \nVc. DC’s. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: I mean\, I can imagine that \nwhen that permit was approved\, however long ago\, that that probably was a feasible project and cost of construction have gone way up and probably all of the geo-technical stuff you talked about\, like I don’t know how many piles you’re going to have to put into this ground\, and i’m sure that makes it \nvery expensively in the develop. Just the fact of the vulnerability\, sea level rise\, vulnerability\, and having to add surplus weighed on on top\, you know more so. And that’s all very expensive. \nand i’m sure that’s one of the things that’s driving you to try to seek water\, square footage to be able to pay for the horizontal stuff that’s happening. I mean the the building. and I know to like \nthese R. And D. Buildings. They like they’re very rigid\, right? And and I think there’s a lot of factors here that are pushing these buildings. you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: into that shoreline band. \nbut it’s our job to push back on that. And it’s our job to be looking out for future adaptation strategies for these areas and ensuring that there’s enough room for those adaptation strategies to happen \nand ensuring that it’s happening in a way that is \nconsistent with kind of larger regional goals and visions and the the ecological Well\, being of these areas. So I think\, Understand? \nI I think it’s safe to say that we understand the pressures. And also there’s there are these other pressures. Hmm. Sort of have to look out for on this board\, so I think \nDRB Meeting Room: that’s sort of a bigger picture view of it. I also think some of these ideas about like\, do you have to have a big automobile drop off as the place making idea for \nyour campus. I think you’re hearing from us that that may not be the best place making idea\, and that would also allow you to have some opportunities to give more space to the \nthe levy and the resilience strategies within the campus. \nDRB Meeting Room: Look\, I think we’ve \nwe’re all in pretty close agreement in terms of the concerns we have. I don’t. I think it’s fairly clear\, so I don’t think I need to go back and recap. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is our first review\, and obviously we’re getting to know the project. And and I just want to echo. What Kristen said. You know we completely understand the complexity of developing \nin the bay area. and we understand the factors that are driving the amount of square foot each. You. you know\, to you would like on the side \nright? \nI think we’ve given you just \nDRB Meeting Room: clear as clearer feedback as we can on the the issues that are of interest to us \nand of interested Ecdc. So. But I think you know we we can end the Board at this point. and \nI think. but the next step is \nsome response from the proponents. \nYou know there’s there’s a lot but looks very good in the project. It sounds like. you know\, phrase a lot of concerns. But there is a lot that looks really good\, and I think some of the positives. But \nclearly there is\, you know\, introducing some greatly enhanced and much-needed connectivity along the sleuths of the history in cycles \nDRB Meeting Room: really applaud you on a number of the things you’re doing. \nBut we are really concerned about. but issues people I Middle East shoot \ngoing to be facing every project we’re reviewing. Now\, that is new development. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, when we talk about mid century we are in 2023 now. So you know\, this is not \nsomething that really off South Eastern it’s something that everyone will be. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. \nProbably everyone at the table now will still be \nDRB Meeting Room: around in mid-century\, you know. So it’s it’s these\, are. \nyou know\, very \nDRB Meeting Room: immediate. \nSo it’s \nsuch seriousness. \nYes. so normally. I’m. I’m. Asking for more accommodation and and and I should have mentioned this. I think your plan is consistent with \nDRB Meeting Room: the Pcbc guidelines. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’ll be at the you know\, scrunched up and tight on that side\, and and with the \nkind of \nDRB Meeting Room: anyway the other comments we already have\, but I but I think that you know\, filling the side as much as you are planning to. \nand raising the the floor elevations for 28 \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: 100 year event\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: having some adaptation. \nplan and capacity. is consistent with the guidelines. especially at the medium high risk\, a version level so. \nand then\, as far as yeah. One of the comments I was going to make as an engineer was what happens to the drainage that comes off the site as you raise it. You know the kind of floor plane management stuff we think about\, but the site’s already higher than the other ones\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: so I don’t know that that applies here. And then also we \nthis is something I don’t think any of us have quite figured out\, and\, as you point out\, one shoreline is looking at. How do you put all this together? You know? How do you make an integrated plan with a bunch of private parcels and \nand over. I think you know I kind of feel like your civil rise Plan is is pretty reasonable. It must be pretty expensive to \nI just follow that for a second. Yeah. Does it follow DC. DC. Guidelines? I mean\, I I see the adaptation strategies put forward\, which is \na couple of typical sections of how they would be adapted. But I I think that we always should ask for a plan of the adaptation plan as well as the section\, because. \nyou know. I think it’s mentioned. You know water comes in from everywhere. and although I think it’s a suggest here\, it’s the best we can do with the information we have. I don’t think that that \nis an effective plan without others\, you know\, stepping in and making some major move\, so I don’t know. I just want to say\, but I just want to moderate your enthusiasm for the adaptation plan. I I didn’t realize I sounded enthusiastic\, but \nbut I I actually just here I just wanted to jump into. I really appreciate your earlier comment about how the I paraphrase the email\, so you can correct me. But \nit seemed like \nDRB Meeting Room: you felt like the development didn’t seem to quite necessarily fit in some ways \nin the bigger picture\, in terms of perhaps instigating more levies than the like\, and I think that’s a really good comment and valid comment. I just don’t know that we have \nfigured out how the hands \nDRB Meeting Room: at least\, I I haven’t figured out \nadaptation strategies. But until you really have an adaptation strategy\, I think you can do it with landscape\, and you can do it with the initial building. The you know\, the architecture that we have tomorrow. Not. \nyou know\, plan on something coming along to save the day and 20 years. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, good. I think that concludes our \ndiscussions. So the next item on the agenda is project proponent response\, and we the project. He like to respond to that call just into you know \nwe’re confirming they’re coming back\, or you’d like to see them again. I think we would. Yes. \ni’ll keep it brief\, just because there’s a lot to respond to\, and I was \nmuch more than \nfirst. I’ll just say thank you\, an extremely long list of thoughtful comments. I’m impressed by your guys as a board and as a bay area resident. even if it’s affecting me. Not necessarily \nthis moment\, and very. I heartened to see the level of sophistication that’s brought to me. \nYou’ve brought up a lot of of of of really good points\, and all of which we’ve we’ve talked about is \nthe hypothesis. you know\, for how we thought we might solve it\, while also that we want to build that we think is \nright. You know the right product for our tenants and the right ecosystem that they’re attracted to. But obviously we have a of work to do. And I think in all of these areas. You’ve had everything that there’s \nSo we’re happy to go back and and \nwith building 2\, I think you a few of you nailed it. I mean all of you brought it up\, and you know I think it was mentioned that this is a pretty constrained site\, and you know we do need to. We can’t. It’s harder to just shrink. It’s harder than just shrinking the floor plate right to shrink the building because the floor plate has to work\, you know. \nand so I can’t just make a smaller floor plane. \nIt’s a it’s a and so that’s what something we’ve been struggling with\, and we’ll bring that we’ll\, we’ll take another look at that\, and we’ll bring that back to the board for a potential system. I think we can with the the loading area\, too. I heard that as a \nthat we look at again. We had a hypothesis about how that might work and feedback from you guys that’s actionable. and we can come back with another. \nand then the southern end\, I think\, is a a different sort of challenge\, just because it is is not ours that interfaces the bay trail. \nIt’s something that we’ll take on hard. Look at to see what we can do with within our project bound. \nAnd then\, obviously\, there’s \nDRB Meeting Room: a lot of other comments. \nBut those are the big bullets that I took away is sort of central area on. and we’ll do it. So okay. thank you very much anything else \nbefore we adjust. \nThere’s nothing else. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay? \nWell\, that concludes our project review for the meeting. I would like to have a motion to adjourn the meeting. I will make a motion to adjourn. Thanks\, Gary. Second \nDRB Meeting Room: Second. \nThank you. Kristen. Okay. Any objections. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hearing none. The meeting is adjourned. Thanks\, everyone. Good night. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-8-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230410T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230410T170000 DTSTAMP:20240213T212150Z CREATED:20230411T051326Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T212150Z UID:10000056-1681146000-1681146000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 10\, 2023 Design Review Board and Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meetings will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with  SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nYerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center 375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3657 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/86409335916?pwd=RmhaeGdwWEpxaFQ2R3BHbEF3WElWZz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID864 0933 5916 \nPasscode460758 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nStaff Update\nFerry Building and Ferry Plaza Alterations in the City of San Francisco\, San Francisco County (First Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board and Port Waterfront Advisory Committee will hold their first pre-application review of the proposal by Hudson Pacific Properties to make interior and exterior alterations to the San Francisco Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza at various locations along the ground floor and the building site.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650 katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit \nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Summary\n Meeting Summary \n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording & Transcript\n \n \nTranscript: \nOkay\, much delay. Thank you for joining us tonight\, for the joint. \nBcdc. Design\, review\, board and port\, waterfront Advisory Committee meeting. \nLike to remind board members to please\, speak directly into the microphone in front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. \nAnd please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on. \nBut your audio is disabled. \nOkay. Thank you\, Ashley. My name is Jacinda Mccann\, and I’m the chair of the Bcdc. \nDesign Review Board. I’m looking at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and also those who are participating online. \nAnd I do want to apologise. We’re a few minutes late\, because this is a a joint meeting\, and there have been lots of technical. \nBut we are getting started now for anyone who been patiently holding on and dialed in. \nSo thank you. So our first daughter of business is to call the Role Board members. \nPlease unmute yourselves\, and then mute yourselves again. \nAfter responding\, Ashley\, can you call the roll? \nChair\, Mccann\, Vice chair\, string board\, member Battalion. \nPresent Board\, Member Hall\, present Board\, Member Leader. \nPresent. \nBoard member Pellegrini. \nPresent. \nFor the waterfront Design Advisory Committee. \nThis is and ode I’m going to call role as well. \nLaura\, Crescento. \nPresent Catherine Moore\, present. \nPresent. Thank you. \nOkay\, thank you\, Dan\, and thank you. Ashley. We have a quorum present. \nSo we’re duly constituted to conduct business. I what share some instructions\, how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible for everyone online and in the meeting room\, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise for board\, members if you have \na webcam. Please make sure it is on\, so everyone can see you for members of the public. \nIf you would like to speak during a public comment period. That is part of an agenda item\, you will need to do. \nFirst\, if you are here with us in person\, we will ask you to form a line near the podium. \nIf you. \nSpeaker cards are available at the door\, and you will be asked to come up to the podium. \nOne at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your conversation. \nFor members of the public attending our meeting in person in our headquarters building. \nI will ask you to maintain social distance during the meeting wearing masks is optional\, but recommended in this building. \nAfter all\, the individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely. \nThe second way\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nIf you’re new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting using the zoom application\, and click the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nThe hand should turn blue when it’s raised. Finally\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and then press star 6 to mute or unmute\, we will call on individuals who have raised their hands in \nthe orders they are raised during the public. \nAfter you were called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nPlease stay your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks\, remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to. \nOkay. That everyone has the responsibility to act in a we will not tolerate hate. \nSpeech threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abuse of language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines or exceeds the established type. \nFor public comments. If you are attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voices\, your video will not be enabled. \nIf you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio synthesis and is not synced to the individual. \nIf you would like to add your cost information to the interested parties\, list to be notified of future meetings concerning this project\, please call or email Ashley Tomlin\, who’s contact information is on the screen in front of you or is found on the Bcdc finally\, every now and then you will hear me \nrefer to the meeting host Eurico\, Bcdc. \nStaff are acting as hosts for the meeting behind the scenes sure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nAnd now the Board Secretary will provide a start updates. \nThank you. Chair. Mccann\, I do have a couple quick updates for tonight. \nReminder. If you have not completed your form\, 700. \nIt was due April third\, so please do so soon. \nStaff updates\, I’d like to welcome our newly appointed Bay design Analyst yuriko Jewett Eureko has a background in urban design and planning\, and has been working at the principal waterfront planner for Bcdc and previously \npresented to this board during her time as the shoreline development permit. Analyst. \nComing up with the Commission. There will be a combined working group meeting for rising sea level and financing the future. \nAs the morning of May eighteenth\, the slide deck\, from A the April sixth meeting is available on our website. \nThe board is encouraged to join and ask questions. The zoom link is also available on the BCDC. \nWebsite. Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, May eighth\, and will be a hybrid meeting here at Metro Center. \nWe’ll be reviewing a proposal researching development site in Belmont\, and that concludes the Bcdc staff update. \nI’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board. \nThanks\, Ashley\, great report because I’m so excited that you is part of the team so welcome\, and we’re thrilled to have in the team. \nThe team? Does anyone have any questions? \nOkay. Hearing none iphone\, I will turn it over to Dan Hodup for the port staff update. \nThank you. Ashley and Chair Mccann to Rwdac members is great\, and DRB. \nMembers great to see you again in our waterfront design. \nReview\, the Wdas. Meets when a project reaches a level defined in the city code\, requiring review by this\, and due to many factors not occurred for nearly 3 years. \nThe longest break in the history. Of the committee. By far the port welcomes the new hybrid process for the public that we will be using today will encourage public participants more so than the past. \nPlease note that for city committees members are required to attend in person need for reasonable accommodation. \nThe Wdac waterfront design\, advisory may see other projects. \nThis here the piers. 33 proposal\, if it it moves forward and a waterfront resilience program presentation. \nSee wall adaptation. Please look forward to updates on these projects. \nAnd that concludes my comments at this. Are there any questions from? \nThank you. Chair\, Mckinnon. Thanks\, Dan. We’ll move to a public comment period. \nNow\, and that’s a public comment on what you’ve just heard today in the report. \nSo if there’s anyone in the room who has a comment on this part of the meeting\, form a line at the podium. \nAnd I don’t see a line at the podium\, so I think we’ll move on that. \nAnd if there’s anyone online who makes it to make a comment this time\, please do so. \nShow your hands. \nWe have no public comments online. Very good. And for anyone from the public attending online\, I just want to remind you there will be another point for public comment. \nReview of the project. Okay? So we now move on to the next agenda item\, which is the first review of proposed alterations at the Ferry Building and the Ferry plaza. \nThis is a gender. Item 4. And\, as I mentioned\, it is the first\, and we’re going to follow the following order of reviewing the project\, so we’ll start with introductions to the project. \nBy the Bcdc. Import staff. That will be followed by the project proponents. \nPresentation\, and then we’ll follow that with the Board and Committee clarifying questions on the presentation. We’ll then move to a public comment period\, and then we will move to the Board and committee discussion and summary\, and then we will conclude with the project proposed proponent and that’s a brief response. \nAnd so with that the BCDC. Permanent analysts. \nAnd is so I’ll head to cast. \nThank you. Chair Mccann\, and good evening board members. \nI’m Katherine Pan\, the shoreline development program manager\, and I’ll be introducing tonight’s project for BCDC. \nBefore I do\, I would like to remind the project\, team and staff to please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. \nWhen you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your video and mute your microphone so that we minimize distractions on screen. \nNow this is the first review of the Ferry building\, and very plaza alterations project in the city and county of San Francisco. \nThe\, the proposed project is likeated in the ferry building\, or at the ferry building\, a landmark on the San Francisco waterfront\, where Market Street meets the embarcadero just south of pier\, one the ferry building is an active ferry terminal \nand provides vary access to and from Angel Island and north and East Bay Destination. \nThis site is covered by BCDC. San Francisco waterfront. \nSpecial area plan and is part of the plant’s northeastern waterfront geographic area. \nThe ferry building is home to a variety of commercial and office uses\, and at the edge of the and at the edge of the Yacidis financial district\, in downtown area\, is surrounded by many similar uses as well as the waterfronts extensive public recreation and access\, in. \nWe’d like to acknowledge that the project site is in the ancestral territory. \nOf the Yaleamu people of the Ramatush Aloni\, we offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay area. \nThe area around a ferry building in Berry closet is covered by a number of existing BCDC. \nPermits\, each with its own public access\, conditions resulting in a layering of different access requirements I’ll summarize these briefly to provide contexts for some of the changes being proposed\, as well. \nAs some surrounding access connections\, as a disclaimer. \nWhat we’re about to show is our best understanding of where these access areas are located\, based on our review of permit files and exhibits in some cases there still may be some questions as to the exact extent of the access areas which will continue to research and work through with the project proponents. \nSo when we talk about the fairy plaza\, we’re referring to this open area on the bay side of the variable. \nWith open area on the bay side of the ferry building\, enclosed by the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal\, and this restaurant structure. \nAll of this is located on the ferry platform\, which is also known as the Bart Platform\, which is also authorized by permit 1\,967. \nThe permit required public access on the perimeter of the platform not required for any ferry operations\, but the area wasn’t specified in any permit. \nExist. \nPermit 1973010 authorize the Restaurant and the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal\, and required access around the restaurant building as well as on areas of the ferry terminal that could be used for public access consistent with very operations the area around the terminal is also not depicted in any permanent exhibit. \nPermit\, 1998 was for a number of roadway improvements along the Embarcadero and for the meeting. \nMetro. It required the dedication of public access area for the embarcadero promenade between Broadway and Harrison’s Amendment 6 approved in 2\,007 authorized the use of a portion of the dedicated access area to be used for outdoor dining\, and these are the 30 foot Wide Cafe market zone shown on either side of the entry portico. \nPermit\, 199707. Authorize additional fills for North and South Ferry portal. \nA publicly accessible sheep pile\, breakwater\, and the promenades around the ferry building\, as well as a demolition of pier. \nOne half the access area is required by the permit include the new northeast and south promenades. \nPr. 14. The Breakwater\, and a concourse through the ferry building. \nAs a legibility. Note\, exhibit A of the permit shows that there is a space between the ferry building and the wedge of public Access reserved along the southern side of the ferry building. \nIt’s not clear in this visual\, due to the end of the area. \nBut that’s the image there! \nSo permit 2\,000 0 one. Authorize the ferry building rehabilitation project and the use of the ferry plaza for the pharmacy. \nThe East promenade was expanded to provide continued uncovered access along the promenade. \nAs the rehab second floor expansion would cover the existing portion. \nThe required public access includes includes the east promenade space to 10 foot wide\, pass through through the ferry building improvements to the path through entrances\, ground floor\, public restrooms\, 24 bike parking spaces and a ferry closet. \nAnd then permit 201601\, authorize new gates for the Wida San Francisco Bay ferries south of the ferry Plaza\, and included public access conditions for the Embcadero Plaza\, or the Wida Paza and a Bayside Promenade connecting the new Farie \ngate. These areas are outside the scope of the current project. \nBut we’re including this information so that you’re aware of these closely connected uses. \nImmediately adjoining the project site. \nI’m sure most\, if not all\, of you\, are already quite familiar with the ferry building in Plaza. \nBut here’s some contextual photos to Orient. \nYou and help you visualize current conditions at the site. \nAnd these photos are all taken on a weekday morning\, actually. \nSo here’s the North Cafe Zone in ourcade\, and here you can see it’s very end got outdoor seating area. \nThe North pass through entrance\, and they’re in the process of setting up additional outdoor seating in the Cafe zone. \nThen the North Arcade here is used by a variety of commercial key. \nAnd then here’s the South Cafe Slash Market Zone\, with the wine merchant seating area and South Pass through\, and the South Arcade\, which is mainly used for storage and farmers. Market operation. \nAnd then here’s the area on the south side of the ferry building which provides access for both pedestrians and vehicles for the ferry plaza\, and here you can see the access or the area reserved for public access along the drive aisle that’s also used by delivery \nand service vehicles\, and these cones and barriers here are\, I believe\, used to control vehicle access in this area. \nAnd then here’s part of the East facade at the very building and you’re looking at is the exit from the central breezeway and the seating area below the cantilevered second floor. \nAnd this area would be part of the proposed Bay front kitchens concept. \nHere’s some additional views of the East Promenade. \nI can see it’s quite active this morning. \nAnd then here’s just 2 quick views of a crowd arriving at the plaza from the Golden Gate ferry. \nSo these are pedestrians in cyclists\, like a good number of cyclists\, all making their way to the south side of the building through the plaza. \nAnd then here are some views of the ferry plaza itself versus a view from the South promenade\, where you can see a lot of the existing furnishings\, including the 30 tables that were put in place during the pandemic this one up here is from the \nGandhi statue\, facing towards the south side of the building\, and then the bottom right is a view of the space on the north side of the plaza\, next to the Golden Gate Ferry terminal. \nWe’re facing east towards the restaurants. Sure. \nSo here’s where our community vulnerability mapping tool showed us about the area downtown. \nSan Francisco is a densely populated diverse community\, and the decreases of social and contamination. \nVulnerability indicated by the tool covered a really broad range\, generally speaking\, indicators associated with higher social\, vulnerability in the areas near the ferry building include renter\, occupancy\, and no vehicle ownership as well as some combination of limited English perficiency very \nlow income\, no high school degree\, disability\, individuals over 65 living alone\, non-us citizens and people of color. \nAnd then regarding potential C level rise\, using current site elevations. \nThis map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nUsing the Ocean Protection Council’s 2\,018 sea level rise guidance 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level under the medium to high-risk aversion. \nHigh emissions scenario at mid-century and at this level there is potential for some flooding. During a 100 year. Storm event. \nAnd then this shows what 66 inches this year the sea level rise would look like at the site if it was unchanged. \nThis roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level. \nAt 2\,090\, in the medium to high risk\, aversion\, high emissions\, scenario as well as 100 year storm\, condition in mid-century\, and in this scenario the project site and much of the waterfront would be inundated. \nSo before I pass this over to Port Staff\, I’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff. \nReport that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. \nFirst\, please consider how this project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcdc’s public access design guidelines\, and then staff has identified some specific questions we’d like to ask the Board about the design at this stage. \nThese are one. How does the project proposal result in public spaces that feel public? \nAnd does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people? \n2. Do the alteration sufficiently maintain or enhance connectivity\, and along the shoreline are the enhancements compatible with the existing structures and uses in the area. \nAnd are there any potential uses or concerns to be mindful of as the concept develops? \n3. Does the enclosure of the private dining areas on the east promenade for the bayfront kitchens and Hampsh activation and support inviting usable public access areas. \nAnd is it necessary to enclose a private dining area? \n4. Are the alterations of the ferry plaza\, sufficiently flexible to accommodate the variety of proposed programming while maintaining usable public access for existing user\, groups. \n5 are the improvements proposed for the ferry plaza likely to be successful in attracting additional visitors to the space during non-market days. \nAfternoons and evenings. 6. What additional details about the programming of the perimeter easement activation zone and the South Promenade are needed to understand the potential for use conflicts\, circulation issues\, and benefits for public access? \nAnd 7. Are there any additional improvements that could improve the public access? Experience? \nAlright. So I wanna take a moment to check to see if the Board has any clarifying questions for me on anything presented in this staff Introduction. \nAny questions? \nOh\, thank you. So I was reading the staff report\, and it says that the peer says the ground elevation is plus 11 feet and a Bd. \nWhich is the same as the base flood elevation. And that’s sounds about right. I thought the peer deck might have been a little higher than that. \nIs that correct? So that’s based on the elevation shown in the exhibits. \nAnd then also checking the base. What all elevation through the. \nSo that’s the best information we have. Thank you. \nThomas Stephan any questions\, clarifying questions\, no. \nGary. \nLook. I have one question I know it’s not part of this immediately. \nPlaza there are 2 buildings\, the building that has but vince\, and then the. \nYou remind me who is the who owns those buildings\, or who is landlord for those 2 buildings? \nBelieve? Is it the port? Yes\, alright\, Dan can be fine. Hi\, Dan! \nHowodap with the port of San Francisco. \nThose are controlled by the port they were previously leased out that they’ve been returned to the port. \nThe port plans actually going under contract with a broker to find a user. \nFor the restaurant site. The one story portion I’m hoping to do that this year for app. \nThe term on that\, not expecting large capital. \nSo that’s good to anticipate that use coming forward again\, and the circulation that might be a sort. \nAnd the other building is really a very active. There is a building just sits on the north side of it that contains some infrastructure on the ground level\, and it does contain a on the top level. \nA second story is a large dining\, somewhat of a banquet facility. \nCould also be lead. \nThat’s an option on that. \nOkay\, thank you\, Dan. While we’re on the subject\, it did mention somewhere there was mentioned structure upgrades in that area. \nCan you describe what those are? \nDan again Future Infrastructure upgrades are largely going to be about sea level rise\, adaptation\, and I think\, looking at of 11\, the impacts at 24 inches were not significant. \nUnless you. \nThat really the low spot on the waterfront. So the future infrastructure would have to do. \nHow do we protect the ferry Building ferry building? \nWas to be a very high cultural value\, and and the waterfront resilience program went through very extensive outreach. \nAddaptation measures are being developed. \nThe peer enjoys being one of the possibly the last meeting your peer construct out on the same. \nCisco waterfront better condition that many of that are part of the historical. \nThe peer behind the building is not part of the. \nGreat. Thank you. No more questions. \nThank you. So now I pass it back over to Dan Hodap from the port of San Francisco to present the port staff report. \nDan Hodap again regarding the Ferry building project before you this evening\, Hudson\, the leaseholder\, of the ferry building and site area\, will be represented by Carl Cade\, who will introduce the project and design team and then the proposed. \nProject the waterfront Design Advisory Committee staff report includes a waterfront. \nExcuse me. A waterfront plan policy analysis as appendix\, A\, of which staff provided an assessment of those policies. \nPlease observe the presentation\, and ask questions regarding the proposal\, and or of any of the policies Committee is not obligated to re review the many policies\, but may want to focus on policies where you want clarification proposal meets. \nDoes. In addition to the questions that Catherine just went through\, examples of questions could include\, how the collection of improvements\, respect and contribute to the character of the ferry building and its environs\, how the proposal enhances or impacts pedestrian circulation and views of the building. \nDo the improvements enhance the historic\, very building. \nDo the improvements work together as a cohesive collection. \nWe welcome your input and recommendation\, which\, following conclusion of the review process\, are forward to the Port Commission and City Planning Commission. \nThat concludes my comments. Are there any questions on those before I introduce? \nSeeing none. I’d like to introduce Carl Cade. \nOh\, I’m sorry! \nI had a question. My question is\, see a certain amount of public access being we commission for other users. \nDo we have any numbers to see your what’s being taken? \nSecond part of my question is as good I personally observe a significant increase in ferry building riders that Hazel could in the last 4 or 5 years. \nThere’s actually almost congestion on the common promenade people rushing with their bicycle. \nSo by foot to catch a ferry\, including seeing fairies being reassigned to a different booth\, while you’re expecting to depart or arrive on one\, you have to rush over to another\, one which creates additional confusion and takes a lot of space relative to people rushing back and \nforth do we have any metrics? The intensity of failure\, use are we anticipating further increase in use as Treasury Island is being realized\, and other uses along the bay? \nA villain themselves toward a taxi\, and for the water craft youth! \nThose are both great questions. The public access quantity. Once I’m going to refer that to the development team to address that as they go through their presentation regarding us\, the ferry system. \nMy numbers are a little bit old\, but 5 years ago they were saying\, looking at a tripling of ferry ridership. \nOkay. \nTreasure Island capacity bridges\, and the improvements overall to the. \nI don’t have the exact numbers\, but your observation are. \nOf course\, put a real damper and ferry rider ship. \nRunning now I don’t have. \nAs to where they are compared to before the pandemic\, but I know that. \nForecast being provided by the way. Emergency authority otherwise\, are for that very significant. \nWhich is why the whole down. \nIf I may\, my second group of questions speaks to open space as we are assigning specific functions to the parts of the around. The fare building. \nNow\, as the Plaza alteration suggests\, I am wondering if we are adding additional base someplace\, else\, in order to uphold the principle of social and racial equity\, because not everybody will be able to partake in the assigned spaces\, as they are currently being. \nDan Hodap again. That’s a great perspective\, to use when analyzing or evaluating the proposal that you are about to hear. \nThere are no offsite\, public space\, improvements being offered. \nIt’s all within the area. Another\, slightly more deeper reaching question is a dialogue about urban design. \nAs we’re speaking about a more privatized use of what is basically a civic building\, I have always perceived even the transformation of this of the ferry building as an effort to keep the civic nature of this building intact when it was historically a full-fledged transportation terminal \nof ferry building. It was only bought transportation. \nThe incredibly fabulous historic of preservation. \nA number of years ago created a public market out of it\, and what is proposed today seems to shift a little bit more into the restaurant role food hall imageway. \nAnd I’d be curious to hear how we are going to be able to uphold the civic nature of the building that includes the use of the arcades becoming more private and indeed taking a very civic component\, as our arcade away. \nThe city city has few arcades. If you go to Bologna\, Italy\, or some of those places\, you can walk like 50 kilometers of public arcades\, which in certain types of weather is a wonderful experience\, and I personally always use the our cage as such so I’m kind of curious \nabout emphasis on civic meaning of the building as it transforms itself under the current proposal. \nI think that’s great input for our presenters. And I encourage Youtube address that as you go through. \nAnd I think any other types comments about the proposal. \nWe should wait until post public comments\, so that we don’t mix so. Thank you very much. \nAnd with that I conclude my remarks and I’m handing it over to and Connors here. \nCause. Carl Cade just pointed at her. She’s sitting right next to him. \nSo\, yeah\, thank you\, Dan\, for that. Well\, good evening\, board members. \nI’m Jane Connors. I’m the general manager of the Ferry building\, and it’s been an honor to have been part of the ferry building team since its opening in March 22\,003. \nSo it’s been almost. It’s been over 20 years. \nSo in the last 20 years we have learned that\, being nimble and staying relevant is key to the Ferry building’s success. \nThe support. Hudson Pacific properties has provided in the last 3 years is a testament to our stewardship of and dedication. \nTo such remarkable building\, and its diverse community of merchant office tenants and visitors throughout the pandemic. \nThe ferry building and ferry Plaza farmers\, market State opened every day and introduced improvements\, including opening the largest outdoor dining cafe in the city on the ferry plaza. \nDuring the pandemic we worked with merchants to keep them open\, through a generous rent relief program. \nAnd we added many new merchants in the last 3 years\, including reams\, Red Bay Coffee\, peaches\, patties\, and Chalita Linda. \nSome who you will hear from today. The presentation you see today lays the groundwork for the Ferry Building’s future success\, and I am pleased to introduce my colleague\, Carl Kade\, vice president of construction and development at Hansa Pacific who will introduce these Enhancements. \nThank you very much\, Jane\, as Jane mentioned\, I’m Carl Cade. \nI’m Vice President with Hudson Pacific here in our San Francisco office\, a few blocks from where we speak\, halfway to Jane’s office at the Ferry Building. \nI wanted to start off by saying that since Hudson purchased the leasehold in 2018\, with our partners at Allian’s\, we have been very committed to partnering with Jane and her team at the building to the stewards of the ferry building \nand it’s in its important role in this city and ensure the vitality in the vibrancy the city fabric of San Francisco today and in the future. \nToday\, the strong activity that we feel as we walk the Sunday market or shop in the nave during lunchtime is Testament to the resiliency of the merchants and the longtime patrons of the building. \nWe are pleased to announce that we are\, in the final phase of a lengthy\, significant restoration project\, whereby we repaired the sought have been referring to the size and painting. \nThe exterior back to the original color that many of us have never. \nSo until today\, finally today\, we can say that we are proud to announce that the ferry building was recently awarded. \nWeed 0 energy and 0 carbon certifications. \nOne of the first and only building to get both of those designs. \nIn the future\, and with the enhancements we will present today\, we will deliver a civic very plaza that draws people to experience this majestic and historic building. \nThe ferries and the waterfront. 7 days a week. \nMore merchant locations\, with added infrastructure to support the merchants. \nCooking preparation\, retail needs finally\, indoor and outdoor seating that addresses some of the light wind cold that can be discouraging of visitors late in the day. \nHudson\, San Francisco. Portfolio totals more than 2.5 million square feet. \nWe are fighting and investing in the urban life of this city. \nAnd this project is a testament to that commitment we have been pleased to see our city partners willing in a year to join us in finding solutions to the challenges facing the ferry building and our city. \nWe’d like to thank the Port and Bcdc. \nStaff for working with us. To prepare this presentation today. \nFinally\, it’s important to say that when we put together the team to even think about taking this on\, we thought out first of all\, a landscape architect in Einweller Keel\, which is locally based and has a long term commitment in working with shared public space around the \nBayfront\, and even more history with the building\, I would say\, would be Page in Turnbull\, who served as the historic architect in the 2\,003 renovation\, and is now in this guise both our historic architect and our Mayor architect for the project with that i’d like \nto introduce Lana Cochorovsky\, principal at to take us through the project. \nThank you very much. Appreciate it. Commissioners support. I appreciate being here today listening to our presence. \nI’m also proud to be part of the page internal team that has been involved with the ferry building since 1970. \nWhen we first wrote the design re for about the building\, and then continue. The work is preservation. \nThe approvals of the that turned this building into. \nI am too! \nWe think. \nContinue the legacy of the work today and invite. \nSo I would like to take you. \nA quick overview this of our view. A number of historic images. \nHow many changes occurred? \nSince it’s concerned. \nAnd it’s it’s from the time when it became the most\, the busiest transit. \nThe decline of that function in the 3\, it became something. \nAnd it will likely continue to change just to orient everyone with the work that we will be presented today. \nA quick overview. The diagram shows. \nOf the building alone in Barkende. The area that we called. \nThere is\, are improvements planned on the pay size\, with the. \nBoth interior and exterior\, and of course talking a lot today. But. \nSo next slide the site plan and. \nSarah\, Q. \nThank you\, Lana. It is a real pleasure to be here\, and I. \nA little humbled by this opportunity to tell you the truth\, this is a really important project. \nCisco\, but also really for the entire region. It is where I take my relatives when of town\, a lot of us view this as a civic destiny. \nGreat things to eat\, and so as we’ve thought about contributing to the legacy of the devout\, about a lot of the changes that’s happened in the last 20 years\, and there’s some obvious ones\, I think\, like Zoom mobility and Pandemic I also want to call attention. \nPlaza\, which used to be water. And so the relationship. \nThe water also used to be from a site planning perspective than it is today. \nAnd that’s really helps us to organize\, are thinking out where to work and what. \nThe project is a balancing act right? And so our work is primarily focused on Southend of the building and the ferry plaza. \nThere is a little bit of work that’s being done. \nAnd in some ways we started from what’s already working. \nAnd so so the farmers market that happens here on Saturdays is one of the times when very plausibly. \nMake your way from the embarcadero and find it. \nYou can get turned around or pathways to go. And so that became a way to sort of start thinking about what wasn’t working other days. \nAs we looked at the site circulation on Saturday there was a clear way to move along when you exited. \nThis building is the sort of obvious that there was a passage. \nThe south. It was also clear that they were an invitation\, and bcadero. And so\, as we thought about what we. \nBe sure\, the circulation of. \nTo work\, but also to solve this problem on where to go. \nNext slide. \nIn some ways this diagram\, which? \nA a layer over the tower itself. You arrive at the tower. \nEverything you there crossroads there! \nFor us\, adding\, this that happens Saturdays is a crossroads. \nThe water\, along the water’s edge\, linking the very terminal back to the center of the building. \nAnd we wanted to complete that circuit from the inside to the outside and welcome people from the ferry\, but also the ferry. \nReally thinking about this intersection? \nTogether next week? What? \nSo the site plan that I’ll present to you today. \nI’m going to give you a quick overview here. And then I’m gonna in because a lot of the moves that we’re making are small scale. And it’s hard to see. \nWhat you’re seeing is that we are drawing a line at the of the from the embarcadero out towards the water\, trying to adjust to people that there. \nThe Ferry Plaza a non-market day. \nThe water\, which is the new fairies. The South make that a bit like. \nThe water. \nAlongside there\, and there is a small effort being done on number where there is public dining\, that Lao will talk to what I’m gonna. \nThe space a lot. The south side of the building at the back of Very plaza itself. \nThe circulation that we’ve been thinking about building our design out has been continuing to draw all of the transit\, using that are happening here\, continuing to. \nPeople to\, as well as to rush when they need to get somewhere to give you an intuitive inside and outside of the building. And honestly\, one of the things I’ve learned while working on this\, the paza has a lot of. \nVery terminal\, one very plaza and part facility. \nVery pause. Those are all people who what’s happening outside work well for them about that\, too. \nZooming in a little bit\, so you can see the performance clearly. \nThis is along the south end\, the building with the new yeah plaza\, where we are proposing a line of lights from the embarcadero all the way on to the ferry plaza itself. \nIn this location side of the graphic paving and pattern that draws you out. \nAt Ferry Plaza. They’re on the south side\, but it’s one the to draw you from. \nBcadero all the way on to very plaza. \nIn addition to okay\, that’re seeing at Number One\, a new gateway sign that has both wayfinding to give an address. \nVery plausible as well as information. \nHere and some way finding element\, the embarcadero and the light. \nCornerstone Way\, finding. \nSo that’s where to go. \nThis is a light touch. In some ways\, I think there’s a lot that’s already working here. \nAnd we is already a great asset. But we’re trying. \nNext slide. \nThe palette of this is intended to the ferry building\, and to complement the existing gate. \nArchitecture\, but also. \nThe line and. \nWe know more conversations about exactly what color and exactly the. \nTo talk about those in. \nBut we also wanted to of clarify that the goal of this. \nA section taken from the ferry building itself out to Weed Plaza. \nYou can see how there’s a space. Immediately the outside of the ferry building and the light pole with the banners. \nThe way that the sign is allowed trucks to pass under. \nAnd fire trucks. The gateway and the walkway along. \nThe plaza\, and I can clarify that the light polls on the north side align with the light polls on the south side\, but are a different to do. \nThe program that we need them to in. \nWhat that section continues out past the ferry building. \nWater. \nLevel rise that was already present where we step down into the fire lane\, and there’s new site furnishing. \nThe water promote waterfront feeding and view. \nWe’ve rotated the seating\, instead of being south towards the ferry terminal. \nThe long view out to the water and to Treasure Island. \nThe poll lights and the edge of the plaza frame. Strong\, new. \nThese are some renderings to give you a the size of the element. \nThe colors are here are mostly to make things legible rendering. There’s a. \nThe final colors. You see\, is by adding the light poles and adding the signage. \nHere\, here\, there’s a kind of procession or rhythm that yes\, oh\, there’s something out there. \nThere’s somewhere to go layer on what’s already working here next slide. \nYou can also see what that looks like on a market date where the are layered in. And we been talking with food\, wise about how not to meet the location of light poles or other elements. \nBeing able to set up tents and no big tents are\, and how things. \nHave there\, but the goal is to have this be a seamless overlay. Next. \nAnd moving to the back plaza\, you can see the same line of lights banners moving along the south edge of the plaza. \nHere it’s pulling you back and making gesture. \nYou can furniture along the. \nWe’ve also clarified on the back plaza. There’s. \nGate\, ferry are hopefully crossing to a restaurant at one ferry plaza. \nSo we know there’s a lot of move here. There’s a new kiosk element show. \nWhich would outdoor establishment that would have outdoor seating on the We’re really in that as a way to have eyes on platforms. \nSome things that go on here. \nThat cause a lot of cleanup in the morning to have that element. The. \nMore about as a possibility. \nAnd we’re also adding a strong edge to the plaza and dressing up grid of stripes them back by grinding them. \nWe’re really rehabbing the old great\, partly of the carbon\, partly because what we all need about\, you know\, the sea level rise in infrastructure. \nThe balance of feel like the right amount for right now\, and a line of lights parallel to the and the colonnade along the ferry building gives that a strong edge as well. \nOkay. As I mentioned\, there are 3 possible sites that we studying for the Gandhi statue should have had on here a fourth\, which is the remain we’re talking to a lot of people. \nThe San Francisco Arts Commission will need to weigh in is a lot more. \nWe have just flag to you that. \nThe materials on the back plaza are retreatment of the existing concrete\, and a kind of texturization. \nGet a very strong edge. These polls\, a more modern kiosk to really cut the historic architecture\, and then the most important thing about these vendors. \nThat they will be perfect for an outdoor environment. \nSo they won’t rest\, and will be working\, I think\, with a lot of you. \nPortable\, but there’s a kind of gravitas palette that were proposed. \nForward place to feel that way. Next slide. \nSo these are some views of the proposal. This is a view south towards the bridge. \nWhen when we first started this\, the bay lights are up\, and it was. \nStay out of line of the Bay bridge. The quieter bridge compared. \nBut I have a fondness for it. Wanted it to be the show here in some ways\, and so the lights align\, and you can see how they work with the column. \nOne aid describe a walking path on a non-market day. \nAnd then how the market layers into the line of lights and the edge and the pathways that we have here next slide. \nThen for the overall view of the back plaza\, showing you how that new signage element\, says Sherry Plaza\, and there is some discussion\, should say on this that we will to talk about\, but gives you a threshold and a crossroads at that moment. \nCan see the benches along the edge there\, the graphic page you out towards the water\, the grid that we’ve added and the that we added for activation sort of eyes on the plaza. \nNext slide. You can see how we layer into market day\, and can begin to imagine how\, in addition. \nWonderful farmers. Other events to happen out here and have activation. \nThe other of the\, and with that I’m going to pass it back to latter for the rest of the. \nYou very much great overview of the. \nI’m gonna walk you quickly. \nAreas of alteration. \nSo we have images by that. \nRendering\, and really just building on with Sarah. \nWe’re proposing very light touch! \nKnowing that is a huge sorry with the with the entrance portico. \nAll we’re trying to do is enhance the lighting quality and improved lighting. \nYou can see how\, under the. \nImproving\, lighting\, and in theiding people into the. \nAnd moving along the embarcadero. This is the area that we’re calling the North. \nWe are expressing here in the rendering on the right the exterior structure for the being proposed there. \nThese are the lightweight metal structure that are very simple and completely independent. \nFrom the building. The purpose of them is to provide accommodations for that would be needed for the patrons of the restaurants in the and they are designed to transparency through them and into the building facades next stage. \nYou can see them up close inside. \nThey will contain movable furniture\, and that’s that’s for them to be utilized on market days. \nAccommodate market tenth within them. \nNothing fixed in them that cannot be moved. \nAnd we have some public seeing on onboard facing you. \nThe great activation strategy that we’re in. \nOf the key\, and the next image on the right gives you a peek into that area\, would look the inside. \nWhat is being proposed is glass in closure\, that is. \nWe are proposing be able to. \nMoveable glass will be completely moved and hidden behind the pilesters of the. \nOnly be closed in increment weather for a the restaurants are not upgrading\, so night time. \nThe purpose here is also. \nAnd be able. \nSee through\, and and the quality. \nOn the bay side. So we are looking at the bayfront. \nArea that planks the primary circulation. \nSee how we\, removing the non. \n3. By doing that\, we’re opening it up and engaging the public\, providing more training\, transparency\, and. \nOr tenants pieces\, opening up the view by taking the the storefront and moving it about 7 feet. \nClosed 2 base adjustments. \nTo the way on the on the north\, and one day on the right. \nSee. \nRendering in the purpose of this is to be able to maintain the same activity as today. \nBut be able to provide comfortable seating in inclement weather and. \nKnow in the last few months. \nUsual weather pattern when it’s not really comfortable. \nKeep outdoor. So you close the. \nProvide a level of comfort to. \nWould be otherwise\, they would be open and. \nThey are not approaching onto the the public. \nStay behind the relocated 3 columns. \nWith that conclude our. \nAnd let it just one thing. Just add\, I think it’s important\, because we cared deeply about it\, that this project endeavors to maintain the dedicated public access ways through the building. \nAnd so\, for\, like clarifications\, the arcade areas are not dedicated. \nPublic access\, they are subject to our port lease that allows visitors serving rather restaurants and retail uses\, and we also worked closely to make okay through those arcades in the plan that you’d have a view shed that would allow to continue to let’s look down the length of \nthe arcade through the multiple restaurants. And so we can talk more detail about that. \nThe Cafe Zone does. I think Katherine mentioned in her presentation. \nWe’re dedicated under that 1998 permit\, as a 30 foot wide portion. \nBut that promenade specifically called for outdoor dining and market use as an appropriate user. \nAreas. And so we’re following that precedent finally and not so much about access\, but about the historic standards. \nLotta and her colleagues have completed a Secretary of Interior Standards. \nAnalysis\, and find this to be. \nSo important details. I wanted to make sure everyone has thanks for that. \nThe very helpful clarifications. So look with that. \nWe’ll move to public comment. And so\, you know\, the presentations hang on. \nWe will move to clarifying questions from the project present. \nThese clarified questions both? \nThe boards of the committee. So look just to with a lot of people here and some online. \nSo we’re just gonna go down the line here just for clarity. \nSo Bob\, lead off any clarifying questions. \nNo no questions for me. Okay. \nYeah\, lot. I was wondering if you could clarify on the East side under the canopy there\, I noticed there are some pop-outs that are new. \nIs that correct that are enclosed? And then I also want to understand the dropdown from the software. \nThere! \nSure. Thank you. \nSo does that demonstrate? \nHere is the bay that is being. Yes\, there is a so I says\, down to for the. \nMovable panels. \nInside of the of the base. \nThat area. \nSo that would be enclosed to the corner if you had shown it in its closed form. \nThat’s office. This dropdown marks the alright. \nAnd then beyond\, there’s those glass areas that are that is correct. \nOne another. Question. Leave room for others here. The I just want to understand where the farmers market is located. So it’s on the south side of the very building that correct\, and it straddles the ferry buildings and is same amount of square footage. \nYeah\, it’s on the south driveway and the plaza area here\, near the sign that. \nIs? Is it inside and outside the ferry building sign? \nPardon me\, so it’s on the embarcadero side\, and then the market area\, and on the also on the same on the 2 front Embarcadero Plaza driveway\, and very pleasant great. Thank you. \nOkay. Yeah. Chris. \nThank you for that. In depth and very helpful presentation. \nJust a few questions\, Sarah\, is it you said that the plaza isn’t working well for some of the neighbors? \nCan you explain what some of those challenges are? \nI heard from people. A lot of things happen in the. \nYou arrived just that up for an event. \nIn class. There’s a lot of things to out there as well that as you get further away from the ferry building\, eyes on fall away. Okay? So. \nYou know\, really this person’s space\, and not? \nAnd then you mentioned the kiosk was a way to kind of help mitigate. \nPut some eyes on the street on the plaza. Would that be open at night\, or what would the kind of evening programming be? \nThat’s probably a better question. \nYeah\, I mean\, ideally\, we would have this and the whole building activated further into the evening I think you know\, there are stages of success in that. \nAnd if I think today\, you know\, the ferries actually go into the email\, if we could have something if you miss your very\, if we get back to a day of ferry traffic like the past where you might where the Golden Gate very may sell out\, and you have to wait for the next\, one it would be \nnice\, that that not be such a bad thing\, because you can sit and have\, you know\, a beverage or snack while you wait\, and look at one of the best views. \nThat it we have in the city. And so that’s sort of the idea. \nJust one last question was\, and I think it was Slide 28 that you had up before. \nI was wondering. I’m not sure what the nature of sort of public spaces inside the building building and around it. \nI think you know\, outside\, it’s fairly clear that those tables and shares are kind of spill out for the tenants\, except on the west side. \nThere’s some sort of public seating\, that’s popped up over time. \nAnd then inside the ferry building. I think this portion you have here that purple is that kind of public access through. \nBut the wings off to each side of it\, north and south\, kind of act like a pose right now. \nKind of an indoor space\, public space\, and I was wondering if there are any sort of requirements for public user space or square footages\, or anything like that\, or a way that you’re thinking about kind of that public space inside the building. \nYeah\, absolutely. I think\, I mean\, you’re right\, that the area dedicated is and purple on there. \nThe area is next to it have been used in different ways over time\, and our circulation. \nI’m seating. Our plan is to actually have. \nIf you think of a kind of 2 by 2 matrix of dedicated non dedicated indoor and outdoor\, seating more of all types of after this\, and I think that gets to your colleagues point of how people can use different ways is that there were \nbe more. Yes\, it will. \nRestaurants\, but there will also be. \nPlaces where I think that can actually be the at the end zone\, where you all were already experimenting with that. \nBecause once you’ve got your food from your merchant\, you will find a place that in the building that’s helping drive traffic to those areas that are actually. \nSo just to be clear\, is there sort of a commitment to a certain amount of square footage\, or how do you sort of quantify that the most specific quantification in the Bcdc. \nAbout outdoor seating\, and when we are increasing that commitment report\, we plan to exceed that beyond that. \nBut like having a little cushion\, so. \nChange. We still have a little\, you know\, as you know\, different operations happen. \nWe haven’t yet documented a commitment internal\, but. \nThank you. \nOkay. We’ll just move to our online. dB\, members. \nTom\, your hands up! Go ahead! \nHi! Do you have a map of the plaza? \nI just had kind of a overall question. \nJust a moment. \nYeah\, that backup one\, that one. Wait! Wait! I want to just see the whole thing. There. \nThere’s it shows it shows the whole peninsula. \nYeah\, here we go. So my question is probably not a helpful question\, because I’m sure this is not part of your scope. \nBut should there be some consideration for the continuation of the design of the peninsula out to one for a plaza\, very plasit email seems like we’re kind of setting up a precedent here along the south side. \nAnd is there any consideration\, or is there any body that is sort of engaged in thinking about the whole peninsula\, including the rest of it? \nThere are kind of a phase 2. Or when that building has got a tenant\, you know recommendation by this design con merge with what’s further to the east. \nSo yeah\, we think about it all the time. We are deep. \nI don’t think there’s anyone. Well\, we’ll see. \nMaybe there’s someone here more are invested in us and having a successful ferry plaza east. \nWhoever ends up taking over the leasehold\, and we will. \nWe look forward to being great partners\, and yes\, we do think that what we’re doing should extend and interact with that building. \nSome of the things that you heard about today that are driving that include partly the idea of moving the Gandhi statute potentially on site would be drawn a direct line of sight from the primary door that just next to bullet today\, right through the center of the plaza to the front \ndoor of the Pyramid section of Ferry Plaza. \nEast\, also allowing that’s one that’s that’s critically important. \nBut we also think that the placement of the kiosk which we are looking at various opportunities of where it can be to and from is so that it blocks the portion of the building that is\, the park infrastructure and doesn’t block critically the future that will need site lines. \nOkay\, who’s the who’s the lean lord of this whole thing right now? \nI guess I’m just curious who controls that. \nThe port of San Francisco\, the port of San Francisco. \nThe port is the landlord. \nYeah\, I guess the question kind of goes to the port. Then? \nBut I think I understand from standpoint of this applicant. \nThank you. \nThanks. Tom Stefan. \nThank you\, Justintha\, and thanks for all this helpful information tonight. \nMy first question was on regarding to page 33. \nAnd my apologies. If I missed this. But the in this image\, the delineation between the east west path in the plaza. \nSorry if you can go to Number 33\, and packet\, which is the. \nIs the view of the first market plaza. Looking back at the server. \nAre you referring to? Page 33 of the of the. \nI’m looking at the page number in the lower right hand corner. \nThis one is page 28. \nThank you. \nDefine. I think the numbering is the sequence. \nOh\, I see. Sorry I’m looking at that. Yeah\, very pleasant looking north on marketing. \nSorry for the confusion. \nLet’s see\, elevated aerial right\, that you. \nYeah. So I’m there. The drawing shows a red band between the walk and the plaza and I’m sorry if I missed that\, that I was. \nCould you just provide some additional information about that beyond? Is that actually a change in grade? \nIs it a demarcation? If it’s just a materials change. \nThat is an existing curve that is painting painted red because of the fire department requirements. \nOkay. And that’s the condition that it’s in today. \nYes. \nOkay. And then the delineation of the crossbox across this space. \nAre they actually there today? Or is this a proposal to continue to them across the service access? \nThere are 2 delineations there today\, one on center with the south end of the ferry building and one at the promenade. \nUhhuh. \nThere is not a crosswalk today on the foreground of this image\, where there is a ramp. \nOkay? And then my next question has to do with. \nThe. \nProposed canopy structures on the front face of the building. \nI was curious. If you could communicate how? \nTall. Those are intended to be. \nSure. Okay. Lot of customers. So I have the image right there. \nThat’s right. \nDesign to be approximately 15 foot so. But the primary criteria for us coming up with this. \nRight below the water. \nUhhuh. \nBut it is designed to not interfere with the architecture. \nAt about 16 cats. It’s right under there\, and it is tall enough to clear the view. \nOkay\, so type of the structures. \nGreat. Thank you. And then on this same page\, I just there’s couple of things I wanted to make sure I understood the treatment under the arcaded portion of the building. \nI understand that this is outside the public access\, as we sort of look at it. \nBut is the intent that all of that becomes controlled access by restaurants when we see sort of the dashed line or the operable openings on the plan? \nAre we to expect that the that entire logo could potentially be enclosed? \nSo the intent is that I couldn’t quite hear whether you were asking about the arcade or the space. \nThe Cafe Zone in front. \nThe Arcad. It’s. \nYeah. The intent is that the arcade is roughly to restaurants. \nThat the cafe zone in front of it has an area under the well. \nSome of the area under the trellis that would be dedicated outside of market days\, and then would be\, and then there would be additional public seating in various locations. \nOkay. But with regards to the list. Sorry. I’m sorry. \nYes. \nThat regards to the load just based itself\, where you’re showing the glass and the glass and closed spaces. \nYes. \nIs there? Is there any is okay? So none of that space\, understanding that it’s outside of the public access Eement. \nNone of that space where you could pass through today would be allowed in the future. \nIs\, that. \nThat’s that’s correct. I mean\, these are public establishment. \nOkay. \nBut yes\, I think the other thing we did preserve the view. \nCorridor down the front that you get down there. \nOkay. Dude. \nBut that was more of it. Good story! \nGot it. Thank you. And then my last question is related to that\, and just build on what? \nWhat Kristen brought up with regards to the east-west Passage through the central core of the building. \nI just I. It’s not clear from the renderings. \nThis is actually page 40 in the packet title\, Pay front kitchens\, I’m just curious about the the line that shown on the plans that is parallel to the public access email. \nIs that sort of an enclosable partition. A long line is that bar. \nSeating. What\, what\, what is proposed to delineate that space. \nIf anything\, other than a tables in the future. \nYes\, this is Lauda Katrowski. We’re looking at a number of options\, and as. \nSeparating the public promenade from the tenants basis. \nSo what you see in the rendering potentially doors that are similar to Nana walls and something that expands and gets closed in the evening where and we’re looking at various systems that can provide that purpose. \nBut for during the daytime hours it is intended that these opening. \nAnd have connectivity. The main circulation\, the corridor\, the design intent that we’re trying to solve. \nFor here\, if you look at the before picture on the left\, is that the heavy mullions and the glass systems are actually inhibiting the connection with the waterfront when you stand at this place\, which is not only over the water\, but actually quite close to the visibility\, and so the intent here\, is to \ncreate when they’re open to the I mean several open spaces that minimize the amount of surface\, be it glass or heavy mullion\, so that you can stand there at the main cross section within the building and see how close and how connected you are the water. \nThank you for that. And just to clarify the space today at at the back\, at the back is completely open to Kristin’s Point. Correct. \nThe last thing. \nThe the. The transfer does not extend across the back portion of the building today. \nThe Storyfront Module. \nSorry. Do you mean the transcend windows on either side\, on the left\, on the right? \nYeah\, cause the space at the end of the building is actually open right before you go outside to the plaza. \nThat is\, there is one day on. \nAnd so you I think you’re thinking about enclosing that last big and reducing the size potentially reducing the size of that space. \nUnderstanding that it would be a glass or transparent material. \nBut it would be introduced to that last bay. \nOkay. Just I don’t have any other questions. \nBut thank you very much. \nHi! Lotta! I had curiously on the arcade. \nDo you have any additional details on the North Arcade? \nAnd what that system will look like. And then the other question I would have is consistency along the facade. \nBoth the North and the South. Is this something that you’re envisioning across the entirety of the ferry building? \nAnd then a little bit more detail on that pieces. Great question! \nThank you for that. So we are envisioning\, and we’re very much in the early developments of the data. \nBut we’re envisioning this to be a lightweight metal tube system. \nThe size that we’re in. We’re actively working the structure with self. \nI would the\, as I said. You know\, toll structures. \nThe band. If you see their 2 structural members\, horizontal ones that are opportunities. \nIn the future. \nShading devices at the group level of that to provide for. \nIn the comfort control of the heaters for the rainy or not any cold days in San Francisco. \nThat’s about as far as we are the designs. \nIn terms of the North and South. I’m gonna move. \nHere that we are not intending to build out the South. \nBut. \nCan help me answer the question. Understand that the build? \nWhat matter? Yes\, that’s right. That’s under a current lease. \nAnd so with our partner. Food wise\, and that has some change on it. \nBut we’re already talking\, and they’re good tonight. \nWe’ll move on to Catherine. Catherine. \nAny clarifying questions. Yes\, I would like to pick up on the comment or the question asked by Tom Leader regarding the potential future. \nRelationship between one ferry plaza and Third Plaza\, east. \nAt this moment it looks as if beyond drawing there is No Man’s land and since this will be an act of tenant\, it would be nice\, since you are doing the majority of the work\, there will be some desire lines\, some ideas connect the front to the where the hard part\, this is not as much a question as \nan observational lecture chair share. The building is totally dated. \nIt’s looks like an obstruction at the end\, and we have all struggled with this for many\, many years\, asking the same questions and different contexts when we are dealing with the waterfront. \nThere is a technical component which I think is inspired by somewhere underneath that\, and to understand that together with desire lines which come from your project would be\, I think\, conceptually helpful. \nOh\, for the public\, including ourselves\, to understand the overall and overall intensive transformation! \nUltimately you have to vote somebody in to agree with you\, because these people will have realistic expectations. \nHow\, since a restaurant of this size will have to function in an already vari precarious position\, so I would personally like to ask or see conceptual sketches which raise the question that doesn’t mean that you are designing it. \nBut you are to ask questions to them as they are able to ask questions for you\, and sharing them from the get go\, would be very helpful. \nI’d like to leave it with that. That is one demising line I am. \nI would like to see some more ideas. The second question is\, I personally have spent a lot of time. \nDealing with the transcriptation transformation of the waterfront moving in southern direction\, particularly the design of the Vieta Plaza. \nThat took a long\, long time\, and I do personally not see any. \nWe’ll mention in your discussion or in your drawings\, and I’m sure you’ve thought about it. \nI’m not implying that you didn’t how do you deal with that transition? \nThat transition was designed with a lot of intention\, of a smooth flow from the existing building\, and to functions on the east as well as on the west side. \nInto this incredibly important plaza and transportation connections. \nCould you address that\, or have any additional other drawings? \nOf how you thought about it. You’re creating a very\, very highly detailed\, highly refined design approach. \nBut that is a demarcation line\, and together with the fire department\, you have another demarcation line. \nOne has to be there’s the other. One is intentional\, and you choose it. \nCould you please quickly speak to that? Sure we have\, of course\, thought a lot about Wida Plaza and about it. \nElevation\, and also about the microclimate on this side of the building which the sen exposure and felt like the addition of an element that took you from the embarcadero. \nAnd it’s sort of happening with Plaza\, but could be. And you all the way to very Plausa was adding to what was already happening there and building a. \nThat we already see happening now\, but takes a question one step further. \nWhat are your thoughts? I see a very rich material\, palette\, and a very large discussion on the South Promenade\, and the material summary over the years. \nHaving participated in a number of projects in the past. \nI’m not trying to date myself here from Jefferson Street all the way down to the ferry to the cruise terminal\, to the Exploratorium\, and on and on\, also going south. \nSo discussion was almost always stay simple\, hold back\, understate\, but emphasize the connecting character of maritime architecture\, maritime detailing. \nEtc.\, etc. I see a very rich\, very exciting kind of textured suggestion here. \nHow does that reflect on those previous mandates? I think we’re trying to be connecting between things. \nSo we have Wida Plaza\, which is a very\, very luscious palette of granite. \nWe have the existing concrete pavement at the front\, along the embarkidero\, and the ferry plaza\, which is a heavily use space and actually it’s kind of wonderfully\, heavily and you can spill things on it. \nAnd that’s okay. Okay. And we wanted to have a palette that was about texture rather than elevating material. \nIn order to allow that messy life to continue to happen\, I would say\, the pilot that we are proposing is about using using texture rather than using other things way to kind of. \nNumber of things. Mostly our palette is about working in small ways around the edge rather than making big news. \nCan I ask one comment? Are you sure sure that you’re not competing it on a small drawing? \nOne can do very little justice to what is really to be perceived at a significant larger scale. \nIn the drawing. It looks as have you thought about competition? \nI think there is a question about the Graphic\, particularly the wavy\, graphic. \nThat’s sort of representing an artist. Graphic has some question of merit around. \nHow showy should that be the other elements? I feel really confident\, are not competing. \nWe’re building on the existing grid that’s in the ferry plaza. \nWe’re grinding. We’re setting the palette mostly the materials that are already out there. \nIt’s the pavement graphic. That is the kind of unexpected element\, I would say. \nAnd there’s been a lot of talk about it. Should it have color\, should not have color? What should? \nRight now\, it’s really just to make it clear that what happened with pain and there’s play a lot more discussion about it. \nAnd then in terms of the palette for vertical materials\, there’s also been a lot of discussion about how does complement and match that’s already there. \nBut what’s interesting is the palette between things of match. What? \nAnd so been trying to find our own language\, some liberty that our line of late posts\, banners stand out against the yeah. \nJust thought on that side of a way. It is a conversation that. \nColor and material going\, and honestly from at all decided onsite with real materials and a lot of people standing around actually looking at things look different outside and that’s what we hope. \nI appreciate that answer because I do believe it can evolve over time together. \nWhen you find that balance with the existing family of materials and strengths of expression\, I have one comment\, if I may\, Katherine\, just to jump in\, we have a next segment where we are okay\, thank you. \nI will reserve that comfortable\, so we can move on to Laura. \nAlright Laura Kristimano. Thank you for the presentation. \nA couple specific questions. I guess maybe building on the conversation about the light post\, and I appreciate this dance between how much we accept what we see in a rendering and versus what it may be evolving to be. \nI know\, especially in very posa\, quite a few what will look like. \nActually the flash. Can you say\, maybe say anything about how the frequency or the plan for the intent around the number of them? \nYeah\, we’re working our back glass\, though\, and we’re trying to assess\, establishished pathways of light particularly at the edges that are feel comfortable\, particularly if sort of desk hours. \nAnd so there’s a height sort of maximum height that we was comfortable with the bridge. \nThat also worked. \nAround\, 24 feet on. \nAnd then I noticed in the drawings\, but I don’t think it was meant. \nThe loading\, the 9 loading spaces. Can you see to that? \nThere are so many things as you saw in the early permits\, and that happened on this plaza\, and there’s a lot of loading and things that occur today. \nAnd so there are 9 spaces and barriers that occur\, kind of at the edge of the fire lane. \nThat would be preserved in the final. These are existing. \nAnd do you have any images? This might be for a lot of any images when those so our friends are in close. \nDo you have any images? All the images show them open. Do you have any images? \nOf them. Okay. \nThank you. In that particular presentation. \nI’m not sure that they would render in this image much differently. \nIf that makes sense with this level of that\, one may be correct in this one. I think. \nThanks\, Laura. One more question. \nThis may be a question for you\, Dan. Do you know the level of expected traffic for the future potential tech out at the east end of the plaza? \nIs it sort of going to be would it be like vehicle drop off for people coming to and from a restaurant on a regular basis? \nOr is it just more kind of Eva access? \nDownload app with support. The how the restaurant at the east end of Ferry Pier would operate is not yet determined in the past. \nOf course it’s had vehicle access and it may very well happen without vehicle accessing. \nThat’s future\, but it’s not. It’s not set or final. \nSo is the idea around the kind of circulation dedication to enable\, like how much vehicle traffic is sort of being planned for that. \nYeah\, I’m an expert on the deliveries on the back plaza. \nYeah. So the 9 spaces on the back plaza. \nWe worked very closely with the Bcdc. In 2013 to establish the needs not just of the ferry building\, but of very plaza. \nEast Golden Gate very\, and Bart\, as well\, and all of those existing permits with the Bcdc. \nAnd leases with the port do mention particular needs\, you know\, drop offs and delivery. \nSo the compromise was to provide these 9 spaces that not only our tenants and merchants\, but also that the very plaza East Bart\, and Golden Gate very needed. \nAnd I’m actually\, you know\, I’ve been out there a number of times when a car is trying to go down the you know they’re trying to drop off\, and all the pedestrians think it’s a plaza and they’re like\, why\, and so it’s really difficult for \ncars to get through there. So I’m sort of wondering in terms of like how you know how much does that need to look like a driveway? \nSo that people know that it’s okay. If a car drives there versus if it should kind of be more plaza like\, and it doesn’t really need to look like a driveway\, and it can kind of mostly be inhabited by people. \nWell\, it’s definitely required for all of those buildings\, particularly the Bart structure\, and that was something that will\, I think\, always need to be made. \nWe actually probably in the last 6 months\, actually have posted our security at the towards the middle of the driveway\, in order to check people in to make sure they’re supposed to be there\, and they haven’t mistaken it\, you know\, for you know\, place to Park\, or drop off. \nIf they’re not doing something\, you know\, business like at the building. \nSo\, but I do think you know Sarah’s. You know ideas of that. \nYou know the signage and the planters in front with signage that say\, ferry plaza. \nI think it’s very much is messaging. \nThis is not a play\, and this is not a driveway. \nThis is a place. \nOkay. And I just wanna wrap up with a couple of questions. \nColin Jane. I just want to make sure that we have this completely clarified. \nSo that the board discussion stays on track\, but on the Northern colonnades I think I heard you say that the space under the colonnade is not. \nIt’s in your lease\, and it’s not included in the account for public. \nIs that correct? \nYes. Okay. So\, so I just wanna make sure a roll on the same page for that. \nAnd then the second question\, you know\, when you walk along the east. \nWell\, really\, all sides of the you see\, I see quite a variety in the way. \nThe seating and the security tape around the seats to people from wandering through the apple\, seating it. \nThere’s a lot of different approaches at present. Do you have standards\, or a sort of a basic approach that you’re taking\, or would like to take cause. \nI actually think some really don’t look for good\, and others will. \nQuite good. So how are you addressing that? There is standards to being 12 feet from the brick phase? \nYou know there’s standards that we give the tenants\, and one of the beauties of working with all these food artisans is their interpretation of those standards\, and you know\, and sometimes they hit it out of the ballpark. And other times. \nIt’s out of their lease line\, you know. You have to. \nI think\, one of my daily things is going around and putting things in place\, but I think you know\, that is\, you know\, just being more as design concepts progress as people improve their spaces like Hog Island did a big renovation. \n2013\, and they were at we were able to add a more formal barrier around their cafe zone that really enhanced their that experience\, and Glenador 2 has the great\, you know\, windscreen and the built in benches. \nSo you know\, as you know. You see things in renderings and in drawing plans. \nYou hope they come out as as nicely as they hope them to be. \nBut yeah\, I think the idea is to you know\, we work with our tenants very closely to make things better if they don’t come out as we planned\, and I would just add\, as James Co-pilot\, who’s done more tours of this building lately with alongside \nJane\, and sees how often she’s pushing back into their correct location. \nI think you mean having more of the permanent rescue. \nPermanent\, fixed. \nGood. Thing is\, it’s gonna give you a bunch of your week back to not have to tell. \nThe issue is where they have the movable Stan right? \nAnd then it kind of creased\, and sometimes it’s not even the rest of like a somebody’s got. \nOh\, I don’t! I can have more children here. \nI think our long term tenants have figured it out. \nSo there are standards\, but State get interpreted and look just a final question. \nI heard mention from both the designers about light touch to clarify. \nThat is that because of the civic importance of the building\, and we’ve already heard people reference it\, and. \nThe critical. \nWe heard a lot of. \nBut why are you making that like touch? Reference? \nGreat question for that\, I think\, on the we all recognize how important that will landmark. \nI refer to them as White Touch. \nImpact the building. \nTake away from the build. \nIndependent in clearly off today\, contemporary enough to. \nTo not interfere with the. \nStaying away from. \nMaking\, whether it’s the enclosure behind our. \nInsert within the arch\, or use. Stay away from the fabric. \nStructures. \nLayering new\, and that are of their own\, that. \nAn enhancement. \nMaybe I could just landscape architect. Okay\, excellent. \nI think the architecture is more obvious. I think I mean using it in 2. \nOne way is a light touch\, because\, as we’ve heard\, there’s a lot of program that already happened with the farmers market with vehicles. \nLot of people coming and going. And so we need really flexible\, empty space. \nSo we’re not trying to fill. And we’re not trying to reach so I think that’s one\, the meeting\, the other meaning\, I think\, is directly in relation to having read a lot of work about sea level rise. \nAnd things that are likely to happen here\, that there’s a bigger touch coming some infrastructure scale and wanting to kind of right size. \nWhat we’re doing as a way to test circulation. \nReally really usable sort of the near term of sea level rise\, but knowing that there will be. \nSo those are the 2 ways that I’ve been thinking. \nClarification. Okay\, that concludes the questions to clarify the presentation from the Drb. And the Wdac. \nWe’ll move now to public comment. And so we’ll open the meeting to public comment. \nAre there any members of the public attending the meeting in person? \nWho would like to speak\, and you need to notify the board. \nAnd we’ll move to the online. \nBefore we get to the in person comments. I did also wanna say\, Pcdc staff did receive 2 public comment letters that have been forwarded to the board and will be included in the minutes for the meeting. \nThe public comments was submitted from representatives of the Telegraph Hill dwellers and food wise\, the manager of the firm. \nYes\, so that’s very important to recognize both of those we appreciate\, those that quite detailed and. \nThank you so much. \nOkay\, we’ll move to public call. \nGood Evening Commissioners. Port staff project Sponsors. \nMy name is Katherine Patron. I’m here tonight representing San Francisco Architectural heritage. Thank you. \nSo much for the opportunity to comment on this project. I just wanted to give a little clearification about the heritage involvement. \nSo\, couple of weeks ago we had a presentation from the project. \nSponsor we followed up with a letter of our position and a couple of people in the room\, port\, staff and project side have interpreted as a letter of support. \nWe aren’t there yet\, really what it was we issued the letter asking for more clarification on a number of topics that have been discussed in a very interesting and full way. \nThis evening we appreciate that a lot. So it’s not yet a letter of support. \nWe very much look forward to the next conversations and meetings\, and the topics that are of highest priority to San Francisco heritage have to do with public access and public circulation\, and some of the things that we heard about up privateization of might not be the right word \nbut limitation of public space for space\, for people who are also\, we’re really concerned about the balance of uses\, the market hall\, purveyor aspect versus maybe an over abundance of restaurants. \nAnd obviously as a citywide organization\, that really advocates for our city’s historic resources. \nWe’re thinking a lot about the historic value of the ferry building as a historic building. \nAnd really of this special and unique quality that were introduced to reintroduce to the building in 2\,003\, when it became a market hall. \nAnd so we are\, you know\, would like to see that preservation of those characters. \nThank you very much. Thank you. \nGood evening. My name’s Christine Fahren. I’m the executive director for food. \nWise\, well\, formerly\, Quasa\, we’re best known for running the Ferry Plaza farmers\, market. \nWe also run the mission community market and a lot of youth education programs for Sfoc students\, primarily at the ferry building this summer. We’re celebrating our thirtieth year\, and I’ve had the pleasure of working with Jane for food wise for the last 20 years so I have physically \nbeen at the building for 20 years\, and have seen so many changes in those 2 decades of bringing food\, education\, and community and farmers\, markets. \nYou. I’m gonna share something that’s never really not new for any of you. \nWhich is that the market is really this dynamic assemblage of farmers\, food crafters\, chefs\, residents\, and we all come together 3 times a week to really transform this space and turn it into an economic engine community connections. \nIt’s really where the urban and the rule connect and where a lot of climate change solutions take place\, especially in agriculture. \nAnd we consider our job in running the farmers market to be about promoting those changes. \nAnd it’s a huge public community\, and I love seeing at the very building it’s such a gift to work there every day. \nSo I wanna show that we’re largely in support of the concepts. \nBehind the project with our landlord\, Tatson\, and we’ve been in lots and lots of conversations. \nI feel like I’m on a first name with everybody over here at this point. \nWe understand. They want to bring the vitality that we bring 3 days a week already to the ferry building\, and we appreciate that they want to do that. \nAnd I really want this body to carefully consider some of the elements of the projects that are being put forth\, and asked specifically for some more time. \nWe don’t feel that we have enough information to understand the impacts to our market operating. \nI shared it in my written comments. It’s clear that there’s going to be a lot of temporary\, significant\, but temporary changes\, and the impacts relocating sellers. \nThey’ll have to come back once that front North canopy is erected. \nBut we don’t actually know how well the structures going to work for us in the long term we have real needs to understand what the roofing structure\, the ventilation flag\, what the polls\, where they’re going to be placed\, one of the things about farmers marketing everyone thinks they’re \ninfinitely flexible\, but the more fixed structures you have in an element harder it is for us to operate. \nOkay. Thanks. The permanent retail kiosk in the back is our greatest concern\, because the size and the scope and the placement of that is going to significantly. \nOur ability to have a cohesive farmers market with them\, to find more ideal placement. And we also have concerns about the desired proposal for the and when we’re operating it. \nSo there’s a lot of changes\, and that we’re concerned about. \nAnd we just wanted to say that like to have more information\, so that we can assess the permanent. \nWith all of those. If you look at them\, singularly\, we’re totally adaptable. \nWhen you look at them all together and stacks\, it’s not possible for us to have the same number of vendors\, the same robust farmers market that. \nWell\, thank you very much\, and I just want to commend you for your good work. \nThere are many years\, I mean\, what’s your honor? What you? \nYeah\, what you’re in charge of. There is a big distance. \nWe’ll move to online comment. Now\, if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nRemember\, if you are joining our meeting with your phone\, you must use Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment\, to unmute or mute press star 6. \nYou will be called in the order. Your hand was raised\, and you will have 3 min to speak. \nYour Eco. Will note when you have 1 min. Please state your name\, and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. \nIf you would like to add your contact information to to be a future meeting concerning this project\, please call or email. \nAshley do? Oh\, sorry! Here we go! \nWe have 2 hands raised. The first person I have is Alex Bash. \nI like. I’m gonna unmute you\, and you will have 3 min. \nOh\, please state your affiliation\, and you’ll have to. \nAlex\, are you there? \nYes\, I’m here. I have. Unmuted myself\, Alec Bash\, and I’m speaking on behalf of the Gateway Tenants Association. \nWe used to be known as the Golden Gateway\, and are part of the for a redevelopment area log embargo\, golden Gateway redevelopment area right across from the ferry building\, and pier one where the port’s offices are 25 years ago I had \nthe honor of working at the port\, and\, in fact\, one of my projects here was the Rq. \nFor the ferry building\, and I have followed it ever since. \nI continued to participate on the part of the waterfront\, to design advice\, fee. \nThe meeting now known as The. \nMary\, and at the gateway where I now live. We have been very\, very pleased with. \nThe work done under Jane Connors and the owners. \nOf the Sherry building actions before very important to us to see how the very building has cope with all of the difficulties caused by Covid over the past 3 years\, and how will they work to keep tenants there? \nAnd the continued effort to revitalize the ferry building in ways that will keep up with what the demands that are are being placed on it. \nAs the economy of the city have shifted in these past. \nVery strange and tumultuous years\, so well\, we aren’t really prepared to speak to some of the historical qualities that have been talked about here. \nWe do appreciate. I appreciate the concept of having a light touch and understand the importance of it. \nI think that the more openness that is possible within the more public areas of the trade building\, not public access\, but the more public areas\, the more openness that can be continued. \nJust letting you know you have one more minute left. \nThank you very much\, Steve\, more openly. That will be continued\, is very important. \nAt the same time\, it’s important for these patients. So we use under various conditions\, including increment weather. \nAnd I’m sure that the Port and Bcdc. \nStaff are looking at all of those aspects overall\, though I just want to say that those of us living in the area at the gateway apartments we have 1\,254 apartments and town homes. \nThere are very supportive of what has happened here\, and and appreciate the efforts that you\, as designers\, are putting in. \nTo be sure that this is as good of a revitalization as possible\, that. \nThank you. \nThe next speaker is Robert Howard. Robert\, your audio is unmuted\, and please state your affiliation\, and you have 3 min to speak. \nOkay. Can you hear me now? \nCan you hear me? \nOkay. My name is Bob Harr\, and I’m a member of the Board of the Barbara Coast neighborhood is\, and I’ve visited the ferry building many times over the years\, and I’ve always enjoyed my experience. \nI think it’s a real asset to to the city\, and I’m familiar with the the improvements here that the that Hudson is proposing\, and I think that the the improvements do offer the opportunity to expand the Usable space and give you know more \ncomfort to our customers\, to their customers. That would potentially expand the appeal. \nI’m not an architect\, so I’m not that converient in the the historically significant structures and and everything that is associated with the history of this fine building. \nBut I do believe that the the what the proposal has done has been been a light touch\, and I think it’s been very targeted in what they’re trying to to accomplish\, I think it’s appropriate that the large signage at the South end has been recessed appropriately \nso it doesn’t attract from from the appearance right at the at the front of the building\, a bordering on the embarcadero. \nSo in summary. I believe that this project concept does have merit\, and deserves to be moved along\, you know\, with\, obviously\, there’s gonna be some more discussions about details and architectural issues that I’m not conversing in. \nBut again I do believe that this project should hopefully be able to move forward. \nI also think it’s important to note that the city is facing many changes right now with the from the pandemic and all the adjustments that have been occurring since then. \nAna\, and I note that there are 2 other waterfront attractions that are in the that have been proposed for Pierce 30\, 32\, and piers 38\, and 4\, and so I do support from the standpoint of fairness that the ferry building should be able to improve upon its site so \nYeah. One more minute. \nit can broaden its appeal so that they can broaden\, it can broaden its appeal to the wide range of potential customers that they deal with\, and can better compete with other waterfront activities in the future. \nThank you. \nChair. We have no more hands. Okay\, thanks\, very much. \nAppreciate everyone’s public comment before we move to the board. \nDiscussion and advice. I’d like to proposed a 7 min break. \nThis is a very precisely timed break that everyone needs to reserve my watch of my clock iphone for 17. \nIt’s 7\, 17. We will restart because we have lots of people online as well. \nJust to give time for people to run to the bathroom or pick up something and come back\, and then we will start the board discussion. \nOkay. Thank you. \nOkay. We’ll reconvene now\, and I appreciate everyone being very prompt about getting back and thank you for your patience. \nEveryone who’s online. So we’ll reconvene now with our next item item on the agenda is the board discussion and advice. Part of the meeting. \nAnd I just want to remind everyone who is here. This is the point in the meeting where the committee and the Drb. \nHave an opportunity to discuss between us what we think. So the committee and the Board do not ask questions to the proponents. \nWe have had plenty of time to ask clarifying questions. \nIt’s really a time for us to reflect and and ribal out votes and reactions to the presentation. \nA public comment. But we. \nSo I just wanna run through before we start a reminder on the questions that the Drb. \nAsked\, and also the questions that the port has asked us to consider I’m not gonna read them verbatim\, but just a reminder. \nStaff at the at the Bcdc. Have asked us to consider how public the spaces feel\, and that’s a somewhat subjective question. \nBut that’s really fundamental to our role. To make sure that the short. \nNumber of people to also think about connectivity. Are we enhancing sufficient? \nEnhancing connectivity along the shoreline question about the enclosure of the private dining areas on the promenade and the kitchens. \nHey? Prank kitchens is that activating? \nAnd any thoughts on\, whether\, in closing it\, it makes\, and then alterations to the fairy plaza. \nCan we get varied programming there? Thoughts on improvements proposed for the Fairy Plaza? \nAre they going to attract? \nLike a days\, other thoughts on that as well would be welcome. \nThe question. 6. Address. Details about the programming of the perimeter easement. \nActivation zone in the South Promenade. Any conflicts or other thoughts on that. \nAnd any other general additional good enhance public account. Again\, coming to the core of what’s. \nFrom the port also asked the committee. \nSo the following\, the collection of improvements\, they’re aggregated together. \nJust how does that total picture really? \nCultural and the building. Dan also asked the committee to think about access. \nOf access. The proposals\, and then again\, just a specific questioning\, you know what the committee’s view is. \nThe improvements and. \nSo we have lots of questions that have been posed by the staff at both the port and the and the Bcdc. \nSo we should take that as we have our discussion but we’re not going to go through question by question laborious ly\, because we have a lot of people here who need to comment. \nBut what we will do what I would like to ask each member member of the committee member of the Board to do is to speak to the particular aspects of any of these questions that really resonate with them. \nAnd would\, you know\, make them want to talk about that? Are of highest concern to them? \nWe have a lot of experts on the panel and online. \nAnd so I’m sure there will be a number of issues. \nThat are covered by one person. We don’t need to reiterate them and talk about them again and again and again. \nLet’s make sure that we get the maximum value at. \nStaff\, and for the so I’m going to do this in reverse order\, and we’re going to start with the Wdac. \nAnd we’ll start with Laura\, who’s at the far end of the table. \nSo Laura fortunately gets to lead off. Over to you\, Laura. \nThank you. Okay. So though it as part I will just I mean I think I’ll touch on a couple of things broadly and in weighing this one\, as it’s been noted right\, this is very important building and site and experience of San Francisco. \nAnd I think what we’re looking at is the experience of the public and the experience of history. \nHere\, and the waterfront at this site. And so you heard a lot of questions to that end. \nI would say that I have questions about the new enclosures. \nI recognize that there are\, you know\, I think there are boundaries of the least control\, and that you know\, that would have been helpful to have a little bit more clarity. \nI think diagrammatically for\, but I also see that there are some that are going into. \nLet’s see the yeah into the promenade near the ferry plaza. \nAnd so just quiteing really what those trails are that we’re making and what that experience. \nNot just. It’s both of the building where we’re adding these new skin elements and experience of the continuity of the public realm. \nAnd the gesture towards not the non dedicated public space. \nSo I would just kind of flag that as one a big one that I think we are all kind of asking questions around\, and then the other\, I would say\, for for the public space improvements. \nIt does. I understand that this is a kind of strategic\, tactical. \nProject. I do have questions about what ties it together\, and I appreciate the desire to kind of make a bolder move in that pathway\, and I think you already had said this\, Sarah\, but I’m like the drawing don’t get me there yet. \nI doesn’t mean it can’t work\, but I do think I would wanna see on a lot of this I would say I would wanna see the it get to a level of refinement to be able to assess how to Catherine’s point that’s not competing or feeling out of place \nin this context and working together with the other elements. Maybe I’ll start off with those 2 comments and let us keep moving through the conversation. \nLaura. That’s a really good approach\, and we can. We are into dialogue. \nMake their initial. Let’s go to Katherine. \nI don’t know any more where the division between question or observation is. \nSo I’m gonna be asking hypothetical question. \nOne\, and comments. I think the issue of continuity\, transition\, and connectivity extremely important in all aspects of the building. \nThe Ambuladoro side\, north\, south\, as well as east side. \nThat wes the question of equity\, of reassignning\, or we are using space for the different users from farmers\, markets to the public. \nThe reduction in public space per se is of concern\, and requires a single met in order to really create a balance of give and take that at this moment it’s not clear. \nWe? I asked questions about the materiality and details. \nWe\, I think\, got a satisfactory answer. That that would be discussed as we move on. \nSo I’m comfortable with that. There are many good moves. \nUltimately there is so much to think about that I believe we just need to cook together\, spend more time. \nWe’re jumping into this discussion after 3 years of no confusion. \nWhatsoever. And I think we just all have to get used again to rolling up our sleeves and respectfully asking you to other questions and supporting each other in a common goal. \nLet’s go through my comments. Thank you\, Katherine. \nThat’s extremely hard. \nThe. \nSo I’ll hit on kind of 2 points from my and both as kind of user\, I commute using the ferry every day really resonate with a lot of what Carl has to say about getting more activation with the ferry building and with the plaza and with you know\, basically. \nthe kind of post Covid recovery\, and how you basically bring the ferry building. \nOr how do you bring the ferry building back into 2023? \nRealistically right\, like the last intervention that basically turned it into the Festival Market Hall. \nIt’s basically you’re trying to basically evolve. \nYou know the market hall into what? What it needs to be. \nSo I actually really do appreciate a lot of the moves that you’re making. \nI will be very overt and direct\, and say the bold color choices\, which are very helpful for a graphic on the presentation most definitely need to be studied. \nFurther in general\, I will say with our historic landmarks in particular\, with things like signage\, and it should be the building itself. \nThat is the highlight\, not the signage. I know\, which is kind of inverse to what most users want but when you’re dealing with kind of our\, you know\, utmost landmark in the city you know the kind of pinnacle of what is San Francisco you don’t want things \nthat distract from it and so there’s always a balance that I think gets struck between that and that way. \nWe are\, we are able to deal with that kind of component. \nBut I do think realistically think the moves are moving in the right direction. \nI think it’s in the details\, really\, where we will need to. \nKind of\, you know\, move in to see how\, for example\, some of the glazing systems work with the arcades. \nYou know how some of the way finding and signage work with the larger building and so it’s kind of like hitting upon a little bit of what you know\, my colleagues have kind of already stated. \nI think it’s actually going where it needs to go to kind of continue evolving and continue adjusting to quite frankly what is retail today. \nRight? What new retail needs to be you know. And these are a lot of questions that I’ll say that we’re tackling throughout the city period. \nSo it is one of these things that’s nice to. \nA set of evolution. \nOkay. I think we’ll go to our 2 online members. \nDiabi\, next Stefan. I’m going to go to you next. \nIf you’re ready to comment from a discussion standpoint. \nYeah\, no\, thank you. And I’m gonna try to sort of build on sort of what others have said. \nI think one of the things that I’m struggling with is that the the building? \nItself is just very public\, even though the delineation of where the public access is is clear\, and there are sort of a lot of spaces inside the building that are\, I would say\, not 100% public nor 100% private. \nThere’s sort of a liminal space\, and many parts of the building that actually in my mind relate to how people are actually intended to move through the building and the permeability that you have in that the spaces that receive people are bigger at the edges and they sort of channel people into a \nnarrower passages that did kid get bigger\, as you sort of connect back out to the street. \nAnd I think one of the key things to note here which I think is a concern for me. \nIs that the portico is on the front of the building. \nActually\, right now\, allow. The pedestrian to pass through the building\, and then pass through the portico’s before they go back to into the city\, or vice versa\, that you can filter through the portico’s and then go into find your way into the center core of the space and make your way through \nthe building\, and that filtering in this proposal would be lost. \nSo that everybody would channel through the middle entrance\, and that entrance would be right in that the leftover space\, or sort of the space that’s not 100% public work 100% private today it sort of gets transformed into more of a retail oriented corridor and \nso if we sort of took the public space access to this\, where we say\, Hey\, this building has been basically placed inside the shorter line behind\, where you know it. \nIt was placed in the shoreline band before there was a shoreline band. \nI think that we need to sort of think really carefully about how we think about public access through the ground plane of the building. \nIn this location\, and I’m concerned about sort of that. \nThere’s a like a channeling that’s occurring where the access through the building. \nSure\, it gets us to the very building but it’s sole purpose is actually for us to actually pass through retail spaces\, and that is something I think I’m struggling with\, cause. \nThe civic nature of building. I think it actually would be significantly altered by this proposal\, and I can’t speak on the intention of why this building was designed in the way it was\, but I see it a change in the part that I think is it’s it’s concerning from the lens \nof public access\, that I think we should be. \nWe we should alert. We’d be alerted to that. \nAnd then I think just in that theme it was really helpful to hear food wise\, because I think that the farmers market is really is a lens through which the public\, the greater public\, can access continue to access. \nThis site in a way that they’ve managed to not be priced out of the process of this sort of revitalization of this building. \nAnd so I would say that the issues that have that the farmers market has raised about the design changes\, challenging the flexibility or potential function of the farmer’s market\, either in particular locations or across the site in total I think in my mind that raises an issue for us for \nme because the preservation of this space\, as they a space that is really maximum accessible to the public\, I see that\, linked with the farmers market use in some ways. \nAnd so that’s sort of a concern to me. \nThe last thing I sort of want to raise\, which I think is sort of just an issue and sort of an interesting thing is that you know the hard\, scaped presence of the plaza today\, I’m curious. \nIf we should actually question any of that like\, if there’s sort of a layer of greening that could occur through public space and improvements\, that or that we should at least sort of be asking ourselves about Hi\, I did this nature sort of remaining understated being in \ndeference to the building\, I think is is really is really useful\, but that I’m just wondering if there isn’t more space for greening in this environment as a way to make this space actually more livable and hospitable for people to linger in times when there isn’t \nan active programmed use in the space. So that’s I’m gonna end with that sort of question. \nTo my add to my phone on board members. \nSit Stefan. Thank you. That’s very helpful\, and I just want to quickly clarify something on the second point you made about the farmers market. \nCan you just let’s say again\, are you concerned that the farmers market privatizes the space? \nI might have missed her. \nNo. Yeah. I think that the farmers market is a lens through which we can maximize public access to the site. \nIf that’s clear in a way that the way that the businesses function inside the farmer’s market is not is not so opening and welcoming to the public. \nThat the farmers market\, I think\, is from the standpoint of equity. \nIn the same point of that everybody is allowed to go regardless of whether you can afford to buy something\, and that the space is actually sort of presented in that way. \nI think it’s something very valuable. I don’t. \nIt’s having this barber’s market anymore. \nBut I go to the Civic Center Farmers market\, and I think that’s you can see that in play that the sort of maximum use of the public space and the farmers market\, those 2 things are intertwined in my mind because it is sort of an equitable opportunity for everybody to \nparticipate. And so I would say that it’s important for us to try to make sure that we’re not potentially making changes to the space that would hinder the operation of the successful farmers market in this location. \nYeah\, okay\, that’s good. Thanks for clarifying that. Hey? \nJacinda. Can I ask a question? Or\, okay? So I think the to me\, I think the big thing. \nI think we are missing as I shall say in the presentation\, is a little bit of cognition on what the existing space is right like\, particularly as we’re looking at the portico’s and looking at the activity of it\, like you know\, that’s the frame of reference that I’m kind of \nmissing in. Okay\, how does the farmer’s market layouts today? \nHow does farmers market layout in the future? And that way? \nSo that way you can kind of give the board a point of comparison between the 2. You know. \nHow does the portico function? Like? As I understand\, it’s a lot of service spaces so it doesn’t actually have a ton of activation within it\, because there’s nothing in there to engage the public within it. \nYou know? What is it that you want to move forward for the future? \nAnd then that might give a better frame of reference. As we’re kind of exploring a lot of the other comments regarding this\, because\, like\, I’ll say this\, I go to the site every day and night. \nRed Bay is on my jam to go and grab my coffee\, and it’s it’s wonderful\, but you get a sense of this of like\, what’s the site like at 8 am. \nWhat’s the site like? At 5 Pm. What’s the site like? \nAt noon\, and you know\, and that way then you can see what transformation is with regard to the project that you have. \nThat’s very helpful. Look. We’ll keep moving\, Tom\, over to you\, please. \nSo your thoughts for the. \nThanks\, 3 areas of of thoughts. The first one goes back to my previous question. \nI\, honestly\, I really think it’s incumbent on the port not to let 2 different unrelated projects occur on this peninsula. \nI think that there’s gotta be strategies contained within this project that can served to organize the rest of the Peninsula in some way\, and it’s not like it’s gotta be every single thing. \nIt’s like one giant. But the guy beside the links\, something that makes them feel like one place\, one public place publicly linked. \nSecond\, I think I feel like on the building that there are to be ground rules and to me one of those is that you can’t. \nI don’t think you can glass it or cades. \nI think those are are intended\, and function as an area which is between outside and inside\, and strategies. \nThere should have to do with the modifying the climate to make usable and friendly\, and and I definitely loved all the cleaning out of the carbuncles that have been proposed. \nBut I don’t agree with making it and close so that it wouldn’t feel really like a I worry about the privatization sense of that\, and there’s no nothing to kind of receives. \nYou part with the building the way it is now and then. \nThe third thing is\, I was struck by the diagram that was presented that showed the current access axis of the building with the lining up on the\, you know\, from the Market street all the way into the entry to the bill\, and then another access which is being developed now which runs along the side \nand leads people back to the very plus. I think it’s important thing to to acknowledge and to accept that. \nThat’s important. And in accepting that\, I think that there’s got to be some strength to it\, and so that leads me to have a few questions about the light touch. \nAnd I understand why the light touch is the is the idea\, because nothing wants to compete necessarily with the building itself. \nBut I think if you support\, if you kind of accept the this second access there may be\, ought to be a little bit more substance to what structures that access that that means of moving from front to back\, and I think the very components that we’re proposed are all good now I think that the \ncornersstone piece\, the sign at the back\, the promenade\, the Graphic promenade\, and then the treatment of of the plus self. \nOr all the right things to be looking at\, but I would differ a little bit on some of the expression of them. \nThe cornerstone. I wish\, was not planters. I wish it was something more substantial. \nMaybe you should. Maybe the course don’t should be made of stone\, or else not be there. \nBut I think if it’s gonna be a kind of a entry point\, then it should have the substance that isn’t in keeping with the mass and subance of of the. \nBuilding itself\, then also what leads from front to back\, I think there’s too much reliance on the graphic pattern on the ground\, and I think the patterns I mean\, I understand it’s just a surfing suggestion right now. \nBut it’s too elaborate. It feels unrelated to to the context\, and I think that the pattern could be simplified. \nBut I would like to see something done almost vertically. \nMaybe a series of landscapes with more substance than the yellow polls without banners\, something that kind of engages civic sense of architecture\, that leads along this new access from the front to the back. \nMaybe that’s on the Plaza side. Maybe it’s getting too close to third. \nMaybe it oughta be on on the south side and replace or inter interspersed with some of those existing flights. \nSomething that is got a that kind of a more substantial kind of lantern\, and if it was in this self position he could also run all the way the length of the pince all the way to the east Ferry Plaza insert to unite the whole project and then the last thing is \njust on that paving treatments. I think that\, like I was saying\, I feel like the elaborate\, elaborate nature of the promenade is too much. \nAnd then the on the very pause itself is not quite enough. \nI think the very plaza needs a little denser field\, you know\, looking in the rendering\, I I don’t see that it’s going to read enough as a as a clear sort of a field. \nI wish it had more frequency\, more density to the field. \nUsing this idea of just grinding\, existing\, concrete. \nIf that’s what it needs to be. Stain could also be subtly introduced to\, whether it’s color or without color to help Chief semis\, graphic character and something similar. \nMaybe a more intense version of that along the promenade uses grinding and stain would be more permanent. \nI worry about the paint on concrete that you know. \nAfter a couple of years it’ll be ground down a lot to be\, you know. \nRedone\, so often. That’d be kind of falls away. \nBut I do support all the basic planning and strategy that was put forward on the landscape design approach. \nThanks. \nYeah. Thank you\, Tom. Lot of good things to speak up on that. \nGary\, let’s go to you. \nThanks\, so many great things here that folks are talking about. \nI wanna make sure I don’t repeat anything. Well\, first of all\, I mean the ferry building\, you know\, holds such a special place in all of our hearts\, and I appreciate the stewardship that you’re bringing to it. \nAnd clearly\, it’s very important to all of you that this maintains a an important civic asset. \nAnd I actually went there after I got engaged to celebrate. \nI was just there for day lunch\, whatever\, right before this. \nSo it’s\, you know. It’s it’s it’s a favorite place for most people in San Francisco\, and visitors. \nI just wanted to say that I think we it seems like the purpose of these changes is to make it more feasible to continue these retail operations\, and it seems like there’s a kind of intentional shift from a market hall idea towards a kind of a more restaurant idea. \nAnd I think if that would work better if you’re seeing that the market Hall idea isn’t working\, and that the restaurant idea would work better from kind of a tenant perspective\, I think that’s important for us to know. \nBut I also think that it’s not really functioning. \nVery well as a market hall right now. I mean\, there’s a lot of there’s some booths\, you know. \nThere’s some kind of there’s a lot of individual vendors\, but there’s not a lot of public seating\, and most market halls are around the world are kind of a lot of booths around a whole bunch of public seating. \nAnd so it’s difficult right now\, when you go there to buy something\, eat\, to actually find a place\, to sit down to eat it. \nAnd so what\, I wonder\, is\, there could be a little bit more in the in the kind of the way you present these ideas to us. \nSome more clarity around the kind of the public and the private seating areas and I’m wondering if things like on the West Side\, you know\, there’s right now there’s these kind of gardens that spell out of Gods. \nAnd I guess\, what is it? Wine merchant? Now? \nAnd those are clearly private\, because they have the kind of rails around them. \nAnd I wonder if there’s\, you know\, a chance for this seating that you’re showing in that kind of nook there to be public seating instead of privatized seating. \nAnd there’s also a sort of an aesthetic quality. \nThere’s a sort of what is the aesthetic of a civic building\, or this kind of cultural building. \nAnd I think what we love about the ferry building is this kind of gravitas of the arches and the stone\, and and there’s also sort of a fun thing about the ferry building\, which is that there is this kind of like you know the each individual vendor has their own \nexpression they have their own chairs\, they get to kind of brand their own experience within the framework of these stone arches\, right? \nThat there’s there’s a sort of a playfulness to that\, and maybe there needs to be a little bit more clarity around. \nWhat are the public and permanent elements that have a little bit more restraint? \nGravitas scale\, and then the kind of private elements that can be kind of lighter weight and more kind of fun and colorful. \nSo\, for example\, you think of like the Tuary’s garden right in Paris. \nYou know that those chairs are public chairs because they’re all the same. \nThey’re real heavy\, you know. They are always there\, and they’re branded\, you know. \nThey have a little thing on them to say they’re from the garden\, and I’m wondering if there could be more clarity around this kind of public seating\, and to that to that same point\, you know\, the lighting these poles\, these yellow poles and the kind of graphic on the ground I think you’re hearing a \nlot of kind of\, you know\, response to that. And I think for me\, it’s about a civic\, ness civic architecture\, civic landscape design that has a little bit more gravitas and restraint\, and the playfulness gets to be kind of the realm of the inserted \ntemporary things\, but the permanent things have this regime\, and then just one more thing on the Eva access\, or the driveway\, or whatever it is\, I think you know\, it would be really helpful to understand how much that needs to function as a driveway because driveways\, you know exist we need to be \nable to get cars into places sometimes\, and they should be able to get in there when they need to. \nAnd if we can\, I know there’s like\, you know\, 20 foot. \nWhatever you have to do for your fire\, access\, but I don’t think that whole width needs to be always\, you know\, really make it clear what is the in and out part of the driveway\, and then make and let the rest be plaza and pestrian\, if you want it to be a \ndriveway so that it can function in that way\, and I think we would all agree there’s plenty of space here for pedestrians\, and sometimes having a little bit more clarity between. \nWhere do the vehicles go\, and where do the pedestrians and bikes go? \nCan be really helpful for people to just kind of understand when there’s a lot of heavy foot traffic. \nYou know what are kind of the ground rules here\, and I think. \nThe I guess the last comment I’ll make\, and I would defer to the historic folks on this. \nBut on the front I caught the front of the building. I don’t know if everybody thinks of it that way\, but Embarcadero side of the building. \nWe have this kind of you know this\, these distant views right across from Market Street you have these distant views\, and there is a kind of an importance to that facade\, I think\, and the depth of the facade that you can see from behind the arcade\, and seeing that there’s sort of \nthis layer\, which conveys a sort of a passage through the building\, and sort of a gravitas of that facade on the backside or the water side\, which maybe we should think of as the front side\, because it’s the water side. \nBut that’s fine. That is the more modern side. There’s a lot more intervention there\, so that I’m not as bothered by those kinds of interventions on that side to make it a lot more functional for restaurants chosen not to go there for dinner because it was cold and there \nwas no place to sit that felt warm. So the I just that’s one dimension that I think should be considered. \nAnd then I guess the last point is\, I would think it would be a loss if there was. \nLess indoor. That was public for public use. \nYou know these areas that you can get your food and then eat somewhere inside and be warm. \nNot just outside. So I think\, understanding how the balance of those spaces would pan out would be an important component of public access. \nOkay. Thanks. Kristen. Gary\, okay. Yeah. \nI think there’s probably nobody here who doesn’t understand and support the idea that for our preservation goes hand in hand with reinvigoration\, that you know\, we all want to see it activated. \nGreatest hope is that it remains a place for San Francisco as well as for tourists\, and I believe that farmers market really is the heart and soul of the farmers. Market. \nFrom. You know the locals\, even though. But locals also patronize restaurants and it’s a place where tourists and San Francisco are on an equal footing\, and I think that’s a really wonderful thing. \nI hope use that. I wanna talk about the canopies for a moment. \nI think that what’s shown the architects intent it’s very encouraging\, you know. \nThey’re very light. They’re open\, very transparent\, and it implies a kind of mixing of public and private in those areas to capture. \nFor\, you know\, restaurant seating and my observation\, though\, and I think you’ve acknowledged a little bit that once the lease\, begins. You know the leaseholder kind of takes possession spaces\, and there’s creep you know visiting got got \nyesterday\, just walking by. I also how there are these large steel bollards that are bolted to the pavement\, and there’s horizontal steel bars and there’s a sign that says\, you know\, basically God’s only customers. \nOr something like that. There’s also recycling containers which are blanking\, you know. \nEntry on the north to the waterfront. Actually both sides there\, which is not\, which gives the impression of you know I think it incurred. \nYou know\, it’s gives this idea of privatization of the you know\, of the the key areas. \nWhile you know\, the public area seem to be\, or maybe kind of like desirable. \nI hope what’s not happening is that the public areas get pushed to the back off the embarcadero. \nAnd you know\, to the cold side and that warm side facing the city where everybody wants to be for people watching\, because that’s probably the greatest activity of all\, the biggest draw of all people watching that becomes a paid activity for\, you know\, for tourists and high end. \nSo that kind of brings me to the point about the farmers. Market. \nI think it was said earlier that we didn’t have a diagram showing where the farmers market is today\, and square footage. \nIt’s occupying\, and in the renders the farmers market is kind of shoehorned into the triangular area. \nYou know that on the south of the building\, and but it’s it’s also a little bit shadyier than I think. \nThe other. I think it does pick up some building shade\, and I just wonder how that’s going to work. \nI know that you’ve shown\, you know\, market stalls everywhere\, hundreds of them. \nIt seems like all over. So I was a little unclear as to where that\, you know\, the farmer’s market really ends\, you know. At the end of the day. \nAs far as the site. Landscape improvements\, I think really want a second what I’ve heard earlier\, I think that’s a the tall lights\, I mean. \nI was thinking\, like you need a marker to draw people to the rear of the site. \nAnd yet lights. I don’t know if it’s so much of a nighttime place that the lights are really functioning. \nOkay\, well\, they’re really about the 10 years and the banners and I don’t want it to feel like\, you know\, like more tourist waterfront. \nYou know. We know. \nThat was\, and I think that the the polls are. \nI think if we think about the site improvement elements as framing devices rather than as objects\, they seem to tall\, and if they stayed low\, like what Tom was saying\, lanterns\, then they become a framing element for the bay bridge you know a foreground for clash. \nThe the Graphic on the ground. I’m just not concerned about it all\, because I think it’s temporary. \nI think it’s. It’s a test. I think it’s you can test urban design ideas with with graphics and signage\, very low risk. \nBut I think it’s really the verticals and the fixed elements that we should\, you know\, focus on. \nOkay\, zeroing in here. Almost done. Yeah. The arcades definitely. \nThe combining element. I think the glass partitions. If they’re done beautifully\, it could be wonderful. But there are they going to be. \nAre there going to be tracks on the ground? The feel like threshold\, so that you’re? \nI vote for Gandhi at the end of the pier. \nOkay. Thanks. Thanks. Gary. Well\, comments. \nAs an engineer\, I feel a little out of place in terms. \nReece. I’m not clear on the effect on movements. \nThat the Bay front kitchen. \nArcade\, enclosures. \nCanopy have? \nPart of what other people are saying. \nWell! \nAnd look\, and I just want to make a few comments. \nSo I’m try not to echo what other been a lot of 1 0 in on that? \nImportance. \nAnd I think one of the things I’d like to see. \nThe. \nPermanent public\, but in close outside and potentially inside or. \nWhere that and I know there was. There were quantities. Describe. \nHas more than. \nYou know I don’t mean to that the issues\, but you know\, when the. \nBe plenty of spaces for people. \nI just don’t think the balance is\, or it may be there\, but I’m not. \nAnd it applies equally. \nHuman comfort\, very important. \nAnd somebody brought up. You know the my! \nThe so\, you know. \nUp. I think I would like to understand little more about the how the contextual. \nAnd and look you made. \nI think\, even in relation to. \nThat the you know there are cues from the weed upon. \nPart of the. \nQuite correctly used to be water. Now it’s a plaza\, all granite. \nBut you know the other aspects of that\, but might actually be a code. \nI’m thinking of. I would love to see ways in which places. \nBut they’re all part of one. \nThat choices! \nI would echo what others said about the signage. I think. \nWith a a landmark building\, signages of. \nVery thoughtfully done\, and I think what you made when you were presenting about the. \nYou know. I think. \nThat all the. \nWorth thinking! \nAnd that’s in the. \nI I’m not convinced about the kiosk. \nMore of the. \nA comment. Talk about this. \nPublic access. \nI think there needs to be. \nStrategy. \nAnd it could be a really. \nBut I think everyone has. \nThe you know the comments. What about? Well\, I’m going to say safety. \nGoing to happen in the middle of the night. \nBut I I think that just providing. \nHow people. \nThere are many other great comments. \nSort of make a comment about the statue of. And you know\, historically\, it’s another element with very interesting here. \nAnd I just like I’m not convinced any of those. \nThe location on the weed\, applause. \nChair. Okay. \nSo I’m not even sure. \nPerfect\, and I think you know. \nMight be another way to present where it occupies small footprint\, but doesn’t mean. \nAt\, the. \nIf we? \nThere is a. \nAnd I know it’s not good. I’ve always been concerned about the interface with the Golden Gate\, and it’s such a drawback that space and I know it’s not under your control. \nBut I feel like this is part of the process. I know you have a dialogue with everybody\, but I mean even repositioning that statue. \nYou know the I mean\, there are just some very unattractive. \nYou know\, maybe just. \nMaybe there’s a simple fix\, a little bit more dialogue with your friends. It’s called\, and fury terminal\, and it might actually enhance the always felt that it it really diminishes. \nSomething that might help. I think the work that’s being done at the moment for a lot of. \nI really think it’s. \nStrongly permanent. \nUtilizing some higher quality. \nYou know\, just using this as a. \nEnhance the. \nIt doesn’t all have to be. \nIt works great in many ways. I just think that. \nI have a very. \nYou know the Graphic on the road with her different points. \nWould come down on the. \nYeah\, place. Like\, required access. \nI don’t know. \nOn that I get. Why? \nI don’t know. Or maybe there’s another. \nSo! \nSo just want to circle back. We’ve heard a lot from a lot of great comments from. \nHaving Hood. Whatever you anyone weigh in again\, build on something been said. That’s very critical. \nSo about the pavement. \nOkay. \nSo I don’t know. I just slide. \nThat already exist. That’s another way of emphasizing. \nPoint\, but they are accused of. \nCan I say one thing while we’re on the table? \nI don’t know if others notice\, but the you know the wavy pattern of the there are certain views that are shown where you can tell the. \nSo I mean\, Job is not. Our job is just. \nOkay\, so look. \nA long table here for those who are not in. Does anyone else wanna make a final comment? \nJust to address some of what was in our packet. \nWe did review the page in General Memo and I actually think it’s on the right track in terms of compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. \nAnalysis was thoughtful\, but again doubles in the details. \nAt the end of the day. With regard to how some of the features kind of work with the existing historic building\, how you keep it light\, and how you keep it transparent. \nI do think the moves towards making sure that they will access down the promenade. \nI mean in the arcades are really important\, just in terms of\, you know\, keeping that. \nWhat’s historic and what’s important about. \nJust said\, just since I. \nOkay. Anything. Else. \nSomewhere else. Okay\, I’m just gonna make a short summary. \nIt’s going to leave out things that are okay. \nJacinda. I think Stephan had his hand raised. Oh\, sorry\, Stefan. \nSorry go ahead. \nOh\, thanks! I just wanted to just raise one last thing about the lighting\, and because the the sort of path of gold I’ll say datum\, that’s established on Market Street\, you know it does wrap around justin Herman Plaza and then it extends along the \nembarkadero to the north and south\, and it’s pretty civic\, you know\, and I’m wondering if something within that family of lighting should actually extend to the back of the ferry building\, or if there’s an opportunity to sort of think about the civic nature of the \nlighting on the city side of all this stuff and extend this sort of the back of the plaza. \nAnd I just I was sort of think it’s sort of something to consider\, because it doesn’t seem right to go with the a historic fixture in this location. \nBut the the visual data that’s established is really strong. \nComing all the way down market and wrapping around that space\, and I know that the designers of Justin Hermann that was sort of an intentional act to extend that horizontally. \nAnd so I think that I’m just something to consider when thinking about bringing a light standard behind the building and making that a contiguous public space. \nIt’s an excellent point\, Stefan. Thank you. \nOkay. Look\, I’m going to\, just to a very short summary. \nIt’s not a complete summary\, and staff have taken notes and. \nTry and draw out some of the. \nSo I think you know several comments have spoken to\, you know\, greater clarity\, just delineation of. \nA clear picture. What the trade offs are\, what the experience will be. \nAnd then\, you know\, space improvements\, you know\, just even though the work that’s being proposed is right. \nIt’s very tactical\, but making. \nQuestions about comments. I think. \nUnderstand more about everything\, from the the farmers market through to transition spaces through the interior public. \nAnd again metric. \nYou know there was the comments\, lots of comments about the materials. \nNo some refinement taking into the history sorry context\, or refinement\, taking in. \nAreas\, everything. \nI think everyone felt that this\, you know\, a lot of aspects are moving in the right direction. \nMore details needed to really understand\, to work\, get some different opinions on. \nArcade is appropriate. \nPermeability very important\, and I think you know again as sort of a. \nThat was. \nIn this evolution. \nAbout. You know\, historic buildings up. \nIf there is a transition towards more restaurants away from. \nOther activities currently in the. \nIn the middle of it might be hopeful. \nFrom a big picture. \nWhy the future? \nI think. Let’s see. \nYou know. So again\, just on materia materiality. \nSome materials to fill. \nYou know lots of comments about the importance\, Marcus. \nInteresting comment about lighting lanterns. \nWe talked about clarity on public property seating. \nVery important. \nAnd we talked about. I think one of the. \nWe are very sensitive. Okay? \nAnd comfort. \nElements in the plaza. \nExactly. \nSo look\, there were lots of other things. \nThere! \nThis point\, we can move. \nOh\, no\, we do. But yeah\, will they come back\, or are you satisfied? \nLook there was we had while we were at the break. \nI think. \nCritical project\, an important seat. \nSo we will now move to the project. \nThank you so much. Members of for Review Board. \nA lot. Obviously it’s fun to be in a room. \nCare as much about this in the area\, right? And I think we want to spend about 70 more hours. \nNo\, I think I have a little bit of a process question in terms of to the extent we have have yourself. \nSome are in your summary\, recognize disagreements in terms of even opinion amongst the Board members\, and especially to the extent that some are it’s not there yet\, or whatever I think it will be a little bit hard for us to be able to do to fully hit all of those especially if \nthere’s opinion\, I think we will do our best\, and I and there are a number of things that came up as questions after the clarification discussion period was very clear. \nAnswer across that we fully document with that for the team. \nIs there any anything you’d add? I think we’re excited. \nWe know that this is going to be that project that sets the precedent of the next place\, that important building of stature needs to be\, and we’ll knit together the important civic spaces around us\, more cohesive and highly functional site and building space. \nThank you very much. And one of the things that we always do is we\, you know our thoughts are not always completely unified\, so we rely on the expertise. \nThe the staff to be able to interpret what we’re saying and present. \nYou know\, discuss what we. \nMake a refund in one area\, and then you’ll come back. \nWe really rely on the expertise our team. \nThanks so much. We look forward to working to a staff to come back with it. \nDefinitive. \nOkay\, things. \nTalk\, about. \nDan anything else. \nNo\, I think there\, the summary is quite on target. From what I heard here. \nSo thank you very much\, and we are ready to. \nSo just a question. The next step is to adjourn the meeting. \nDo we need 2 motions or one motion to? \nI think we can do it with one motion as long as we include both committees in that motion. \nOkay\, thanks. For that\, Clarice\, Kate so concludes our project. \nReview for the meeting. It’s been really terrific. \nWdac\, and I can’t believe. \nReally helpful\, so I would like to. Oh\, no\, I need someone to pull I’d like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting of the Bcdc. \nSign Review Board and the W. W. Water print Design Advisory Committee. \nSecond. \nHi! \nA second\, the motion. Okay\, all those in favor. Hi\, bye\, bye\, we have a motion. \nSecond\, we have no objection\, so thank you\, everybody\, and good night\, and thank you for coming in person. \nWe really appreciate. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-10-2023-design-review-board-and-port-of-san-francisco-waterfront-design-committee-meeting/ LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230313T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230313T210000 DTSTAMP:20240213T210508Z CREATED:20230314T042239Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T210508Z UID:10000055-1678726800-1678741200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 13\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meetings will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with  SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nYerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco415-352-3657 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84113245923?pwd=aWRXYkFrcjFEMEZEMHF6Rk9CeVpJdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID841 1324 5923 \nPasscode460758 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nStaff Update\n620 Airport Boulevard Commercial Development in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County (Second Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by Vassar Properties \ Boca Lake Inc. to redevelop the 3.7-acre site at 620 Airport Boulevard on the Anza Peninsula in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County. The project proposes two eight-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would include a raised plaza area with Bay views and access to an improved Bay Trail to the north of the project area.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654 shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.govExhibits\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Summary\n Summary of the March 13\, 2023 BCDC Design Review Board Meeting \n\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review. Design Review Board (DRB) Chair Jacinta McCann called the hybrid meeting to order on Zoom\, at approximately 5:00 p.m.\nBCDC Board Members in attendance included Board Chair Jacinta McCann\, Board Vice Chair Gary Strang and Board Members Bob Battalio \, Tom Leader\, Stephan Pellegrini. \nBCDC staff in attendance included Ashley Tomerlin\, John Creech\, Shruti Sinha\, and Katharine Pan. \n620 Airport Boulevard Project Team: Jeremy Lui\, Development Manager (Vassar Properties\, Inc.)\, Justin Aff\, Project Manager (CMG Landscape Architecture)\, Leticia Moore\, Attorney (Holland and Knight)\, Karin Kuklin\, Principal Architect (DGA Architecture) \n\nStaff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update on Commission staffing changes. Ethan Lavine\, who has managed Shoreline Development permits team since 2016\, has accepted a new role as Assistant Regulatory Director for Climate Adaptation. Katharine Pan\, who has been the Principal Shoreline Development Analyst since 2021\, has taken over as the Shoreline Development Program Manager. And Jenn Hyman has been appointed as Senior Staff Engineer.\n620 Airport Boulevard Commercial Development in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County (Second Pre-Application Review). The second pre-application review of the proposal by Vassar Properties \ Boca Lake Inc. to redevelop the 3.7-acre site at 620 Airport Boulevard on the Anza Peninsula in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County. The project proposes two eight-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would include a raised plaza area with Bay views and access to an improved Bay Trail to the north of the project area.\n\nStaff Presentation. Shruti Sinha provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.\nProject Presentation. Jeremy Liu and Justin Aff provided an overview\, with a slide presentation\, of project goals\, background\, local context\, existing site condition\, and a detailed description of the proposed project.\nPublic Comment. No Public Comment received.\nBoard Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation.\n\nHow is the design controlling groundwater in parking structure? And where does storm drainage go?\nDo you have a habitat elevation for the living shoreline? Or will it evolve as waters rise.\nAre all the pathways in the network under 5% and what’s the paving material?\nIs there any barrier to public circulation through the site?\nWhat’s the relative confidence in the café happening?\nWhat is informing the parking count\, code or market demand?\nIs the wind analysis just the wind at the building or does it include the landscape\, particularly between buildings?\nHave there been any conversations about signage and wayfinding\, interpretive\, or artist program?\nHow is the project addressing the required existing and new\, more sophisticated maintenance demands? And who will be managing the maintenance program?\nIn pulling the building back 25’\, is that only the ground floor or is it the entire building?\n\n\nBoard Discussion. The Board discussed how the project addresses the seven objectives for public access found in the Public Access Design Guidelines\, provided feedback on the proposed public access improvements with respect to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise\, and environmental justice and social equity\, and addressed the staff questions listed below.The seven objectives for public access are:\n\nMake public access PUBLIC.\nMake public access USABLE.\nProvide\, maintain\, and enhance VISUAL ACCESS to the Bay and shoreline.\nMaintain and enhance the VISUAL QUALITY of the Bay\, shoreline\, and adjacent developments.\nProvide CONNECTIONS to and CONTINUITY along the shoreline.\nTake advantage of the BAY SETTING.\nEnsure that public access is COMPATIBLE WITH WILDLIFE through siting\, design\, and management strategies.Staff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration:\n\nHow does the project proposal result in public spaces that “feel public\,” and does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people?\nWhat additional improvements would improve the public access experience to and along the shoreline?\nAre the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adaptive to sea level rise in balance with ensuring high-quality public access opportunities?\nDoes the design provide legible connections from the adjacent roadway that will draw users into and through the site to the Bay Trail?\n\n\n\n\nSummary of Key Issues\n\nSite Design\n\nThe site design is a more aggressive use of the shoreline band that we’ve ever seen. The west side is still tight and the wind is going to be difficult on that front corner. The development still seems to maximize site even with the pull back of the buildings. They did respond to DRB comments and made some moves. There was progress with the trail moving back off the shore.\nThe landscape does feel public. A lot of landscape space has been added\, the shoreline penetrates into the site in a significant way creating an important threshold. The narrow paths are great for building workers to gather. The public will likely move through the Bay Trail at a faster pace. The two spaces seem cohesive and complimentary.\n\n\nCafé. The positioning of the Café and the effort to make it highly visible with the grade change will be important. The café is a strong draw but could feel separated. Ensure visibility to the café is maximized.\n\nCirculation\n\nThe Board appreciated the improved public circulation with the widening of the Bay Trail to 18’ and seeing the realignment.\nThe public will not likely walk through the middle of the development\, but feel more comfortable walking the edges.\n\n\nParking\n\nThe underground parking is preferable to surface parking; it isn’t as impactful on the experience of the public access area. It’s a shame the loading dock remains along the western trail. The Board recommends continuing to develop the landscape to minimize the building impacts.\n\n\nInterpretive Program and Wayfinding\n\nWayfinding signage\, especially to the Public Shore Parking will be significant; do everything possible to make it clear the spaces are there.\nThe Board expressed appreciation for the bike parking.\nThere’s a lot of opportunity for the interpretive program and addressing what people are looking at; the planes and birds are a draw.\n\n\nSea Level Rise Adaptation\n\nThe Board encourage the project to be less specific as to the future adaptation approach for the Bay Trail. The exhibits show a retaining wall and the trails will just be raised where there is not sufficient space for migration. Recommend keeping the option open for fill in the bay for a wetland or additional habitat. Board members suggested not being so prescriptive that they must build walls to adapt.\n\n\nPlanting Plan and Landscape Maintenance\n\nThe Board was supportive of enlarging the planting areas and felt that it will contribute to the success of the planting.\nThe Board was appreciative of the planting plan. Success will be about the culture of care for the plants in order to maintain the landscape as envisioned.\nThe Board appreciated the details for landscaping on structure and stated it is important for developer to recognize the additional cost associated with that decision.\n\nThe Design Review Board appreciates the responsiveness of the updated project and was satisfied with the changes\, directing the project team to work with staff. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMeeting Adjournment. Vice Chair Strand made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Itwas seconded by Member Batalio. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:00 PM.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording & Transcript\n \n\n \nMeeting Transcript: \nWe’re very grateful for the feedback of. \nIn August. \nBoard for a second time. We have taken efforts since that presentation to work with. \nCertain groups\, interested parties. \nCollaborative\, ultimately improve our project. \nPresent something project that has higher quality\, amendment\, and better access. \nThe public to the shoreline. \nThis is what 6 20 Airport Boulevard looks like. \nIt’s a parking lot\, and Trudy described it. \nWell\, 6 20. Airport is rectangular parking lots. \nThe bay trail today sits on top of a strip of land that borders to the north and to the west\, and is owned by state lands. \nMaintained by a separate private third party. Our vision is to combine these 2 parcel. \nTo a 5 acre project site\, 2 objectives. \nThe first is to create a destination for the public\, come and enjoy nature and the shoreline. \nSecond is a destination for the next generation of life. Science companies to create products and services. \nUltimately help us live longer. But the purpose of today is to focus on the first objective with respect to the public. \nOkay. And of the 5 acre site we’re proposing to create 2 acres of public improvements and introduce features to turn what is currently a pass through section of the bay trail to a place for the public to stop at to to eat\, to exercise\, to gather and to otherwise enjoy the shoreline \nin a way that they can to that end we are proposed to activate the shoreline with beautiful landscaping. \nAn outdoor gym\, okay? Creating new ways for people to access those. \nExisting big trail was originally improved decades ago\, maintained by our neighbors over here in the backdrop the the Embassy Suites. \nThe improvements are certainly functional. \nBut perhaps sparse we are affiliated with the Colton Hotel in the backdrop. \nHere and over the decades we have seen our hotel guests\, cyclist runners. \nFamilies and other members of the public. It’s actually quite well visited. \nBut not often do they stop\, and when they do stop\, it’s not for a very long time\, and we have an idea we know how to change that\, and we’d love to run through that. \nI’m gonna touch very briefly\, because Shudi covered this so well and synthesize the feedback that we received from the board. \nHearing in August. Then what I’d like to do is. \nTouch on a menu of changes that we’ve made to respond to that feedback. \nTo walk us through the project design. How the choices we’ve made make this a better project! \nSo first we heard feedback to reduce the building footprint within the BC. DC. \nShoreline we heard a desire to soften the bay edge\, and make the transition from we go into the land more natural. \nWe heard a desire to create more entryway\, better access point from Airport Boulevard\, and finally the board was looking for more. \nAnd I think this is good feedback\, because one of the most technically challenging. \nPerhaps expensive features of project is to put the parking below grade. \nWhat we’ve done here\, additional details on how we’re able to accomplish that. \nWhat I’d like to do. Here is set the table\, actually go through all of 20 design changes but I’ll focus on on the 3\, on 3 of them. \nFirst we reduced the building footprint by 25 feet by bringing it from the northern and back into the back landward. And in its place we’re adding\, okay\, a plaza public bike parking in a way to nicely connect this area with. \nLocated in such a way that it’s always within eyesight. \nOf the public using the trail. \nNumber 2. We changed the philosophy of Bay Trail. \nOriginal design. Following following the Bay trail. \nFollows the contour. \nWe heard the feedback to create and adaptable living shoreline zone and we’ve been able to pull back what we think is the most prime part of the shore\, create a summary foot wide\, adaptable living shorelines area that allows the lagoon the bay to \ngradually melded with land over time\, and it also creates additional zone for ecology\, and then finally\, on the southern edge of the site we’ve created\, let’s say\, a much better way for pedestrians. \nTo access the shoreline through our site. We’ve gotten rid of what circuitous ramp and replace that with a much more direct welcoming and inviting. \nInto the public plaza which offers the front seat. \nThe shoreline. The western side of the added another pass from Airport Boulevard to access public parking\, and that creates a total of or entry points that other 2 being one just to the west of the site the lagoon\, and then another one not on our project through our neighboring property to the \neast through the hotel front door. \nSo with that\, I’m gonna turn this over to Justin Af\, who will walk us through the details of. \nThanks\, Jeremy. Hi! There! I’m Justin at the Cmg. \nLandscape architecture. And I’m going to share more details about the updates that Jeremy just summarized\, and also take you through a little tour of the project. \nAfter we met with you last. We took your comments to heart. \nWe’ve made a lot of changes\, and I think we’ve come out with a better project with respect to public access\, respect to enlarge and reorient open spaces\, and with respect to shoreline ecology\, and how. \nSo I’m going to run through a series of diagrams just highlight. \nSome of the big changes that we’ve in all of these diagrams\, you’ll see a red dashed line. \nAnother request that we had to make clear where the parking garage below was on the site plan. \nRed dash line shows that shows where that is. \nSo first\, as Jeremy mentioned\, we’ve cut back the buildings on the ground floor between 15 and 25 feet. It’s mostly 25 feet\, so it’s quite a large bit of space given back to open space and public. \nShifted the trail inland\, realigned the Bay trail. \nSignificant way\, and this allows for that sort of living shoreline zone that Jeremy mentioned will be set down at a lower elevation project. \nElevation it will allow for future migration of the shoreline\, and. \nYou reduced some of the surface parking\, and we reduced parking lanes as much fire lines as much. \nWe’ve created more direct connections between Airport Boulevard and the project site and the Bay trail\, as well as the other direction between the bay trail. \nWe’ve also taken taken a look at the geometry and shape of all of the planted areas on structure. \nWe’ve enlarged them\, I think\, Will significantly. \nThe ability of plastic driving larger soil\, volume. \nOn top of the. \nWe’ve enlarged and reoriented a lot of the public spaces. \nThe outdoor fitness area. We’ve changed are thinking on that a bit\, making it much larger\, much more likely to be a destination. \nThis area\, so more detail on that later. We’ve added the cafe for the cafe along with bike parking on the east side of the project we’ve reoriented and redesigned somewhat that terrace seating area sort of right size it for this area orienting it more towards the \nnorth\, or San Bruno Mountain\, San Francisco skyline. \nIn the distance\, the airplanes landing\, and we’ve also just made some minor reviews. The picnic area added more bike parking unit tariffs. \nHad some reconsideration\, public\, public and a minor thing. \nBut we’ve added more shade trees along the this was in response to. \nSo I think all of these changes ultimately are gonna make a better project for us. \nBut the main design\, principles that we started with really remain is to create clear\, continuous\, and somewhat seamless act\, visual and physical access through the site to the Bay Shore. \nTo bring the nature of the Bay shore into the site and allow people to experience Bay trail in a more enhanced way by widening it\, bringing it up to today’s standard and so again\, okay\, being sort of the key armature along the bay shore we’ve. \nA variety of programming\, passive and active. Along along the bay trail. \nSite Detail. \nSee here that Number 10 is where we’ve made a direct pathway along the driveway into the site. \nOpen this space out for more landscape\, and created just a direct. \nJeremy mentioned at Number 10. There’s a direct pedestrian between the public parking and. \nThose are some of the key circulation change. And now I’m going to go ahead and just walk through in detail. \nThe enlargement plans and see everything in a little more detail. \nI think it’s worth pointing out again that putting that parking under underground here has allowed us achieve this sort of seamless\, continuous landscape experience through the site and around the site without it being obstructed by a bunch of. \nI think that’s an important thing to dwell on for a second. \nReally do think that? \nReally? \nThe first thing\, starting it from the interior of the site. \nFor today. You see\, at the bottom of this sheet is the turn around and drop off quickly. \nTransitions into these sort of stroll garden\, that seamless connection out to the day. \nAnd this garden is made up of a series of of different types of paths. \nThere are more direct paths that go out to the bay than there. \nSecondary pass that moved through\, of stroll\, garb in kind of a circuit with it’s seating throughout. And then\, as you move towards the bay. \nThis terrorist seating area a sort of bleacher style\, seating that allows you to overlooked the bay towards the water oriented towards. \nHere’s a view of that terrace seating area as it looks north towards\, and Bruno Mountain you can see some Rudo mountain\, and you can watch the airplane planned. \nSo! \nYou can catch up some faint one system. \nThis is going to be A. \nBack the other direction from that. \nYeah. Yeah. Shot of the east building. With these the mounded planting areas in the stroll garden within the plaza\, and then left of the of the image in the distance you can catch a glimpse of this. \nUmbrella at the outdoor. \nAnd this\, this long site section\, through the site illustrates a gentle translation. Transition. \nWe have from the roadway up to the plaza\, with the turnaround and the landscaping throughout the plaza\, back down. \nAnd then cross section through through the plaza\, showing mounted\, planting. \nWe were asked last time around about about details on how you. \nGet a thriving plant\, starting plants and trees. This is an example of a detail details that we’ve been working on for many\, many years at Cmg. \nTo make viable rooftop landscape\, and it’s\, you know\, a fairly point convention. \nBuild up of lightweight\, fill soils\, good drainage\, and in large soil areas for trees\, all the while trying to allow as much new soil volume as you can. \nTrees as much as possible\, to support. \nNow moving a little bit west on the project. This is management plan features\, this new living shoreline zone again. \nIt’s a nice wide zone about 70 feet between the edge of the you edge of the bay trail and the shoreline. \nThis will be set down at a lower elevation\, closer to the current. \nThanks for all elevation. \nAnd we imagine that this will allow for future sea level rise to gradually inundate this zone periodically. \nThis is a ways off on day one. It’s going to be upland planting\, but we see that this will allow for more kind of natural upland. \nThe shoreline and up on migration. \nTo that. We have a picnic area that overlooks overlooks this area. \nOn the left. \nSeating area number 3\, as well as accessible slope locks between the plaza. \nAnother view\, just looking back towards the site from the bay side\, you see that tariffs\, tariffs seating feature again\, you can see the right on the right and left. \nClear-wide connections to the plaza\, into the Cafe. \nSection shows that relationship. \nThe building plaza down to the bay trail\, and then on the bay side of Benched\, where we’re creating this zone is at a lower elevation. \nThe upland plant communities golf scrub\, but eventually will allow for future addicts. \nNow moving back over to the east. Here’s where we have the cafe on the east building\, looking out towards the water. \nYou have a cafe plaza\, we have a direct step set of steps down to the for the bay trail. \nSlope block number 5 that moves around. \n2. We’ve we sort of pick an inspiration from this very successful. \nFitness area and made a space that a little bit larger than that. \nHave a really successful destination. \nSo you’ve taken an opportunity to use this space to make a really sort of impactful and not just a couple. \nNow\, here’s the view you are getting the coffee and going out and having a nice coffee in the morning on the plaza\, looking up the water. \nBe of folks walking down to the bay trail\, slightly elevated. \nTo the water\, be on the left. \nAnother more accurate! \nThat simply shows that. \nFa plaza. \nAnd now we’re going to shift back over to the west side. \nThere was a lot of discussion last time around about this West side. \nAnd we’ll get into some sections. \nIt’s worth pointing out the number 8 on this slide to the left. \nThe plan is the existing public bay trail access very wide\, very clear. \nA bit of public access proving that piece. Do you start widening it out? \nOut of this number 7 public walk from the public parking at number onto the sidewalk. \nYou can also switch back and get down to the beach. \nI did. I’ll never 2. Is our sort identified. \nLocation for public art. Yeah\, public art concept is the ways off. \nWe don’t know. \nBut we took your points last time around about considering more than just kind of what we showed in concept. \nAt grade\, sea\, level\, rise and. \nThere’s something that’s more interactive strengthener could interact with. \nSo we heard you there remain on our radar as we continue. \nYou can see here in red. That’s the outline of the parking garage. \nAt the top of this plan\, quite narrow between the edge of garage and. \nIn the bay trail. And so we’ll look at some sections that see that the green zone above the parking there\, that’s where we’ve taken out certain. \nWith the architects slab\, and that allows us to bring the putting the landscape up and over that slap more than we were before. \nSo as it stands now\, you’ll never see that edge of the garage pop up above. \nThis is what that looks like today. At that corner point there’s a you know\, or so chain like fence on the other side that you see the parking lot on the left\, somewhat degraded planting ice plant. \nExotic species\, 10 foot wide. \nThis is a bit further back from that view\, standing roughly where the path comes down from the on the parking. \nOne\, to one new comparison. But here we are looking at the opposed bay trail that’s 18 feet wide. \nThe details\, and on the right see that? Do some parking up below great parking garage\, and then on the. \nOn the right the building amenities. \nWe measure this zone\, this landscape zone that’s between the bay trail and the parking. \nIt range understanding closer to where the cyclist is\, that ranges from 35 feet to the narrowest. \nAt 6 10 feet wide. \nOffer. In all those cases we have the ability to plant large shrubs\, entries. \nWe larger plantings in here if we want to\, didn’t wanna behind what we’re doing in the background\, we’re confident that. \nSpace to get a robust lamp. \nBut now I’ll go to the section like I said\, the architects of so far depress this lab about a foot or 4. \nWhat we have a lot of headroom in that top parking garage there’s a good chance correct me if I’m wrong\, Karen. \nThat will be able to get that down even further. \nThis is the most is the closest. The garage gets to the base. \nThe press slab in the removed parking space. We have 26 feet of plant in here. \nNow the other type of I’m showing you the worst case scenario here. \nThe other type of Pinch Point here. And the reason I’m doing this because there was a lot of about this before. \nIs the closest\, the narrowest\, the landscape. \n2 feet wide. It comes up over over the very quantum. \nOkay. \nPretty\, confident\, I’m very confident this was going to be a fine experience. \nWalking down this one side of the project\, which\, about a quarter of its. \nSo again\, we’re really excited about the change and we’re grateful for all the comments that you all gave us last time around. \nI think that yeah\, informative project here. \nParking lot and sort of outdated\, somewhat degraded bay trail. \nSort of an active and dynamic. \nHave a lot of things going on. \nStill kind of up to place\, and not. \nOverboard. \nThis area shoreline zone\, writing\, feeding. \nBe a great project. \nExcellent. Well\, thank you very much. That was 3 through the project\, and I do appreciate the where you’ve prepare the graphics communicate\, for you have been so thank you for that. \nWe now move to clarifying questions from the project. \nPresentation\, so we’ll just move through the board\, and she will start with the online folks. \nSo\, Bob\, you’ve got your hand up. Our fine question. \nGo ahead! \nYes\, thank you. Chair\, Mccann. So I\, looking at the plan. \nThank you for making all these revisions. I think it’s definitely responsive\, you know\, at least from my perspective to the comments in the prior meeting. \nIt also allows us to see the underground parking and the elevation differences\, and it leads me to ask the question\, How are you gonna control the groundwater? \nI guess the parking cross is gonna be sealed pretty well\, cause it’s down below the top level or into the tide level. \nAnd then\, secondly\, where does this storm drainage go? \nDoes the city of Berlin game have a storm drainage collection system? \nOr is it just go into the lagoon? \nSo I\, yeah\, those are my questions about the drainage specifically how it relates to the the underground parking structure. \nElevations. \nTurns a principal at Dga\, with the art. \nThe storm drainage. We’ve been working with the city of Berlin game. \nI do believe that. \nHey! \nOh! \nThe drainage is under one shot. \nI thought the question was about how the garage. \nGroundwater. Oh\, and also a question. So the garages will be fully waterproof will be. \nSources of water and and. \nI think the the benefit. \nYou can see it. \nQuite a commitment. \nThey offer? \nYeah. And I’m sorry to interrupt. But if I just wanna say that from my side of things on remotely\, I can’t really hear very well. \nI think it’s probably because I’m remote but if you wouldn’t mind trying to speak a little louder hopefully I’m not speaking too loudly or too softly. \nI can’t tell. \nOkay. Can you hear me? Great Jeremy? Speaking? \nYes. \nAnd if I’m offering some more contact on groundwater\, that’s certainly something that we’ve been thinking about a whole lot. \nAnd so what we did is we drilled a few holds into our site and over time of collective groundwater data and cut to the chase and slightly\, not very surprising. \nThe ground wall\, fluctuates somewhere between\, minus one to one in elevation\, so call that sea level approximately\, but something that’s interesting about our design here is that it’s not the entire garage that’s subject to groundwater because only a portion of it \nis in that zone. Now\, from an engineering perspective\, we would create a backathtub around it. \nWaterproof. The whole thing. We would also consider mechanical pumps\, because it’s certainly an area that has these forces. \nBut I think the key to note here is that it’s not the entire garage that’s subject to to the groundwater level. \nA portion of it. \nYeah\, thank you. I I think you answered my question. \nI I just wanted to bring it up\, and I’m sure you’ll consider it. \nIt’s really more of a design issue. So I don’t know. \nThat it’s I have a real concern about it. \nI mean\, I think it’s something that you can address. \nI hope\, and it sounds like the drainage may not go into the Bay\, or if it does\, maybe it goes through some sort of polishing or something. \nIf you’re puppy. My other question is\, do you have a a particular habitat? \nPipe for the living shoreline that you’ve put in place. \nOr is this something that would evolve once the bay waters get high enough to inundate? \nThat site which I think you’re showing it at. \nIt’s existing elevation around 10\, which is\, yeah? Well\, above high time. \nYeah\, so the conception right now is that it’s at that elevation\, that on day one it’s upland\, coastal\, scrub and grassland. \nAnd so that that habitat type is pretty common\, and we wouldn’t\, you know there would have to be some management of this. \nBut over time then would change\, I think\, a ways off. \nBut on day one it’s upland plant communities that are with layered. \nWe’ve been working with Ht. Harvey on some other projects in this type of a plank community\, and those types of birds and and insects and pollinator that that use it. \nOne of the main things that we’ve learned is just just the layering of shrubs and ground cover. \nOkay\, there’s some pretty basic things that will implement\, I think\, as we get further into the design process in the planting plans will likely be consulting more with. \nSure we’re doing the right thing. \nThank you very much. Appreciate the answers to my questions. \nThanks. Bob\, Tom. \nYeah\, I agree with Bob. I think it’s good project. \nI just have a few quick questions. One is the the looping pathways that create kind of a network as you head toward the plaza\, from from the I’m assuming those are all under 5%. \nAnd I’m wondering what the paving material is. \nI’ll go back to the overall plan here so I can just point to a few things\, so I’ll take this enlargement plan. \nGreat. \nCan you perceive the 2 colors in the plan from where you sit? \nThe idea is that the overall\, the main paving type that’s more of the white\, the lighter gray\, is likely to be concrete with score joints\, and you know\, and some kind of exposed aggregate finish and then the more narrow paths that move through these planted \nHmm! \nRight. \nareas. I think are likely to be accessible\, but they will be stabilized\, stabilize\, crushed stone\, less than 5%\, but they will rise up and down a bit with that slope to allow some of that soil volume to go under them so there’s 2 main paving types \nhere the smaller narrow ones stabilize\, crushed down the larger\, wider ones\, concrete. \nOkay. And people could find their way at under 5% down. \nSome of these pathways I see there are a few stairways. \nYeah\, we have so if you look at the number 7 on this plan\, you can see these are sloping at\, you know\, 4.8. \nGot it? Yep. \nYou like sure\, I’m sure you do this too. You never like to design to the 5% for tolerance. \nBut right now these are measured out at about 4.8%. \nOkay. \nWe have accessible walks as well as stairs\, and unfortunately\, it’s the nature of these slope walk that you sort of have to go sideways to get out. \nRight\, second question. I’m assuming that there’s no barrier to public circulation between the 2 buildings. \nLike\, if you’re coming from the you can move public and move through to the back. \nGot it? \nThat’s correct. There won’t be. The security will be at the building doors\, and there will won’t be any gates or barriers. \nPublic access to. \nOkay? And third question is\, what’s the relative confidence in the cafe happening? \nHi! \nHi! There’s no other\, no other place speaking purely for the private side of the building. \nNot many choices for people. \nTo eat or drink in this currently\, but I think we really focused on on the public side and the placement of the cafe\, so that it’s in probably the most prime part of the site to folks to look out into it. \nAnd hopefully with more visitors. Time\, there’s actually flexible space within the building for that. \nAmenity possibly grow. The area evolves over time. \nBut you. What you’re saying is that the users in the building are gonna need it\, anyway? \nThat’s right\, and I think the public would like that as well. \nOkay. I’m good. \nOkay. Thanks. Tom. Gary. Any questions? Yes\, yes\, I have one question I might have asked this last time. \nI’m sorry\, if it’s redundant\, but can you summarize for us again? \nThe parking count\, and how you get there\, whether that’s by code or by market demand. \nHi the parking count is driven by code. At this point\, and we are at the code which is far below what you would normally see. \nYou know a 2\, 2\, and a half\, or 3 per 1\,000. \nWe’re at about 1.8. \nStrictly driven by the city. Thank you. Sorry if I may add a little bit of color to this. \nGoing to overarching site plan. That’s right. \nSo we are parked at the absolute minimum of code\, and that includes Tdm measures that allow us to be below that feature and we’re certainly both. \nThe market would consider as an appropriate level of parking within our site what we do have a interesting feature of our project\, and that we’re connected to the neighboring site to the east of us\, which is the hotel which was built in the 70 S and is completely overparted in \nfact\, we try to fill up parking spaces by offering parking for $10 a day. \nIs to generate revenue. There ultimately\, what we’re able to do here is share parking\, to create use\, existing underutilized parking. \nRaj\, not within the project\, but Jason to it. If there are\, if there’s a real market demand for more parking\, but that allows us to minimize parking on-site and also to encourage people both on the site and visitors to the site to use alternative means of transfer. \nI didn’t bring it up again in this\, in this round\, but first round we showed there are shuttle stops just to right in front of the hotel. \nThat serve\, call trans. And Bart. There is a public transit. \nThis on? Do you have any questions? \nYeah\, I have 2 quick questions. One is just on the. \nI really appreciate the addition of the wind analysis in the package\, and I was curious if that was looking at just buildings versus wind\, or if the landscaping or the tree planting at the shoreline is expected to have any impact on comfort particularly in between the buildings. \nI believe the the winter\, the wind analysis\, did take into account tree planting. \nI think that you know we we have the opportunity to work with them and adjust the location. \nPrecise location I think there’s a lot of time to do that within the design process. \nIt did. It did take that into account. My understanding. \nBut this was the first round as well\, so we have the opportunity now to make some adjustments\, try to improve when conditions. \nHey\, Jerry! \nBut what we do see\, I think\, is actually fairly the area that actually around the project\, the the buildings actually improve conditions. \nQuite a few spots\, with the exception of. \nSide of the project here\, but the areas around the bay trail. \nHave actually been for the most part improved\, including it. If you look at our cafe spot here. \nGonna be a pretty pretty good spot. It is a very windy site\, and so that is just a nature of the beast. \nWe’ll do everything we can to improve the condition. \nYeah\, I appreciate you guys\, including this and the package and exploring this cause. \nThis is a tough\, a tough location. And then my second question was just with regards to the signage and weight planning program. \nAnd I know that this is actually under concept. But I was curious. \nIf there\, what sort of thing you guys have had either about interpretive signage or and or sort of the artist’s program that you actually are suggesting. \nI think it’s early stages for those for that discussion. \nThe preliminary discussions I’ve mostly been around the blue dots on this map that I’m showing which is the interpretive signage that you know it’s having something related to what we’re doing with the shoreline zone. \nWill be will be interesting. I think there’s an was an idea of having something closer to the plaza level that overlooks the water. \nIt could be the history of Ansa Lagoon. Hey\, Phil? \nAnd just some interesting site history. So we haven’t gotten that far into it. \nBut I think there’s plenty of for some interesting interpretive signage. And the art program that’s going to have to be a collaboration. \nProcess\, getting an artist and figuring out what it is going to be\, and how. \nWill happen at that point. We’ll try to influence decision to make it a site site appropriate in sight. Piece of art. \nBut we just have. Haven’t gotten that far with it yet. \nThank you. \nThanks\, Stefan. I I just have one clarifying questions. \nThe that was mentioned\, made at the beginning of the presentation. \nWhat about the maintenance of the State line parcel being done by? \nWith the enlargement of the adaptation planning area. \nYou know I’m I would anticipate that would be maintenance is being done right now. \nDo you have any way in which? \nI think this is a topic that we haven’t too closely on with Staff\, but I think it’s. \nThat we can do in principle the idea that we would be forever\, at least for the lifetime of the project. \nCertainly with these improvements it will get a little bit more complicated. But I think that the the driving factor here is this is effectively our would be the private side of the development front yard\, and it matters for a a- project to have a plus. \nMaintenance. So I think just natural positioning of the public portion of improvements. \nNext to the private\, would create a very good incentive for us to keep that maintained. \nI would note that the current setup for an external third party to maintain into an agreement by a neighbor to take care of your front yard I’m sure that answers your question. \nOh\, it sounds like you’ve got clear intent to make sure that. \nAppropriately\, since it is an important part. \nI don’t think it’s a very small point\, but in police. \nBetween 15 and 2515 and 25. \nBuilding back the way you delineated the build. \nIs that the that is a. Because there is another\, hang an extension at the ground floor\, extends further out the so I don’t. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear\, but the 2515 to 25 feet was an extent\, and we’ve blocked that off so there \nare some awnings and overhangs in the architectural\, but they’re minimal relative toad. \nAnd so the line that you see on the plan. \nIs the building. So when the comments\, when the presentation is made that it’s been back 15 to 20\, the first floor\, I should have said that in my. \nYeah. \nRight. So we’ve just that that’s been reclaimed for the Cafe Plaza. \nOkay in the perspective\, it wasn’t. \nOkay\, I think that wraps up the board clarifying questions. \nSo we will move on to the next item here\, which is public. \nSo now that we have both the presentations and the board quiz complete\, will open the meeting today. \nAnd any member of the public attending the meeting of can you notify? \nNo\, there are no thanks. Okay. So if you’re attending the meeting online and would like to make a public comment\, I’ll just run through the directions again. \nRaise your virtual hand to speak. Remember\, if you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your prepared to raise your hand to unmute or mute per staff. \n6\, you will be called in the order that your hand was raised\, and you will have 3 min to speak. \nJohn will note when you have 1 min. Please state your name and affiliation. \nThe record. \nAs mentioned\, beginning of the meeting would like to add your contact. \nThe party’s list to be notified of future concerning this project. \nPlease\, call\, or eat. \nOkay. \nThere are no hands raised. Chair really wanted to read those. \nBut no public comment. Let’s move straight into board. \nAnd advice\, and we have been given the full\, and\, I think\, even just hearing the dialogue in the clarifying questions. \nSpeaking on behalf of the Board. \nPriority\, and and the if it has been made. \nThis phone. \nThere are 4 questions here\, and we can also. \nAny other observation. \nTo spend a minute or 2. \nBut last time in relation to. \nThe project resulting in public spaces that really? \nIn a development like this. It can be a challenge to have people really. \nSo the question really is asking for is it feeling public? \nAnd do you think the short? \nPeople so gary any comments? Sure I’m happy to kick off here. \nYeah\, the questions that we’re being asked to address there. \nI think the project does really a fantastic job. The landscape and the buildings\, to the extent that we can see the architecture. \nIt does feel very public. You’ve added a lot of landscape space\, and I especially like the way\, it’s organized\, so that you know this very large green area. \nYou know\, the shoreline really penetrates into the site in a very significant way\, and it creates a very\, I think\, an important threshold between\, you know\, the city and the arterial\, and the shoreline\, and it and I love the narrow paths because I think it creates \nintimate spaces for people who work in the buildings to gather\, and it also gives them privacy from\, you know\, from the shoreline\, you know\, from the bay trail\, where I think the public will move through at a faster pace\, and maybe wants larger areas to to inhabit so I think those are 2 \nreally distinct areas that function differently. But\, you know\, appear to be\, you know visually\, you know\, very unified. \nSo I think it’s just exemplary. \nYou know the the things that we’ve been asked has to address. \nDoes it feel public? Is it? \nYes\, visibility access\, you know\, across the site. I mean\, you’ve improved the you know the pedestrian access a lot in. \nI really appreciate. So I I can either make all the comments I have right now\, or I can wait until week. \nLet’s see. \nDo you have comments that deal with the other physically\, or do they all? \nWell\, I the I’ll I’ll just keep going out. \nI think that the you know the way we started the meeting was\, you know\, these are the main questions that the Board had last time\, and number one was to reduce the impact of the building within the shoreline band. \nAnd as much as I you know I love all the things that have been done on the surface\, and visually in terms of usability. \nAnd I just want to acknowledge that it is also probably one of the more aggressive uses of the shoreline band that we’ve ever seen. \nI don’t know. I’m not opposed to that\, but I think it’s an important thing\, maybe\, for the group to discuss and just comment on I don’t know that we have any per view over that. \nBut I think you know\, we’ve made our comment. \nYou know the proponent has responded\, and so I think we’re very clear that you know this is what you need to make the project go so I just wanted to put it out there as as a as a point of discussion. \nAnd and then 2 2 other things\, one minor\, the concrete on structure. \nYou know we in my practice\, I mean we never I don’t think we’ve ever poured concrete on top of the structure before\, because oftentimes even contractors don’t wanna install it because of the liability problems difficulty in accessing your \nwaterproofing. Should you have a problem in the future? \nYou know none of our none of our business\, but I think it’s it’s a long term sustainability issue for for the owner\, and it also it’s not as pleasant for the user. \nYou know\, to have a unit paper that you could remove\, you know\, address the waterproofing problem and then replace. \nSo again. I I don’t even know if that’s in our purview. \nBut and then finally\, I just wanted to say that it was very creative the way you were talking about the parking on the adjacent parcel\, you know\, having the opportunity to share\, and it sounds like you were saying you might have provided even more parking if you didn’t have that opportunity to \nexpand\, you know\, into the adjacent parcel. So I appreciate that I would have loved it if you had said\, we’re sharing this parking\, and so we’ve reduced the parking on our site by 15% or 20% or something. \nI think in the future we’ll see more\, you know\, more creative solution. \nAppreciate it. Okay\, that’s only thank you very much. \nWe might as well just go. \nWant to pick out a response to any of the killer questions. \nOther run through for everyone’s benefit. Again. \nOn that\, you know\, making spaces for public. A great number. \nPeople. Second question. Additional improvements to improve\, probably going to okay. \nThird one also deals with public access\, designed\, that does\, and then number 4 was just. \nLegible connections. \nOkay\, so. \nOh\, yeah\, thank you. I was gonna respond to what Gary was talking about. \nWhich are invited discussion on which I think was item number one. \nI mean\, just for the record. The west side is pretty tight\, the winds\, as we talked about before\, was probably gonna be pretty gusty and difficult on that core\, which you know we see now in the exhibit. \nThat’s the case. And. \nAnd then the development does seem to maximize the site\, even though it’s been pulled back. \nSome certainly the parking is extensive\, you know\, goes pretty close to the short and places so\, but you know they were\, as Gary said. \nThey responded to our comments and made some moves\, and I like the at least we want a little bit here where the trails been pulled back. \nOne spot. So that’s I think that’s progress. \nAnd so I like that part\, but I think it is. \nIt is a kind of a big use of the site going to this second one or the third one. \nThe one thing I think might make the plan better would be to be less specific about the future adaptation of the perimeter walkway. \nPublic Access day trail. With a higher amounts of sea level rise. The exhibit show that there would be a kind of recaining wall\, and the trails would just be lifted vertically where they there wasn’t enough space for a flat enough slope. \nI think that’s you know. Certainly one option. So I think they that’s a path\, you know. \nThat’s a pass that works. \nBut I thought you might wanna just keep the options open and mention what a lot of people don’t like to talk about\, which is maybe fill into the bay and extend and make a wetland. \nOr you know\, fill some of the create\, some habitat\, I mean\, sea level is going to be rising everywhere. \nSo a little bit of a fill for some\, edge. Habitat might be nice might be nice for everyone. \nSo I just like to you know\, they’ve got something that qualifies. \nBut let’s not make it prescriptive that they have to build walls\, you know\, to adapt. \nThat’s finally comment. Otherwise\, I appreciate that. \nThey moved in our direction\, and I’m impressed by how they were able to in process with this maximum development. \nJust go to an explosion. It. Thanks\, Bob. We’ll just keep moving through the board\, Tom. \nThanks. Going. Straight to Gary’s first point\, Damian\, I want to make sure I’m understanding. \nJust sent this question to the applicant where you were asking is that is\, the line is being shown. \nThe footprint\, and then there’s a significant overhang into the shoreline band. \nWhat I thought I heard was that it’s mainly consistent with footprint. \nBut was that right? That that right? \nMy understanding is what we saw before was a pretty big over. \nSpaces. \nThe applicant hasn’t reduced footprint of the bill. \nI see. Okay. Yep. \nI thought I thought\, but the building. \nThe building\, footprint. \nYeah\, well\, we’re getting back to Gary’s Point. Then. \nThat’s set back at the ground floor. It’s the ground floor\, and I think I don’t. I was just looking at. \nSee if there’s a drawing that shows the overhang\, so that you can see that on the ground floor plan. \nI don’t\, but that would clarify it. The building. \nYeah\, because looking at the footprints on Site plan\, it looks like that. \nThey hardly break through the shoreline band at all. \nGot it? \nI believe that’s correct. \nI’m looking at the when I said that I meant the garage. \nYeah. Gary was referring. \nYeah. \nYeah. \nOh\, the garage garage\, I see. Okay\, I’m okay with the grass doing what they’re doing because they’re making a big effort to put that\, you know. \nIt’s true we don’t have to look at a at a above grade garage here they’re gonna go through a lot of to waterproof this whole bathtub situation and so forth. \nSo I kind of appreciate the the boost they made\, and so overall. \nI think the they have been quite respectful now of the shoreline band. \nI think it’s in terms of public access. \nI mean\, you can walk through Central. I don’t think I would. \nI would probably wanna commit from the sides because they feel more kind of less like your eyes are on you for the users\, I suppose\, but I think that’s a common situation that’s been dealt with. \nWell\, I think that the I think Bobby made a good point maybe you don’t wanna build retaining walls or I’d be a flexibility. \nAnd how to do that\, and maybe by the time there\, that’s happening\, this board will say it’s greater. \nDo some fill into the bay to achieve more\, more wetland. \nWhat am I missing? In terms of the questions? I’m a big supporter of the project. \nI think they worked hard to to respond. \nThanks. Tom. \nYeah\, I’ll keep my comments short. I think I just really appreciate the sort of thoughtful response to the Board’s previous comments. \nAnd I think you know\, just thinking about the site\, about what’s there today. \nAnd the invent of what’s there today\, and what actually might be able to emerge through development is a significant improvement. \nAnd sort of seeing things through. That lens\, I think\, is is important. \nSo I really appreciate the just the critical way that team has tried to incorporate and respond to the Board’s comments. \nYeah\, and look\, I just we’ll add a couple of things. \nI think\, see response in terms of the okay. \nLike a real effort to make. \nMake it really visible and attractive for a few. \nAs the. \nThe grade change up. You just want to make that\, and. \nYou know all that\, but in the renderings as well. \nI think that’s a strong. \nI agree with Tom\, I think the fact. \nSo my! \nI be a real. \nAnd the development that far into. \nI still. \nIt’s still pretty shame that the loading does right up there again. \nAnd and then just on the signage. \nSpaces. \nYeah. So again\, just as you move through into. \nReally appreciated what you. \nAnd the interpretation\, and I realise it’s down the track. \nAnd there’s certainly. \nNatural. \nFrom my office of date. \nBut yeah\, and for the we’ve made\, I think the. \nAs proposed. \nIs strong. \nBut it’s. \nSo that concludes my reaction. \nOr add one thing\, so I’m comfortable with the parking garage and light of your you know the comments of the other Board members\, and you know I just wanted to get it out there\, and I think that the project does offer so many different. \nThat you know very reasonable trade-off\, and I also appreciate\, don’t want to go and mention the\, you know\, providing the details for the planting on top of structure. \nI think that’s really important. I know that that the landscape architects know how to do that\, but I also think it’s really important to have it on the record and have the owner be able to acknowledge the extra cost and maintenance it goes into doing a landscape on top \nof that building like that. So I think it’s helpful to have it there\, and the also the fact that the planting plan is\, you know\, is a very thoughtful and attractive\, and it just will face\, of course\, the challenges that we discussed earlier. \nWho’s maintaining it? Do they really know what they’re maintaining? \nDo they know how to keep it alive\, and also these are native plants\, and they’re used to growing and native soil. \nI’m I think it’s also important that we start changing the culture of maintenance or the lack of a culture of maintenance around landscape. \nSoapbox there for 1 s. Okay\, thank you. That’s it. \nThat’s all my comment should follow on on that comment. \nWe’re usually talking about fine being so stressed in the extended drought period. \nHope. Now we\, changing our point of view. \nBut. \nDoug aside. I. \nGood\, but is. \nAny other? \nOkay. \nYou had\, and the staff had in review. \nWe just need direction on that. It will come back. \nOkay\, does anyone feel they need to see this project again? \nNo! \nThanks everyone. Okay. So we don’t need to see it again. \nWe’ll look forward to going down there. \nSo look! With that we moved to the project proposal. \nResponse. So this is an invitation. \nOh\, why I appreciate the feedback and the discussion\, perhaps just the only clarifying remark I would make is is on the\, on the on the setback. \nThe first 4\, just because there was additional discussion on that. And we did pull the building. \nThe first floor of the building back 25 feet\, where the tower is\, currently is also how it was designed in August. \nBut I just would like to express our gratitude for the feedback. \nThat was very helpful. And ultimately we think this is a very symbiotic way of delivering a project. \nWe’ve spent a lot of time here talking about the public realm\, but on the bravest private side of the project we feel that the public piece of it is necessary to create an a-plus environment that’s going to bring some of the most creative and innovative companies to come so we \ndon’t view this necessarily as a burden we view this as a very integral part to making a excellent project be successful for the long term. \nSo thank you. We appreciate that. Thank you very much. \nActually. \nWell\, I also just want to make a comment before we adjourn. \nThis is Ashley’s first meeting as board secretary. \nDone a great job\, John. Thank you very much. \nAnd there’s a lot that can go off the rails so\, and nothing beeps that I arrived. \nYeah. Well done. \nYeah. Great job. Everyone. Okay. So we will. This concludes the and I’d like a motion. \nI will make a motion to adjourn. \nSecond. \nOkay\, are there any objections? \nOkay\, hearing none\, the meeting is adjusted. So thank you all\, and good night. \nRemotely. We’ll see you all soon. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-13-2023-design-review-board-meeting-2/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230206T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230206T210000 DTSTAMP:20231121T031333Z CREATED:20230207T052154Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T031333Z UID:10000054-1675702800-1675717200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 6\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-6-2023-design-review-board-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230123T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230123T210000 DTSTAMP:20231121T031549Z CREATED:20230124T052008Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T031549Z UID:10000053-1674493200-1674507600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 9\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-9-2023-design-review-board-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR