BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.15.19//NONSGML v1.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH X-WR-CALNAME:SF Bay Conservation & Development 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:America/Los_Angeles BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20240310T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20241103T090000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20250309T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20251102T090000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20260308T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20261101T090000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250423T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250423T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20240917T181848Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250403T220111Z UID:10000198-1745413200-1745427600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 23\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-23-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250423T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250423T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241104T230630Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250410T170409Z UID:10000215-1745400600-1745409600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 23\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-23-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250417T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250417T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241209T231438Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250410T204755Z UID:10000235-1744894800-1744909200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 17\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:Administrative Listing\n   \n\nListing of Administrative MattersHarriet Ross [415-352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov] URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-17-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250414T163000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250414T194500 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241217T184451Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250404T213349Z UID:10000259-1744648200-1744659900@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 14\, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in person. \nPhysical Locations \nChina Basin Park – Amphitheater Steps on Third Street1 China Basin ParkSan Francisco\, CAMeeting Time: 4:30 p.m. \nBayfront ParkPier 54\, Southeast Corner of Parking lot\, Terry A Francois BlvdSan Francisco\, CAMeeting Time: 5:45 p.m. \nCrane Cove Park701 Illinois StSan Francisco\, CAMeeting Time: 6:45 p.m. \nSee meeting itinerary \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\nSite Visit of Mission Bay Shoreline Public Access ProjectsThe Design Review Board and BCDC staff will conduct a walking tour of three previously reviewed and recently completed public access projects along the Mission Bay Waterfront including China Basin Park\, Bayfront Park\, and Crane Cove Park.(Ashley Tomerlin) [415/352-3657; ashley.tomerlin@bcdc.ca.gov]\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/april-14-2025-design-review-board-meeting/ LOCATION:China Basin Park-Amphitheater Steps on Third Street\, 1 China Basin Park\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94107\, United States CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250410T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250410T113000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20250328T195423Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250409T225244Z UID:10000272-1744279200-1744284600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 10\, 2025 Environmental Justice Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:If 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/84208195995?pwd=vN3hZdu44plz2mGZZhLohuV9NoWL93.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(888) 278-0296Conference Code 900680 \nMeeting ID842 0819 5995 \nPasscode926025 \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order\, Roll Call\, Introductions\, and Approval of AgendaWorking Group member roll will be called and introductions from visitors and staff will be made.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReview of Meaningful Community Engagement Guidance DocumentPhoenix will give a presentation and lead a discussion on the Meaningful Community Engagement Document that NOAA fellow Nayre Herrera prepared as part of her fellowship.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Presentation\nEJ Check ListPhoenix will give a presentation and lead discussion on the Environmental Justice Checklist that NOAA fellow Nayre Herrera prepared as part of her fellowship.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment\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/april-10-2025-environmental-justice-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250409T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250409T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241104T230543Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250325T205807Z UID:10000214-1744191000-1744200000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 9\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-9-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250403T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250403T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241209T231344Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260209T175218Z UID:10000234-1743685200-1743699600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 3\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, First Floor Board Room\,San Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n\nCA Natural Resources Agency Headquarters: 715 P St.\, 20th Fl.\, Trestles Conf Rm.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\nEarl Warren Hiram W Johnson Building: 455 Golden Gate Ave.\, San Francisco\, CA 94102\nCALTRANS: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl.\, Oakland\, CA 94611\nEast Sonoma County Service Center: 19080 Lomita Ave.\, Sonoma\, CA 95476\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\n1195 Third St.\, Ste. 310\, Napa\, CA 94559\n433 Natoma St.\, Fl. 3\, San Francisco\, CA 94103\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n1021 O St.\, Rm. 6710\, Sacramento\, CA 95814-4900\n2505 W. Turner Rd.\, Garden Ballroom\, Lodi\, CA 95242\n500 County Center\, 5th Fl.\, Buckeye Conf. Rm.\, Redwood City\, CA  94063\n2500 Acton St.\, Berkeley\, CA 94702\n\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/83873757145?pwd=JAlp8OuuDJdt5i7MjmT2hBy19oG6lW.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID838 7375 7145 \nPasscode513561 \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 Revised Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period(Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov] Written public comment may be sent to (publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov)Public Comment 4.3.2025\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for February 6\, 2025 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415-352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPOSTPONED Public Hearing and Possible Vote on an Application by the California Department of Transportation for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Pilot Project Modifications Project along the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge\, in the City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County\, and the City of San Rafael\, Marin County; BCDC Permit Application No. 1997.001.06.Caltrans has requested BCDC postpone the Commission’s scheduled public hearing and vote on Caltrans’ Richmond-San Rafael Bridge permit application\, which was set for Thursday\, April 3\, 2025. Caltrans plans to amend its permit application\, and BCDC looks forward to considering an amended project that we expect will provide additional potential transportation benefits and maximum feasible public access consistent with that project. See Attachment B for more information. The Commission will hold a public hearing and a possible vote on an application for a material amendment to BCDC Permit No. 1997.001 to alter the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Pilot Project previously approved under Material Amendment No. Four\, including the continued use of the shoulder of the eastbound lower deck as a peak hour travel lane on a permanent basis and the implementation of a modified version of the multi-use pathway on the westbound upper deck with reduced hours of availability and a supplemental bicycle shuttle service.(Katharine Pan) [415-352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov] (publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov)Attachment A: After Study for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (Phase II)  // January 16\, 2025 Workshop Summary   //  Summary of Commissioner Questions & Responses // Attachment B: Request to Amend RSR PermitPublic Comments from May 2\, 2024 Briefing – Part I // Public Comments from May 2\, 2024 Briefing – Part II Public Comments from January 16\, 2025 Workshop – Part I // Public Comments from January 16\, 2025 Workshop – Part IIPublic Comments for postponed Hearing April 3\, 2025 Part I// Public Comments for postponed Hearing April 3\, 2025 Part II\nBriefing on the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail ProgramCommissioners will receive a briefing about the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail\, a regional program that encourages non-motorized small boaters to experience the San Francisco Bay through a growing network of boat launching and landing sites. The briefing will feature the history of the program and an update on the new signage design to be implemented later this year.(Yuriko Jewett) [415-352-3616; yuriko.jewett@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Briefing \n\nBriefing on Bay Adapt Implementation (Metrics\, Mapping Platform\, Funding Strategy) and RSAP Technical Assistance\nThe Commission will receive a briefing on the status of tasks and actions in the Bay Adapt Joint Platform.  Commissioners will learn about (A) the development of BCDC’s Technical Assistance Program to support local government Subregional Plans\, (B) the RSAP Atlas Beta\, an online mapping platform being developed to support local jurisdictions\, communities\, and consultants on RSAP implementation\, and (C) Bay Adapt Currents\, a new online metrics tracking dashboard that monitors progress on sea level rise adaptation.(Dana Brechwald) [415-352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov] \n\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\n\nVote on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge bike lane postponed \n\n\nKayakers finish first-ever circumnavigation of greater S.F. Bay \n\nAssembly bill aims to speed up Highway 37\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording\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/april-3-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250326T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250326T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20240917T181641Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T181641Z UID:10000197-1742994000-1743008400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 26\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-26-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250326T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250326T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241104T230443Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250321T171754Z UID:10000213-1742981400-1742990400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 26\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-26-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250320T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250320T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241209T231239Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250314T193825Z UID:10000233-1742464800-1742490000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:Canceled-March 20\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov] Written public comment may be sent to (publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov)\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nPOSTPONED Consent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for February 6\, 2025 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPOSTPONED Public Hearing and Possible Vote on an Application by the California Department of Transportation for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Pilot Project Modifications Project along the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge\, in the City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County\, and the City of San Rafael\, Marin County; BCDC Permit Application No. 1997.001.06.3/14/2025 UPDATE: Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll Authority have requested that the Commission postpone the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge agenda item scheduled for the Commission meeting on March 20\, 2025 to the Commission meeting on April 3\, 2025. Chair Wasserman has agreed to the request.The Commission will hold a public hearing and a possible vote on an application for a material amendment to BCDC Permit No. 1997.001 to alter the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Pilot Project previously approved under Material Amendment No. Four\, including the continued use of the shoulder of the eastbound lower deck as a peak hour travel lane on a permanent basis and the implementation of a modified version of the multi-use pathway on the westbound upper deck with reduced hours of availability and a supplemental bicycle shuttle service.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov] (publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov)Attachment A: After Study for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (Phase II)  // January 16\, 2025 Workshop Summary   //  Summary of Commissioner Questions & Responses\nPOSTPONED Briefing on Bay Adapt Implementation (Metrics\, Mapping Platform\, Funding Strategy) and RSAP Technical AssistanceThe Commission will receive a briefing on the status of tasks and actions in the Bay Adapt Joint Platform.  Commissioners will learn about the development of a program to support local government Subregional Plans that are compliant with the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Guidelines\, as required by SB 272; preview Bay Adapt Currents\, a new online metrics tracking dashboard that monitors progress on sea level rise adaptation; and receive a short demonstration of the RSAP Atlas Beta\, an online mapping platform being developed to support local jurisdictions\, communities\, and consultants on implementation of the RSAP.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDCOnly marine lab on San Francisco Bay to close amid budget shortfallNewsom suspends landmark environmental laws to speed up wildfire prevention effortsDonald Trump’s team wants to ‘defund’ the California Coastal Commission. Can it?Four Bay Area locations are sinking at an alarming rate\, with implications for sea level riseLand Is Sinking Fast Around the Bay Area\, Worsening the Effects of Sea Level Rise – KQED \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-20-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250318T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250318T150000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20250304T234453Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250421T182109Z UID:10000269-1742302800-1742310000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 18\, 2025 Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda \nPresentations: \n\nSand budget update Lester McKee\nSand budget update mining team comments\nSand Studies: what we know\, what we still don’t know\, and what we learned along the way\n\n  \n  \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-18-2025-sand-studies-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250312T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250312T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241104T230345Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250227T234715Z UID:10000212-1741771800-1741780800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 12\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-12-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250310T170000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250310T183000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241217T183104Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250530T192605Z UID:10000254-1741626000-1741631400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 10\, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with Gov. Code 11123.5. 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. \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan 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/84783867029?pwd=X7HPEnenXIATqDWAc6mwoZEyQi7nFf.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID853 7267 0563 \n  \nPasscode641630 \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 \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summary for the February 10\, 2025 DRB Meeting\nBCDC Staff Updates\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\nBCDC Legal Briefing\nBCDC staff will brief board members on their authority\, rights and responsibilities\, and the board’s function within the agency as prescribed in the McAteer-Petris Act\, the Bay Plan\, and the State regulations governing the board.\n(Michael Ng) [415/352-3610; michael.ng@bcdc.ca.gov]\nChannel Park\, Brooklyn Basin Redevelopment Project\, Phase IV\, City of Oakland\, Alameda County; Second Post Permit Issuance Review\nThe Design Review Board will hold a second post-permit issuance review of Channel Park\, a proposed 6.2-acre waterfront park situated at the confluence of the Oakland Estuary and the Lake Merritt Channel\, within the Brooklyn Basin redevelopment area in the City of Oakland\, Alameda County. The proposed project features a 0.67-acre open water basin with a tidal channel and includes the Bay Trail and pedestrian walkways; a native scrub and bird garden; an interpretive learning garden and timeline trail; and a recreational lawn with picnic area.\n(Alyssa Plese) [415/352-3626; alyssa.plese@bcdc.ca.gov]\nExhibits\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording\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/march-10-2025-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250306T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250306T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241209T231156Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250226T005141Z UID:10000232-1741266000-1741280400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 6\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:Listing of Administrative Matters \nSupplemental Listing of Administrative Matters URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-6-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250305T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250305T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20250220T215516Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250305T194926Z UID:10000268-1741168800-1741176000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 5\, 2025 San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda\nDraft Sea Level Rise Education Initiative\nItem 2 – Background presentation\nItem 2 – Exploratorium Sea Level Rise Education Plan presentation URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-5-2025-san-francisco-waterfront-special-area-plan-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250227T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250227T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241104T230237Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250210T234852Z UID:10000211-1740648600-1740657600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 27\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-27-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250226T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250226T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20240917T181449Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250224T230403Z UID:10000196-1740574800-1740589200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 26\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-26-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250220T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250220T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241209T183737Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250128T003219Z UID:10000231-1740056400-1740070800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 20\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-20-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250212T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250212T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241104T230146Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250127T200733Z UID:10000210-1739352600-1739361600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 12\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-12-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250210T170000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250210T183000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241217T183006Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250211T181018Z UID:10000253-1739206800-1739212200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 10\, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with Gov. Code 11123.5. 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. \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan 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/85372670563?pwd=0Rtfv68Ija1KjYd0XVafSqexYxW9EA.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282 Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID853 7267 0563 \nPasscode641630 \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for the December 9\, 2024 and January 6\, 2025 DRB Meetings\nBCDC Staff Updates\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\n200 Wind River Development Project\, Alameda; Second ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold a second review for the proposed life sciences campus at 200 Wind River Way. The project would construct a three-story\, approximately 120\,000-square-foot office and research and development (R&D) building\, completing a complex originally envisioned in the 1997 Wind River Master Plan. This project also proposes public access improvements\, including removal of a degrading timber wharf to create open water and enhance views to the Bay\, renovation of the remaining concrete portion of that wharf with pedestrian paths offering connectivity along the shoreline and public access amenities.(Lisa Herron) [415/352-3654; lisa.herron@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording \n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nYerba Buena SX80: Recording in progress. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you for joining us tonight for the Bcdc Design Review Board meeting. I’d like 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. And please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on\, but your audio is disabled. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Ashley. \nYerba Buena SX80: My name is Jacinta Mccann. I’m the chair of the Bcdc’s Design Review Board\, and I’m located here at the Metro center in San Francisco. Our 1st order of business is to call the roll Board members. Can you unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after you respond. So\, Staff\, if you could call the roll\, please. Chair\, Mccann\, present vice chair string\, present \nYerba Buena SX80: board\, member Battaglia\, present Board\, member Chow. Here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Board\, member\, leader and staff. Note that board member Pellegrini will be here. But it’s not here at the moment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Staff attending this meeting are myself\, Ashley\, Tomerlin\, Gary Jewett\, and Lisa Heron and Catherine Pan is attending online. Great. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you very much\, Ashley. We have a quorum presence. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m going to share some instructions with you to get started tonight. And this will enable us to have the meeting run as smoothly as possible \nYerba Buena SX80: for everyone online and in the meeting room\, please make sure that you have your microphones muted to avoid background noise \nYerba Buena SX80: for board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure it’s on. So everyone can see you for members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period. You will need to do so in one of 3 ways. First\, st if you’re here with us in person\, we will ask you to form a line near the podium. If you wish to make a public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Speaker\, cards are available at the door and you’ll be asked to come up to the podium one at a time. After all\, individuals who are present make their comments. We will call on those participants who are attending remotely \nYerba Buena SX80: the second way. If you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom\, and please click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: 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 star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits time limits without permission \nYerba Buena SX80: for public comments. If you are attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. \nYerba Buena SX80: If 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 the in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system. And it’s not synced up to the individual panelists videos. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects or this project tonight\, please call or email Ashley Tomlin\, whose contact information \nYerba Buena SX80: is on the screen or is found on the Bcdc’s website. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, we’re just resolving a technical issue here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: if people online can just hold on\, we’ll get rid of the background noise. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: That was a lot worse than this. \nYerba Buena SX80: Think\, okay\, the technical issues is resolved. So we will continue on here. \nYerba Buena SX80: The next item on the agenda is the approval of meeting summaries for December 9\, th 2024\, and January 6\, th 2025\, and\, as usual\, we really appreciate the work that staff does preparing these meeting summaries. So we’ve all been furnished. The draft meeting summaries. Are there any comments or corrections from the board? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, hearing none. And I had no comments on either of those. They were actually excellent summaries. So thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would ask for a motion and a second to approve these. So make a motion to approve. Thanks. Gary. Second\, Tom\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And anyone\, we don’t have anyone online tonight. Do we know\, is there anyone who objects to the motion? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So hearing none\, the minutes minutes have been unanimously adopted as amended. So \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. Actually\, not as amended because they were excellent. \nYerba Buena SX80: And now the Board Secretary will provide a staff update. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair Mccann\, in January staff held an informational workshop for Commissioners on the Richmond San Rafael\, Bike Path\, Mtc. And Caltrans have submitted an application to amend the permit to modify the availability of the bike lane on the bridge from 7 days a week to 3 and a half days\, for the purpose of studying the impacts of the path on vehicular traffic. \nYerba Buena SX80: We anticipate this item will go to the Commission for a hearing and vote. In March. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our next Erb meeting will be on March 10\, th and will be a review of the Brooklyn Basin Channel Park. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will not be having a meeting in April\, and have a tentatively scheduled meeting for April 12\, th \nYerba Buena SX80: and finally\, at our last Drb. Meeting Board members had expressed interest in a walking tour meeting of the public access at Mission Bay. Please let me know your preferred Weekdays and Times\, and I will try to get that scheduled. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that\, concludes the Bcdc. Staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, just 2 2 points just on point 2. \nYerba Buena SX80: the tentatively scheduled meeting is May 12\, th right? Yeah. So make a note of that board\, members. And look as far as preferred times for the walk around Mission Bay\, which I I think would be really good to do\, actually\, why don’t I send you a couple of options? And then we can start with\, you know\, a few target dates and then see who can come. So we’ll work on it that way. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we would need \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 h to do it\, because it involves walking some distance between the 2 parks. So yeah\, and it will need to be noticed as a public meeting. Correct? Yeah. So we’ll plan some way after that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so let’s move on to the next item on the agenda\, which is public comment for items which are not on tonight’s agenda. And just to check here. Do we have any members of the public online? \nYerba Buena SX80: I have no hands raised online and no one in the room. Okay\, so I will not read any guidelines for that section. We will move on now to the second review of the 200 Wind River Development Project in Alameda. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I just want to remind you of the Project Review order for tonight. So we will start with the Bcdc. Staff Presentation \nYerba Buena SX80: Board clarifying questions to the staff\, and I would note here that we have reviewed the project previously. So we clarified a lot in the 1st review. So just keep that in mind when you’re asking clarifying questions. Then we’ll have the project team presentation and we’ll have board clarifying questions to the project team. \nYerba Buena SX80: public comment if any arises and then board discussion and summary\, and then a brief response from the from the project team. \nYerba Buena SX80: So with that\, I’m going to hand over to the permit analyst\, Lisa Herron\, who is going to introduce the project. So thank you\, Lisa. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I will note that Stefan Pellegrini has joined the meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: all right. Getting used to this. Thank you. Chair Mccann\, and good evening Board members. I’m Lisa Heron\, a shoreline development analyst at Bcdc. Before I present the staff introduction. I would like to remind the project team and staff to please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. When you’re not actively engaged with the board. Please turn off your video so that we can minimize distractions. \nYerba Buena SX80: And now I’d like to introduce the project for tonight’s review. This is the second review of a Life Sciences. Redevelopment project proposed by Blue Rise ventures at 200 Wind River\, in the city of Alameda\, Alameda County. The 1st review took place in December of 2023. \nYerba Buena SX80: The 200 Wind River Development Project is the last phase of a new life sciences campus at 200 Wind River way\, which would redevelop an existing 4.9 2 acre surface parking lot highlighted in red. \nYerba Buena SX80: The entire development is the 20.4 Acre Wind River campus\, highlighted in yellow\, located along the northern shore of Alameda Island. This portion of the project is bounded to the south and west by Atlantic Avenue\, to the east by Alaska Basin and to the north by the remainder of the Wind River Office campus\, whose northern boundary is the shoreline fronting the Alameda estuary. \nYerba Buena SX80: This map\, taken for Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Interactive Bay Trail map shows some regional context for public parks\, transportation terminals and trails in the project’s vicinity. The project site is outlined in red. \nYerba Buena SX80: The site’s nearby parks include Jean Sweeney\, Open Space Park. \nYerba Buena SX80: Little John Park\, and in addition\, a bay trail segment along the eastern side of the development provides views of Alaska Basin and leads to the publicly accessible Wind River Park\, a shoreline public access area associated with the larger Wind River Office campus. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the site is currently occupied by a large surface parking lot connected to a prominent abandoned wharf which occupies the entire eastern edge of the site along Alaska Basin. The wharf is constructed of creosote\, coated timber piles and pile caps\, heavy timber decking and asphalt top surface. It’s proposed to be removed as part of this redevelopment\, this photo features a view from the southern tip of the wharf along the waterfront towards the previously developed Wind River Buildings. \nYerba Buena SX80: And now a different view. These photos are taken from the northern edge of the site connecting from the prior development of the campus you can see the edge of the wharf\, the existing shoreline trail\, and the view towards the permitted but not yet developed site across Alaska Basin. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s a closer look at existing conditions\, at the entry points to the site marked with the dashed yellow circles. The northwest corner of the project site is the intersection of Clement Atlantic Avenue and Sherman street which will eventually provide pedestrian access to the site. There’s also a vehicular entrance in the at the southwest corner of the site\, also circled in yellow. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is an exhibit taken from the existing permit\, 1997.0 0 9 issued in 1997. The orange area shows the public access area for the entire Wind River site with the project site outlined in red. \nYerba Buena SX80: The permit originally authorized the construction of 4\, 2 to 4 story office buildings\, each of approximately 100\,000 square feet\, and partially located within the Commission’s 100 foot shoreline band. You can see that a 5th building was constructed outside of our jurisdiction\, the permit authorized shoreline improvements\, pier replacement\, capping of contaminated materials and site improvements for circulation and public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: Phase one was building out approximately 1\,800 and \nYerba Buena SX80: 100\,800. 0\, my gosh\, okay\, 190\,000 square feet of public access\, including 10 to 12 foot wide\, paved pathways\, parking landscape improvements and amenities. Phase 2 is construction of an approximately 41\,500 square foot wooden wharf\, with furnishing signage and a 10 foot landscape\, public access connection from Atlantic Avenue. \nYerba Buena SX80: and an interpretive program and phase 3 built out 5 overlooked decks connecting pathways and furnishings and site interpretation. \nYerba Buena SX80: So to date. This permit’s been amended about 5 times or exactly 5 times\, mostly for time extensions to complete required public access. Features. Amendment number 4 reduce the dedicated public access area\, because about 4\,500 square feet was transferred to the Bcdc. Permit of an adjacent property across the Marina or across the Alaska Basin to the Marina. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Now\, Bcdc’s vulnerability mapping tool shows. The project is located within a census block with a reported population of 1\,308 people\, and has low social vulnerability and lower contamination vulnerability. There are no social vulnerability indicators in the 90th percentile\, and the one social vulnerability indicator is for people who are severely housing cost burdened \nYerba Buena SX80: other census blocks near the project site vary from low to high social vulnerability and have more social vulnerability indicators. In the 70th and 90th percentile \nYerba Buena SX80: regarding potential sea level rise. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remain unchanged on top of mean\, high\, high water. There’s no flooding at the site at its current elevation. \nYerba Buena SX80: This map shows 66. What 66 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site was unchanged. \nYerba Buena SX80: From this map you can see that the site itself is less affected than the surrounding parcels\, with a small amount of overtopping at the northern end of the larger Wind River campus. There will also be regional issues facing Alameda\, and this site in the future\, as demonstrated by the flooding on the other side of Atlantic and Clement Avenue. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is another table to help clarify some of the sea level Rise section of our staff report. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for our sea level rise analysis\, we reference the 2024 guidance from the California Ocean Protection Council\, and we use the intermediate to high scenario tables as well as the statewide average table\, and all elevations are in Navd 88. The expected life of the project is at minimum 50 years to 2075\, and the projected end of century water level of 14.5 1 feet would cause inundation\, likely at the dock and sections of the bay trail. At the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: however\, at regular\, mean\, high\, high tides\, the current shoreline elevation would be just above the 2\,100 mean\, high\, high water level of 11.2 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: This slide provides a summary list of the Bay Plan policy and guideline questions that apply to this project. \nYerba Buena SX80: In addition\, we also have included some questions by Staff that we would like the Board to consider\, so one does the design provide legible and inviting connections from the adjacent roadways and bike pedestrian networks to draw users into and through the site to the Bay trail and Shoreline \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 is the interpretive program designed and cited to maximize the public’s use and enjoyment of the shoreline? And does the board have any design\, suggestions\, or recommendations to enhance the interpretive program for the project. 3. Are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adapted to sea level rise\, ensuring high quality\, public access\, opportunities over time. \nYerba Buena SX80: and 4. Does the Board have any recommendations regarding proposed landside amenities that support the water access proposed as part of the project is the launch area in the basin appropriately sited to encourage the public to use this feature. \nYerba Buena SX80: and with that \nYerba Buena SX80: I want to check and see if the Board has any clarifying questions for me\, or on anything presented in this introduction\, and then I’ll introduce the project team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Lisa. That was very helpful and and very helpful to have the added explanation on sea level rise. So thanks for that clarifying questions from the Board to Lisa. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nothing. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Well\, thank you very much. That was very thorough. Okay\, we will move on to \nYerba Buena SX80: the next presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is the project team presentation\, and so we’ll hand that over to the team. I’m not sure who’s presenting. But please go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: I can introduce you so I can introduce them. I’m sorry about that. Today we have Eric Tesca\, Vice President\, Development of Blue Rise Ventures\, and Matthew Malone\, Senior Landscape Architect with Perkins and Will \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’ll pass it over. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you to staff members of the Board for having us here. This is the second presentation of 200 Wind River way. I recognize all the faces from December 2023. So\, thanks for having us back \nYerba Buena SX80: as we go through this\, we’ll we’ll touch on the overall some of the overall items that didn’t change to give everybody an overview. But I’ll try not to spend too much time on that since. I think Lisa already did a nice introduction of a lot of the project background\, and we’ll try to spend more of a time focusing on the items that we’ve revised \nYerba Buena SX80: Lisa already covered this\, but the project location on the west side of Alaska Basin\, on Alameda’s northern waterfront. \nYerba Buena SX80: The history of the site in modern history. This was originally the home of the. It was the winter home of the Alaska Packers Association\, which was one of the last commercially operating fleets of tall sailing ships on the west coast. The photo in the top left is those ships anchored in the Basin during the winter. In the summer they would sail up to Alaska. \nYerba Buena SX80: bring their catch of fish back\, and then they would process them in the cannery buildings that were on this site. A lot of it was stored in the warehouse that’s at the bottom end of the basin known as the Del Monte Warehouse. For a long time and recently redeveloped as the Alta Star Harbor adaptive reuse residential project \nYerba Buena SX80: in the sixties. A Gantry crane was installed on top of the now abandoned wharf that we’re proposing to remove to allow containerized cargo. And what my understanding is\, it’s 1 of the 1st places anywhere to be set up to handle containerized cargo versus bulk cargo like fish. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is what the site looks like today. This is an aerial. If you’re over top of the Ensignel terminal site\, which is the empty wharf to the east of the Basin. \nYerba Buena SX80: looking at the Wind River campus\, facing basically straight west out to San Francisco. So the 4 existing buildings\, 300 400 500 600 Wind River way. These were built in the late nineties and early 2 thousands. On the right is the estuary and Alameda Marina\, and at the left edge of the photograph is the proposed site for 200 Wind River way\, which again\, 200 Wind River way\, was originally permitted in Permit \nYerba Buena SX80: 97 to be a building that was a perfect replica of building. 300 was never built. The original developers didn’t have a need for it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we’re part of this proposal is to basically slide the siding of that building south and enlarge it to respond to current site and market conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is what the site looks like today. It’s it’s basically an asphalt parking lot alongside of Alaska basin with a large wharf similar to the picture that Lisa showed along the western edge of the basin. \nYerba Buena SX80: the before and after public access diagram. This comes from the existing permit. So the building\, highlighted in yellow at the left side of this diagram is the original site and footprint of 200 Wind River way. \nYerba Buena SX80: In the time since 1997\, Atlantic\, Clement and Sherman Street have been brought together in A. T intersection Clement Avenue coming in from the East didn’t formally exist. That’s a recent improvement. That was part of the \nYerba Buena SX80: Alta Star Harbor\, the residential project across the street that renovated the Del Monte Warehouse. So on the right shows the proposed siting. And basically we’ve taken the building and reshaped the footprint and slid it to the south to have more of an urban presence on the street\, which again didn’t exist at the time of the original. Permit. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then also\, you can see that we’ve in shown\, dashed and hashed is the footprint of the the wharf the which is in fairly poor condition that we’re proposing to remove removing those creosote coated piles from the bay. That’s about 41\,000 square feet. But then we’re taking and replacing that public access inland. And so we’re moving the bay trail and the public access inland which results in a net gain of about a thousand square feet of public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: We recognize that the site sits at this important intersection of public space and pedestrian connectivity\, right across the street from Jean Sweeney Park. The recent completion of Clement Avenue and the Alameda Cross\, Alameda Trail\, as well as the Alaska Basin waterfront. Stitching these spaces together was the primary driver of our site design\, and we very intentionally wanted to welcome people around and through these spaces\, giving them access to the water and all points beyond. \nYerba Buena SX80: The building sits within the intersection of these desired connections in an acute L-shaped configuration framing an interior courtyard that’s oriented towards the water \nYerba Buena SX80: The prominent position on the corner of the new three-way intersection was an intentional move towards a more urban approach to the campus development. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sherman Walk was originally envisioned to be a publicly accessible street and new gateway into the campus\, but after consulting with the city and weighing the potential conflicts with pedestrian and bike circulation\, we decided to develop this as a grand pedestrian walkway\, leading users directly from Jean Sweeney Park to the water’s edge\, replacing the somewhat circuitous route. They currently have to walk through the parking lot just to the north. \nYerba Buena SX80: as you can see by the dashed outline and the notes on the plan. We plan to demolish the dilapidated timber wharf and transform what’s currently a parking lot into very green and activated waterfront that that gives an opportunity for campus users and the public alike to engage and interact with this new shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what we heard from the board in December of last 2 years ago\, and how we responded\, so I’m just gonna go over what we took away from that meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: There should be a way for the public to actually get down to the water and use the waterfront\, be aware of overprogramming the public space that we were showing ping pong tables. They may feel too corporate. They may be difficult to maintain and manage as an amenity. \nYerba Buena SX80: The shoreline parking spaces shouldn’t feel like they’re in the building’s back of house. The connection from that public shoreline parking should be more clear. The area felt underdesigned. \nYerba Buena SX80: The small triangular parking lot which is at the north end of the building between the north. The northeast face of the building and the shoreline felt too congested. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Bay trail should be a minimum 18 feet wide. To expand the site\, plan diagram to show more of the pedestrian connections to the adjacent sites. \nYerba Buena SX80: to show more detail of what is the experience of entering the site. From the the three-way intersection up that pedestrian pathway to the north edge of the building that runs northeast\, southwest that we call Sherman Walk. \nYerba Buena SX80: How legible is this site entrance\, and that the intersection of Sherman Walk and the bay trail is a keynote. What happens there? \nYerba Buena SX80: And we’ll go over these in more detail on the following slides. But we’ve added a small public dock with a small craft launch and staging area. We’ve redesigned the southern parking lot to reduce spaces and give more more detail and also more of a landscape buffer between the bay trail and the parking spaces. We’ve reduced some parking spaces in that northern lot that felt too congested. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve made sure that all sections of the bay trail are 18 feet wide. We’ve added a series of renderings to show the experience of entering the site at the western corner. Walking up Sherman Walk towards the Bay trail. And what happens at that intersection between the 2 pathways? \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we’ve expanded the Site plan and shown a more detailed diagram of all the different pedestrian connections into the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is the this is the Revised Site Plan looks fairly similar to the site plan as presented\, which was 2 slides ago\, but we’ll zoom into different portions of these\, so you can see better the adjustments that were made. So we’ve added 10 shoreline parking spaces in the northern parking field. The ones just along the waterfront north of the building \nYerba Buena SX80: revised the layout of the intersection. The plaza at the intersection between the bay trail and Sherman walk slightly\, and we pulled the vehicular crossing back to give it a little more breathing room. From cars. Again we deleted a whole row of parking spaces that were fronting right up against the bay trail and replaced that with more landscape buffer \nYerba Buena SX80: Bay trail 18 feet wide. We’ve added that public dock with a small craft launch as well as a potential future landing place for a public water shuttle \nYerba Buena SX80: with a staging area at the top that replaced the \nYerba Buena SX80: the ping pong tables. So that’s a place to break down your Windsurf. Rig your stand up\, paddle board\, assemble it\, break it down\, hose it off. \nYerba Buena SX80: removed some of the non public parking spaces in that Southern lot to give it a little more breathing room between the cars and the Bay trail\, and then we’ll zoom in on that. So you get a little more detail of how we’ve refined the pathway connection that gets you from Clement Avenue to the parking spaces and out to the bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: Good! \nYerba Buena SX80: And then this is just a key plan that shows some of the features of the site\, and the red triangles with the numbers on them\, show the different viewpoints of the renderings that will show. But we’ll we’ll reorient everybody as we show those renderings. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s also worth noting that in the 1st time we presented this what is now called the Bay trail we had called the shoreline Trail\, because it was only\, I think\, about a month before our 1st presentation that it was formally adopted as the Bay trail. The trail’s always been there\, but it wasn’t formally part of the bay trail until recently. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then this was a request forward to me through Lisa to show a a side by side of the 2 site plans. And I will say\, at this scale\, it’s hard to see most of the revisions that were made. But we’ll we’ll zoom into the different areas and give more detail. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is the expanded site plan diagram. So here we’re showing in orange the existing and proposed bay trail and then pedestrian walking paths as well as bike paths. \nYerba Buena SX80: So basically\, the site sits at the the confluence or divergence point of the bay trail and the Cross Alameda trail\, which is \nYerba Buena SX80: The Cross Alameda Trail\, is a combination of a dedicated cycle track and a pedestrian sidewalk separated that run along the site. They cross the street at the right\, at the T intersection\, and then they keep going west through Jean Sweeney. Open Space Park\, Atlantic Avenue has on street bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides\, as well as Sherman Street\, has the same. \nYerba Buena SX80: Clement Avenue has again the Cross Alameda trail\, the cycle track on the north side\, and then a pedestrian sidewalk on the south side\, and all of those different trails come together at the Atlantic Avenue\, Sherman Street\, Clement intersection. So that’s a really key pedestrian node \nYerba Buena SX80: in the the original concept of this\, when it was 1st presented to the city of Alameda\, the what is now Sherman Walk\, a pedestrian street was originally going to be a vehicular street which is going to come into the site. So we’d create a four-way intersection. But after looking at it again\, and talking with the Alameda planning staff. \nYerba Buena SX80: we felt it was probably more appropriate to take and make that a dedicated pedestrian way to leave the 3 way intersection as it was\, and dedicate that connector from the intersection out to the bay trail as pedestrian only \nYerba Buena SX80: and then at the southern tip of the site\, the southeast tip. You can see where the bay trail turns north and goes along the waterfront between the building and the the portion of the wharf that we’ll be keeping. Just gonna have a renovated surface on it with public amenities. And then that connects and continues north past 3\, 4\, 5 and 600 Wind River way\, and continues around the north end of the site to the west towards Incidental Yacht Club. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is an enhancement of the southern end of the site. So the key changes that were made here in response to comments was \nYerba Buena SX80: again where the number 10 is up at the top of the page used to be ping pong tables\, and there was no public doc. So in response to the the idea of \nYerba Buena SX80: giving the public a way to actually get to the water. We’re proposing a public dock with a small craft launch that we would attempt to make part of the formal Sf. Bay water trail. I think that would be a nice feature. And then\, as part of the guidelines of the water trail\, there’s the staging area at the top\, which is basically an open area which is available for people to set up\, break down their standard paddle boards\, windsurf rigs. What have you? And that replaces the ping pong tables\, which we think were \nYerba Buena SX80: probably not the the best the best amenity for that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then at the parking lot. What we’ve done is\, we’ve deleted a handful of parking spaces which allows us to pull that \nYerba Buena SX80: the corner of those parking spaces which were previously almost touching the Bay trail to pull those back a little farther\, and then we’ve extended. You can see a pathway that goes from the Clement Avenue crosswalk connects that Crosswalk to the bay trail \nYerba Buena SX80: with a spur that picks up the the parking spaces. And so that’s really best illustrated in the next rendering\, which is\, if you’re standing where the number 14 Arrow is is. If you just come across the crosswalk walking north into the site\, and you’ll see the parking the shoreline parking on your left \nYerba Buena SX80: and the bay trail on your right. \nYerba Buena SX80: and this is this is really to answer what was a key question is\, what is the experience of coming into the site through these entry points. \nYerba Buena SX80: So as if you’ve just crossed Clement\, you’re walking north. You can just get a hint of Brooklyn Basin way in the background\, the water on the right side\, the building 200 Wind River way on the left\, with the public shoreline parking spaces and a very easy\, clear route for people to get from their cars out to the bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve also as part of reducing those parking spaces. We’ve added some more landscape in the parking lot to try and create a little bit more of a feeling of separation between the where the cars are parked and the loading dock of the building we considered moving all of the public shoreline\, parking out of this area into a different part of the site. But I think\, at the end of the day this is a much clearer\, more direct way for people to get to the site \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re driving along Clement Avenue. You pass by the water where you can really see it clearly\, and the next driveway you turn right in. It’s very clear and obvious how you get to the parking versus if you were to try and get to the parking spaces farther north\, even though you’re not near the loading dock of the building. It’s a much more circuitous route through those parking lots. So we just felt the clarity of where to park \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of outweighed that. But then we also balance that by adding additional parking spaces north of the building. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is just to the right of that viewpoint. If you’re coming in the site\, if you’re walking along the bay trail from the direction from the east is if you were coming from Fortman Marina\, and you’re just starting to pass by the parking turn right where it goes north up the the waterfront. \nYerba Buena SX80: and you can see that the existing wharf that’s been renovated with the public dock coming off it to the very right side of the photo. \nYerba Buena SX80: and by removing that timber wharf it really opens up views to the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then again\, another main entry point to the site. So the question\, What is the experience of entering the site through Sherman Walk? And how legible is that site entrance? So a series of 3 renderings a in the top right? Because if you’re standing in the crosswalk at that intersection\, looking towards the building \nYerba Buena SX80: in the bottom left as if you’re midway up that pathway around the main entrance to the building\, and the different color paving indicates the the cross traffic from the employee parking lot to the building entrance\, and then the final. The bottom right is\, if you’re approaching that intersection where there’s a small plaza between Sherman Walk\, where it meets the Bay trail \nYerba Buena SX80: which would also be a place for some type of interpretive program that’s still being developed. And you can see the future and sentinel terminal site beyond. \nYerba Buena SX80: at the north end of the wharf\, another zoom in. \nYerba Buena SX80: So here this is where you can see there were formerly a row about 10 parking spaces that were right\, this small triangular parking lot. They were on the east side of that\, filling that whole space where you you basically would have bumpers of cars almost kind of hanging over the bay trail. So we’ve deleted that \nYerba Buena SX80: entire row of spaces responded to the comment that it felt too congested\, which we agree. And so now you won’t have headlights shining out to the water. You won’t have cars potentially infringing on the bay trail\, and just generally more landscape buffer\, more separation between cars and pedestrians. \nYerba Buena SX80: We looked at removing that lot entirely\, but it’s part of the emergency vehicle access to keep our our fire. Access to the water side of the building \nYerba Buena SX80: next rendering is from position 18 up at the top of the page\, looking downwards\, so you’ll see the Sherman walk to your right\, the building 200 in front of you\, and the bay trail to the left. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is that keynote where the bay trail meets Sherman Walk \nYerba Buena SX80: which takes you towards straight towards Jean Sweeney Park\, off to the right. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then down straight south towards Clement Avenue\, and you can see all the Star Harbor again. That adaptive reuse housing project in the distance. \nYerba Buena SX80: Great\, thank you\, although we don’t call too much attention to it. I did want to point out that we do have a remnant sort of rail spur that we would like to install along the trail\, and we? We thought that that would be a really cool sort of nod to that history of this being the terminus of all those rail lines\, and a place of sort of loading and unloading that cargo. \nYerba Buena SX80: thinking about that sort of hosting\, some rolling lounge chairs\, and probably some other furnishings along the way. But in addition to that\, we really think that that node at the end of Sherman Walk in the Bay trail is an important place arrival moment at the site. And so we’re looking at opportunities through light or special paving\, or the variety of things that you see here to really sort of tell that \nYerba Buena SX80: really interesting story of the of the shipping and and container industry that used to be here. \nYerba Buena SX80: We haven’t fully. We haven’t really fully developed the interpretive and or public art program for this area. But we\, we think it would be really interesting if it were some kind of nautical artifacts that speak to the industrial history of the site\, and particularly the scale of that industrial history\, so that you can\, in an experiential and tactile way\, sort of understand the massive scale of what used to happen there being a really heavy industrial site. So things like. \nYerba Buena SX80: obviously\, it’s it’s almost the the history of container shipping is so important to this site that it’s almost unfortunate that things made out of shipping containers are so common because it would be so appropriate here. But again\, it is\, it is. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t say overdone\, but it’s it’s well done. But ships\, propellers\, anchor chains\, anchors. You know\, dock lines. There’s along the site. Now there’s these massive cleats where the ships used to tie up\, and they’re all just very interesting objects that that really just you see them and you touch them\, and they sort of connect you to the just the scale of the type of industry that used to happen there\, and the history of it. And so \nYerba Buena SX80: the the idea for an interpreter program kind of revolves around ideas like that. And we’re we’re obviously very open to feedback about what you all think would be. You know\, right for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: that area \nYerba Buena SX80: getting close to the end. We’ve tried to focus more on the shoreline improvements than we did on the building. I think our 1st presentation. We had more renderings of the building itself. So we mostly focused on the shoreline. But this is just a good overall view that really gives you kind of an idea of the materiality and the scale and form of the building with those shoreline improvements in the foreground. So where you see bay trail running east to west or north to south\, sorry left to right across the image. Basically\, the the public shoreline areas\, everything from that. And towards the foreground. \nYerba Buena SX80: Another view from a similar vantage point just looking left down the bay trail again towards Clement\, you see those rolling lounge chairs that are on sort of rails as a homage to the rail spur and the crane rail that used to roll longitudinally along that wharf \nYerba Buena SX80: sea level rise resiliency. So the only changes to this diagram is that you no longer see a a car parked along the bay trail because we deleted those parking spaces\, and on the lower image\, you see a the public dock\, just off of the portion of the wharf that will remain. \nYerba Buena SX80: You talk about materials? \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure thing\, it’s a it’s a fairly simple palette of resilient materials\, wood decking to cover that existing concrete structure. As I mentioned\, maybe repurposing some rails to run alongside it pavers\, and our special moments decomposed granite for the shoulders\, concrete sidewalks \nYerba Buena SX80: home. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then our planting\, you know\, we went out to the site and borrowed very heavily from the existing landscape\, looked at things that were thriving out there\, and then paired\, that with some other bay\, friendly and drought\, tolerant plants. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the last slide just a summary of the community engagement that we’ve done so far. So we’ve talked to Mtc. Bay trail about just the the location and the design of the bay trail\, because\, you know\, we are proposing to rebuild the section of Bay trail where signage would be appropriate the Alameda Tma regarding the location of the public dock as it pertains to potentially being a future site for the Oakland Alameda Water shuttle\, which is new as of last summer \nYerba Buena SX80: Sf. Bay Area water trail again for that small craft launch Bike walk Alameda \nYerba Buena SX80: The city of Alameda planning Commission. We’ve been to one public hearing and are planning to do another\, either in late spring or summer of this year. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ensignal Yacht Club\, which is our next door neighbor\, as well as the Oakland Yacht Club\, just to the west of the Ensignal Yacht Club\, and then also some more outreach pending to that we’re waiting to hear back from the friends of Gene Sweeney Park and the Okilani outrigger canoe Center\, which is on the south shore of Alameda. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, well\, look\, thank you very much. And I just want to recognize the work that’s gone into this project in the intervening year or so. \nYerba Buena SX80: Really appreciate that. And the time you’ve taken to summarize and present the proposal so clearly today. So thanks\, guys\, Rip\, that’s very much appreciated. Let’s just move to clarifying questions from the board. Gary\, do you want to kick off? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I had just a question about the trees\, because I know some of your renders show that \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the renders show trees very prominently as part of the big design idea. What kind of trees are you thinking about? I think it’s a tough\, growing environment. I want to benefit from the research you’ve done. Luckily we have our landscape architect here\, the perfect person to answer that question. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s a that’s a great question. \nYerba Buena SX80: you can see you can see our our plant list here at the bottom. We’re looking at London. Plain trees in the parking lot. The let’s see the water gum and big leaf maple. Primarily\, I think\, along that waterfront. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. And then I have a question for Staff. I’m just curious\, like the the details\, such as\, like the rolling lounge chairs\, or whatever to what extent are those you know\, enforceable? Or is that likely to show up at the end of the project? \nYerba Buena SX80: So our policies and guidelines speak to usability? So if there were. I think we’re all familiar with the High Line\, and how\, when it 1st opened\, there was the rolling lounges that had to actually be locked down because they were causing safety issues. We would want to avoid any development of a park that had safety issues. So if it could be designed in a way \nYerba Buena SX80: that was safe. It would be fine. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’d probably describe it as rolling\, but I don’t know. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we would have to view it as like \nYerba Buena SX80: if it became a safety hazard\, we could remove the rolling condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that so that’d be one thing is \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, evaluating it for safety and appropriateness. And then the other thing is. \nYerba Buena SX80: if it turns out that there’s value engineering and it goes away completely. Is is any of that \nYerba Buena SX80: enforceable. Or it would just be like\, equivalent seating would suffice. Yeah\, we would be looking for equivalent seating. Okay? So it’s a concept at this point. Yeah\, okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Tom. \nYerba Buena SX80: Tom. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. Just a few couple of random questions. 1st of all\, are there \nYerba Buena SX80: existing industry or maritime industrial \nYerba Buena SX80: relics there that are of interest. I think you mentioned anchor\, Clea\, to the other things. Is there a whole lot of stuff? Or \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m trying to think on the site existing. \nYerba Buena SX80: the ones the most interesting ones that come to mind are the the probably the cleats along the edge of the wharf. Yeah\, they’re they’re. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. They look like the cleat that you’d see on a on a boat that are usually about that long\, but they’re about 5 feet long\, and they look like they weigh about 500 pounds. What exactly we do with them. I haven’t totally figured that out\, but I mean. They are a really interesting artifact. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: honestly\, the facade of the Del Monte Warehouse\, which is again was adaptly reused into a A residential project just at the across the street is a really interesting relic of the maritime history of that site\, because it’s a it’s a huge brick warehouse\, and that is where they used to store things. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I \nYerba Buena SX80: most of what used to be there\, I think\, was\, you know the the warehouses\, the cannery\, but those were all. Those were all demoed in the nineties when the \nYerba Buena SX80: the site was redeveloped. There actually are on the wharf. There’s also the original steel rails that the the Gantry crane used to ride north and south\, on which there might be something interesting to be done with those. \nYerba Buena SX80: Second question on the cross section. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve just one thing I didn’t understand. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s possible. Yeah\, it it shows on there \nYerba Buena SX80: future adaptive measure dotted line. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is\, I guess\, for 2\,100 sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, the the idea is\, you know\, the expected life of this project is somewhere in the 50 to 75 year range. And so we’re above all of the the sea level datums other than the base flood elevation in the year 2\,100. So the idea is\, the the \nYerba Buena SX80: 1st floor of the building is above that datum. But the existing wharf surface is not so. The the idea is just to say that if this project actually makes it to the year 2\,100\, and that level of sea level rise does come to pass that basically\, we would just be raising the bay trail and the shoreline improvements. You’re tied to the these elevations because the existing \nYerba Buena SX80: elevation. And so it would be for kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: difficult right? Yeah\, if we were building it new\, we would build it higher. But it is\, you know\, it’s from 1929\, I think. Just \nYerba Buena SX80: one more question\, and this is nothing to do with the shoreline band. I’m sorry\, but I’m curious about the vehicular situation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you have a a drop off \nYerba Buena SX80: along Atlantic Avenue. I see Ballards and a plaza there. What do you do about \nYerba Buena SX80: door? Dash\, dash\, and and Uber\, and people drop all that stuff they go through the parking lot. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, let me get back to the Site plan here. So anybody who’s coming to park their car to use the building. They would come in. I don’t know if anybody can see my mouse. Probably not. The main entrance to the Wind River campus is at the kind of top left corner of this image. It’s really screened back. So it’s hard to see. But if you were\, if you were dropping something off the front door of the building\, you would come in the main driveway you’d pull in. You turn right and arrive at the front door\, so there’s no on street drop off. It would all be in the parking lot to the north. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And then related to that is Sherman away \nYerba Buena SX80: Fire Lane emergency vehicle. All that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, Sherman. So yeah. Sherman Street\, the public street to the south. But then Sherman walk alongside the north edge of the building. That is fire egress. So those are collapsible bollards. \nYerba Buena SX80: collapsing. Football is in the street. Sorry not fire egress\, fire access. That’s that’s A\, that’s the fire line need to come in from Atlantic\, yes\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: thanks \nYerba Buena SX80: okay leo\, thank you for the presentation very thorough very\, very easy to understand\, maybe just a couple of points of clarification. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the main rendering from Atlantic. Clement. Am I correct in reading this\, that there’s actually should be a row of trees closer to the building. I just want to make sure that I’m understanding plan versus the renderings. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m gonna guess we render that we took those out so you could see the building facade and entry more clearly. But \nYerba Buena SX80: so the intent is the plan. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, okay\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then back to the trees that gary was asking about. \nYerba Buena SX80: It seems like our our. I’m not a landscape architect\, but I’m curious if that you’re looking to native species and species for \nYerba Buena SX80: or drought tolerant for this environment. Yes\, yes\, we would love to. Unfortunately\, there aren’t a ton of native species that get large enough that you would \nYerba Buena SX80: that are really appropriate for us to sort of achieve the canopy that we’re looking for\, but definitely open to using anything that \nYerba Buena SX80: we might be able to. Okay. Yeah. For example\, the maples seem like they’re they’re not indigenous\, right? \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re not indigenous. No\, no\, but every everything is drought tolerant and already found on the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think. Yeah\, that’s that’s my question. Thanks. Thanks\, Leo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for the presentation. So a couple of. I have 2 questions. So I think I read that there’s a the program would include authorization for additional length of rock prevention. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think that’s related to the timber wharf removal. \nYerba Buena SX80: Think I got that right right? But I was just wondering what the nexus is\, and between the wharf removal and the rock revetment and \nYerba Buena SX80: or it\, maybe it was an access. Now you can access the shore. You want it to look well\, because I don’t think the \nYerba Buena SX80: the wharf would have knocked the waves down much\, or maybe it did. I don’t know but and and where? Where is the river? Like I didn’t. Yeah\, it’s a good question. It’s \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s something that may or may not be necessary\, depending on exactly what condition we find when that wharf is removed\, so it’s pretty deep\, and it’s really hard to see what is all the way back behind it\, especially sort of in the lower corner\, where it meets \nYerba Buena SX80: the the bottom end of the basin. \nYerba Buena SX80: it\, to my knowledge it that the Riprap shoreline basically goes underneath of the wharf all the way from the north edge of the site to the south. \nYerba Buena SX80: The yeah\, underneath the it. It’s really you’re right. It’s underneath the concrete portion of the wharf. The timber portion of the wharf sort of outboard of that\, and totally in the water. So \nYerba Buena SX80: but it\, it’s basically saying that we may need to repair. Replace some of it if we find it to be displaced or some of it missing. So basically on the just on the short perimeter of your site\, like underneath the concrete. Okay\, yeah. I mean\, that makes sense to me. I just\, I just wanted to understand that. Yeah\, not planning to add any large swaths of new riprap areas. It’s more of just repair. Once we see what’s there. Right? Okay\, thank you. My second question is\, \nYerba Buena SX80: can you describe the boat dock use\, especially in terms of the hand carry carried boat craft. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I guess I’m particularly trying to understand which which I think is a great thing\, but I’m just trying to understand. \nYerba Buena SX80: It sounds like they can bring their equipment up on the land or down from the land to the dock. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I was wondering how they cross the bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 vehicles\, or if that is part of what the programming includes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So \nYerba Buena SX80: we actually have a supply of. So we’re also the operators of the research park at Marina Village\, which is about a 1.3 million square feet of office and life science space. And one of the things we have for tenants is a handful of kayaks and paddle boards. We’ve actually got these little rolling dollies that they put them on. So basically\, you take the kayak\, and one person can roll it on this dolly with a handle \nYerba Buena SX80: and roll it around easy. But yeah\, basically\, somebody would park their car\, put the kayak or the paddle board on a dolly. If it’s you know Kayak or a paddleboard. I guess you can just carry. But yeah\, you know\, carefully cross the bay trail and walk onto the wharf. It’s basically yeah. I was just wondering. I mean\, I\, \nYerba Buena SX80: most people are very considerate\, and obviously it would slow down just because of the people walking around and the congestion and everything. But yeah. Just wonder if there’s you might need to slow down the bicycles somehow\, with some sort of yeah\, there may be slowing elements\, probably some kind of either signage or treatment of the paving to indicate that there’s a crossing there. It’s just sort of by nature\, you know. The bay trail runs between the parking lot and the water. So somebody’s gonna have to cross it at some point. \nYerba Buena SX80: right? It’s not the 1st place that that conflict exists. Thank you very much appreciate it. Thank you. Okay\, thanks\, Bob. I’ll Stefan. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just have one clarifying question about the the rail spur. \nYerba Buena SX80: And could you add. \nYerba Buena SX80: show us exactly where that might be on the plans and sort of the extent of \nYerba Buena SX80: what you hope to preserve. \nYerba Buena SX80: You mean where the original rail spur was. Yeah\, I think you described that it would be incorporated into the \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of the Wharf Bay trail edge. Is that right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. The original. So Gene Sweeney\, open space park was up until it was developed as a park was a giant rail switching yard. And you can kind of see in this photo that rail. Spur. It turned. It went from the east west\, where you see Gene Sweeney open space. It turned north and kind of ran straight up through the middle of the Wind River campus out to what was a ship pier that was. The the abutments of it are still there at the north end of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then so there’s that. That was the rail spur. And then there was also the the steel rails that the gantry crane on the wharf itself ran up and down on\, so it’s proposed as more of a not literally preserving them\, but more of a \nYerba Buena SX80: more of a reference to the former rail yard by the use of rails along the wharf. So could you speak to the Gantry Crane line? Is that something that’s actually also being preserved? Or are you proposing to recreate something not preserved because it’s on the timber portion of the wharf that is\, again\, it’s in really too poor of a condition to try to save. But we would be basically kind of recreating it further inland. Okay\, thank you for that clarification. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey? Thanks\, Stefan. just one question for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: just remind us of your approach to maintenance going forward. How? How would you handle maintenance for the project? \nYerba Buena SX80: So we? The whole research park is\, I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s about 30 acres. We have a a contract with a landscape maintenance company that basically is on site full time maintaining\, you know\, all of our landscaping. But \nYerba Buena SX80: I think I know where this question is coming from. And I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re starting now\, I will. I will say that I think over the past couple of years. Some of the areas around the shoreline have gotten a bit overgrown. But starting a month ago\, we are putting more attention on \nYerba Buena SX80: maintenance specifically of the shoreline itself. So we we picked up about\, I don’t know 5 pickup truck loads worth of garbage that had accumulated down at the water’s edge. \nYerba Buena SX80: no excuse for letting it get that way. Basically\, it’s it’s just until you actually walk up to the edge of it and look over. It’s oftentimes kind of hard to see what is accumulated on the Riprap and it\, you know\, it was brought to our attention the condition that it was in by some of our neighbors from the Oakland Yacht Club\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: when we went out there and looked for it ourselves. You know\, we immediately got a crew out to again pick up\, probably several 100 pounds worth of various garbage that had accumulated on the shoreline. So we’re gonna keep doing that periodically\, probably every quarter. Send a a crew of people around to pick up and then we’re we’re also \nYerba Buena SX80: now working our way around the shoreline and cutting down some of the the just larger brush. That’s sort of overgrown out of the riprap and blocked some of the views. \nYerba Buena SX80: also\, we’re gonna be repaving a lot of the asphalt paths in Wind River Park. Come this spring once the rain stops\, because a lot of it has gotten pretty degraded. So I think it’s just an area that we didn’t pay enough attention to over the last few years\, because it is physically the most remote from our office at the east End or the west end of the site \nYerba Buena SX80: but now that’s been brought to our attention\, we’ll be focusing more on it. So I think it’s basically\, the answer is\, we’re gonna maintain it the same way we do the rest of the campus. We just put more focus on this area and not \nYerba Buena SX80: basically \nYerba Buena SX80: not ignore it\, even though it’s so physically farthest away from where we all work. Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Awesome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So that concludes the clarifying questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: we now move to public comment. If we have public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: I see no hands raised online. So no public comment. Okay? Oh\, I’m sorry. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: we did receive 2 public comment emails that have been forwarded to the Design Review Board\, and I’ll provide those summaries now \nYerba Buena SX80: Katie Hofstetter from Strata Development Group and an Alameda resident \nYerba Buena SX80: strata recently acquired the Star Harbor Apartment building across Clement Avenue from the 200 Wind River site. \nYerba Buena SX80: She expressed support for this project\, observing it\, proposes improved public access to an underutilized portion of Alameda that has recently seen an increase in residents. The continuation and beautification of the Bay trail connection to the new Bike pathway on Clement would encourage more foot traffic and bike traffic\, and the direct connection to Alaska Basin is a huge benefit to a population that must otherwise travel via car to access the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: and Michael Gorman\, co-director of the junior sailing program\, and in small yacht club adjacent to the proposed site. He expressed support for the project stating Blue Rise Ventures has been a good neighbor\, and he is looking forward to the improvement on the adjacent site. \nYerba Buena SX80: The public access proposed will be helpful in allowing the public to access the Oakland Alameda estuary\, and all the recreational benefits that will go with it. \nYerba Buena SX80: That concludes the public comments we received. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Ashley\, and we appreciate the 2 people who submitted those comments. So thank you for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, we will now move to the next agenda item\, which is board discussion and advice\, and we were presented with. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think there were 4 things that Staff asked us to provide some feedback on \nYerba Buena SX80: and of course\, if we \nYerba Buena SX80: want to pick up on something else\, please do. But the 4 questions are focused on \nYerba Buena SX80: how legible\, how clear are the connections from the adjacent roadways. The bike pedestrian networks\, you know\, is that going to draw people to the waterfront\, which is the objective of our our agency? \nYerba Buena SX80: Second question is the interpretive program designed and cited to maximize\, maximize\, public use of the shoreline and enjoyment? \nYerba Buena SX80: Do we have any recommendations? Number 3 public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adaptive to sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: ensuring high quality\, public access\, opportunities over time. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the 4th point raised by staff. Does the Board have any recommendations regarding proposed landside amenities that support the water access proposed as part of the project is the launch area in the basin appropriately sited to encourage the public to use this feature. So there are 4 questions there\, and I think what we’ll do. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s just I’ll I’ll I’ll leave it flexible for each of you to pick up on any of those 4 or any other points that you want to make related to other aspects of the proposal. Look\, I think we might just \nYerba Buena SX80: change this round. And\, Stefan\, let’s start with you\, and we’ll we’ll come down from is that okay? If you kick off \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll do my best. Thank you. Thanks\, Jacinta. I do. I guess I would start by saying I really appreciate the \nYerba Buena SX80: effort that the team has made to \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of acknowledge and reflect the our discussion last time. And your efforts to \nYerba Buena SX80: address those comments. I think I just really appreciate the the diligence on your part. So I do want to say this. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would say\, sort of at a high level. With regards to the 4 questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m generally pleased with sort of how the applicant is has sought to address them. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we have some clarity that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the wharf level\, from a resiliency standpoint is providing \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of\, I guess\, a basis for a resilient mid-century and and beyond condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: I. My largest question\, I think\, remains around the area that is seems to be the least \nYerba Buena SX80: developed\, and that’s around the sort of interpretive program. \nYerba Buena SX80: Which seems to be still sort of conceptual in nature. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: My sense is that maximizing usability for visitors \nYerba Buena SX80: and the neighborhood in this location \nYerba Buena SX80: in many ways might trump the recreation of \nYerba Buena SX80: of historic components that actually are are not there or \nYerba Buena SX80: don’t sort of actually reflect a historic condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so I think I would just sort of sort of keep that in mind as you move forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: The sort of opportunity to provide \nYerba Buena SX80: high quality\, open spaces\, places for folks to gather and sit \nYerba Buena SX80: and enjoy the the shoreline location. \nYerba Buena SX80: The the \nYerba Buena SX80: any real or realistic elements that could be brought in that actually reflect the the worst history. I think\, would be fantastic. But I would probably shy away from \nYerba Buena SX80: the introduction of sort of elements that actually might be fake or false. That might be promoting \nYerba Buena SX80: An idea of something that actually wasn’t there. \nYerba Buena SX80: But other than that\, I think I feel a very \nYerba Buena SX80: I feel fairly positive about the the different changes that have actually been implemented. \nYerba Buena SX80: So thank you. Yeah\, thanks. Stefan. \nYerba Buena SX80: A bulb. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So going over the questions\, I don’t really have \nYerba Buena SX80: much of a comment on the first\, st the 1st one. \nYerba Buena SX80: except that I did mention this potential conflict between \nYerba Buena SX80: the bay trail and the boat. Launch. Hand carry stuff which I think \nYerba Buena SX80: sounds like you can work on or address that. The second one. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m well\, I’m really glad that you have water access\, and it sounds like other people\, are happy about that\, too\, so that I like that\, that’s all. My only comment on the second one \nYerba Buena SX80: on the 3\, rd one on sea level rise. I think this looks pretty good. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that the shoreline band and the and the bay trail are \nYerba Buena SX80: can accommodate\, I think about. I think you said 0 point 8 feet by 2050 \nYerba Buena SX80: using the 100 year water level\, which I think is a reasonable that sounds like the intermediate curve. \nYerba Buena SX80: not the intermediate high. But I think that’s okay. You could have gone with the annual \nYerba Buena SX80: high water levels. And it looks like you have an adaptation plan that is \nYerba Buena SX80: feasible. At the conceptual level to raise the property or the perimeter \nYerba Buena SX80: marginal wharf area\, because your building pad is higher than the wharf is now. So that looks reasonable. \nYerba Buena SX80: The finished floor elevation. I I wasn’t quite clear exactly. It looks like \nYerba Buena SX80: What was the finish floor elevation again for the building? I know that’s outside the shoreline band. But I’m still. \nYerba Buena SX80: was it 16 point something? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m gonna have to get 15.6 15.6 feet\, I think. Yeah\, there’s 2 different datums. I think one is Navd 88\, and the other is there’s a alameda datum\, and I think there’s a conversion between those 2 about 5 feet. I might have to get back to you on exactly what that is to make sure it’s that we’re talking apples to apples. I I think the staff report says it clearly\, and I’m just fumbling here. I apologize. If it’s 15.6 feet in Avd. That is\, \nYerba Buena SX80: slightly above the 100 year\, I believe. 100 year flood with the intermediate high sea level rise curve at year 2\,100\, which is really nice to see. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I like that often on the fears we’d \nYerba Buena SX80: don’t see the finished floor higher than the \nYerba Buena SX80: future water level\, because for various reasons. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we often don’t get to comment on it\, although I always do\, anyway. Because it’s outside the shoreline band. But so I do like\, I think we’re okay with sea level rise long story short. So thank you for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: I do have a couple of comments on the sea level rise just for your future programming. \nYerba Buena SX80: one would be to in your adaptation planning \nYerba Buena SX80: ideally. Think about this before you complete the the design and construction include consideration of the storm water drainage \nYerba Buena SX80: from the developed areas to the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: Because raising the perimeter would impede that\, or maybe I don’t think it would reverse it\, but it would repeat\, impede the \nYerba Buena SX80: drainage away from the buildings. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then consider the vulnerability and sensitivity to flooding of the utilities in the vicinity of the loading area. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just because I think those are at the wharf elevation which \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. I don’t know if they should be put on a pedestal or something\, just to keep them above \nYerba Buena SX80: or raise them later as part of your adaptation plan. But so those are my only 2 comments. I think that’s kind of those are details. \nYerba Buena SX80: Number 4. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t have any comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, wait a minute. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, yeah\, I like the the launch. I think it looks like you. You kind of modeled the conceptual \nYerba Buena SX80: floating dock and gangway after one of the water taxi \nYerba Buena SX80: facilities. There’s a picture\, I think\, rather than a rendering. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it’s loosely modeled on the new public dock that’s at Boho Circle Immigrant Park\, which is just to the west of the posey tube on Alameda. Okay\, great. So that sounds like the one comment I had\, or my 1st thought was\, if you have people carrying canoes or kayaks\, or something\, you might want to make the gangway a little wider than what you would have just for pedestrians on a water taxi. \nYerba Buena SX80: just\, you know\, because of the \nYerba Buena SX80: couple of people have to carry something big and bulky. And \nYerba Buena SX80: which means that it’s gonna weigh more\, which means you’re gonna need a bigger float to hold it up. \nYerba Buena SX80: So. But I think that’s all doable. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then I think the waves are pretty calm in this area. It seems pretty sheltered. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’m I’m guessing the waves do diffract and refract. So they come down parallel to the \nYerba Buena SX80: or their crests are perpendicular to the\, to the marginal wharf to the side\, so that the dock oriented that way is the right way to so\, anyway. But I you can talk to somebody. The the people that boat there\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: a marine engineer to get the orientation and the access and all that straightened out\, I think\, because it could be a really nice facility. \nYerba Buena SX80: Social \nYerba Buena SX80: sorry. It’s I’ve never seen personally a ripple more than about 6 inches high in this basin. Yeah\, that. Well\, that’s good news. Yeah\, yeah. I appreciate that. It did look very sheltered to me. And because it’s all land on the north side\, and then the wharf on the south side probably has a \nYerba Buena SX80: shall. It’s probably shallow under there. They always seem to shoal\, not be dredged underneath the wharf. So well\, that’s great. Those are my only 2 comments on that last \nYerba Buena SX80: number 4. Thank you. Thanks\, Bob. Leo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Jacinta. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think my main question or consideration would be the entry at the south end \nYerba Buena SX80: by Clement in the driveway into the loading dock. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think everything else you’ve given a great deal of thought and sensitivity to in a really nice way. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s just on the south. It feels like given that little bend \nYerba Buena SX80: with trees that the visibility of the public parking \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of feels concealed and therefore not very public. It feels like it’s really part of \nYerba Buena SX80: the service area. So I just wonder if the opening \nYerba Buena SX80: into that area could just be slid southward\, so that when you’re making that right turn into the parking lot. You see it. You see the parking spaces. \nYerba Buena SX80: the entry walk runs parallel to it. So there! There’s the general movement into \nYerba Buena SX80: into this area\, I think\, would just make it a lot more welcoming. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Leo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Tom. \nYerba Buena SX80: thanks. So I was not in the previous review\, but from what I see that. It’s been a very diligent job of responding to everything was brought up. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t. I don’t see any \nYerba Buena SX80: major things that rise to my concern. I guess the only thing I would even comment on at this point is the \nYerba Buena SX80: And Stefan kind of alluded to. It already is the the the site. Narrative. \nYerba Buena SX80: What? What is that about? What is it composed of? And there’s really nothing left except some cleats out on the edge of the dock. So what do you do? \nYerba Buena SX80: But what I would really advise against is just is finding some other stuff from somewhere else and stick it there. It’s just it’s too fake. And what I would\, I notice there’s some kind of shade structures\, series of shade structures. I don’t know what we didn’t. You didn’t tell us much about that\, but I assume it’s like a little trellis or something. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would say if you could get a get a narrative that is tightly tied to what the processes were going on there. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then tell that story inside of those structures. Give them more meaning\, you know. Maybe tell another chapter\, and it wouldn’t be difficult or expensive to do\, except that the research would be needed to go into \nYerba Buena SX80: archives and photos. And you know\, like Rosie\, the River Memorial\, they was done with a lot of old letters and photographs and stories of people. So you know\, if you had an archivist\, archivist\, or slash artist of some sort that could bring story\, live and be told in those structures. It would be a lot more \nYerba Buena SX80: meaning for them\, you know something you really want to check out\, and and also I would avoid. Don’t\, please don’t copy the the High Line benches and having them roll would be not good. And I’m sure you come up with something else that was more endemic to this site that would sit on this rail that you’re gonna create. But that’s all I have. Thanks\, good job. \nYerba Buena SX80: great. I really agree with that. I think that that one image of the tall ships is so powerful\, and I didn’t see a date on the in your presentation. But just that image with the date\, I think\, says it all right there. And those structures. Tom took it in a couple of steps beyond where I was going\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that as a 1 of the items here is the entry\, you know the access to the shoreline. Is it legible? Is it inviting? Those structures\, I think\, are really important? You know they they do provide a you know\, kind of a visual destination and a queue\, because the you know\, the pathway in \nYerba Buena SX80: the way you have it rendered is beautiful\, and if all those plantings look that magnificent and delicate\, you know. That’d be one thing. But if you can imagine if the structures were value engineered out or didn’t come out to be special\, and the planting was not perfectly maintained then that entry is not everything that you’ve shown us. So I think you’re doing a lot. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know very well in a very small space there in a difficult space. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it’s important that everything you showed\, I think comes comes out right. So I love the idea of making that giving it a purpose\, you know\, and and making that more important. The other access point. You know\, the shoreline walk or the Sherman walk. You know. It’s a fire lane\, too\, and that’s always a challenge to make it a inviting \nYerba Buena SX80: pedestrian access as well as a as well as a fire lane\, and I think the challenge is always to kind of bring down the scale. How do you do that? And you can’t make it less wide. I know that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But we’ve done some fire lanes now 3 times in Bay Area jurisdictions outside of San Francisco. Where where there’s been like a Hollywood drive type thing we call it\, where there’s like a strip of planting down the middle. It’s maybe 2 feet wide. \nYerba Buena SX80: In some instances we’ve been able to put low plantings in there and get the fire department to agree that they will straddle that if there’s if it’s just grasses\, or some flowering succulent\, or something like that\, that they’ll just span over it\, and they’ll drive down the fire lane and and we’ve gotten it approved 3 times San Mateo\, Emeryville\, and Daily City\, and they’re built. So if you need precedence\, you know we’re always happy to share\, and you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: advance the movement. The other thing\, then\, once\, if you\, if you’re able to divide it down the middle\, one side could be decomposed. Granite\, you know\, engineered for fire trucks. The other side could be concrete or something like that. But I think just changing materials\, maybe \nYerba Buena SX80: can can make it much more inviting\, and possibly give you the opportunity to\, you know\, kind of guide pedestrians down one side and bicycles down the other\, because I think people will maybe gravitate towards the gravel and the bikes will gravitate towards concrete. So that was that was just thought \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of the yeah\, the interpretive program and the amenities. I was. Gonna say. \nYerba Buena SX80: they’re kind of put out there as separate considerations. But maybe they’re the same. The amenities are the interpretive elements. So they’re occupiable or something. \nYerba Buena SX80: Finally\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, because the scheme relies on planting so much is why you’re getting a lot of comments on that \nYerba Buena SX80: the soil preparation is so critical. And the right type of soil and the right type of \nYerba Buena SX80: consultants are people who know how to put soil out there that’s not gonna compact and shrink and disappear. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the kind of trees that can survive in that setting. So I think I think the soil prep and the maintenance. You know\, we’ve really turned so much of our attention to that in terms of. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, landscape design\, because that’s a big missing piece of the puzzle. I mean\, people are spending plenty of money on plants and installation and maintenance. And they’re not getting the results that they that they should\, because the craft of maintenance is kind of being lost. So that’s another conversation that I’m happy to add more to. But in terms of the natives the maple was the one native that you showed \nYerba Buena SX80: with the right amount of soil and the right amount of maintenance. I think you could get it to live there\, but I think it’s an uphill battle. It’s a stream side tree. It’s a riparian tree. The sycamore is a great analog for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would also look at \nYerba Buena SX80: Catalina Ironwood. You know the Lion of Amnos is a really tough\, tough native tree from Catalina Island in Southern California. Takes the wind\, thin soil\, Rocky Serpentine you name it. It will survive all that\, and we used see it quite use quite a bit in the South Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: and Catalina cherry is another one that’s good. I think Buckeye and Oaks would also\, with the right soil. Preparation. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, are are really well adapted to that. I mean in a native setting. They would be growing\, you know\, near the shoreline like that. So anyway\, I think there are some ideas maybe to pursue. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think that’s all I have. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, look\, thanks\, Gary\, thanks for those points. And \nYerba Buena SX80: I I’m just gonna reinforce a couple of the responses that are being provided. Which are all on point. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I would just emphasize that authenticity of interpretation is really important. So you know\, I don’t think that relocated\, or\, you know\, bringing in rails to reference a historic rail line that wasn’t actually in that position \nYerba Buena SX80: necessarily means as much as some other type of interpretation along the lines of \nYerba Buena SX80: what was mentioned earlier by by Tom and Gary. \nYerba Buena SX80: if I remember correctly the building\, the refurbished the residential building\, which is a refurbished industrial building. I went inside there once\, and I think there’s some very interesting interpretation in there\, if I remember that correctly. But I’m not 100% sure on that. But \nYerba Buena SX80: anyway\, I seem to remember some\, you know. Photographic of course\, that’s for residential building. But \nYerba Buena SX80: but I think certainly bringing the history\, you know\, whether it’s a photographic record\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: placed in a way with some of the history would be really valuable\, because when you started with the story of the site\, the historic narrative I mean\, it’s incredibly interesting. And it was an incredibly significant place. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I’d encourage you to work on that in the program. And \nYerba Buena SX80: so that would be my thoughts just reinforcing. Question 2 comments back. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think just a comment in relation to question 4. And we’ve just going to reinforce this. But I think in the selection whether it’s plant material\, you know\, certainly. Put all the effort you can into site. Preparation \nYerba Buena SX80: soil works. But \nYerba Buena SX80: the quality\, the selection of final finishes\, the selection of final furnishings\, you know. I would just encourage you to make them as robust as you can\, because \nYerba Buena SX80: I know you’re committing to good maintenance in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: but these sorts of areas\, if they’re not maintained well\, they can start to deteriorate pretty quickly. So I just encourage you to really work on that. As you continue to refine the design\, I think all of the other comments were on point\, so I won’t reinforce any of the others. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think that’s I think\, that \nYerba Buena SX80: summarize. Well\, that concludes\, I didn’t summarize\, but I think everyone took notes. So I don’t think I need to summarize tonight. And and I would just again reinforce. How appreciative we are of the work that you’ve done bringing a you know a doc into the project is\, you know\, is a significant move\, and we really appreciate you doing that\, and as well as the other modifications. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the south entry from Clement. Leo summarized that perfectly. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a challenging spot and I think you’ve done some good work there\, and I’ve just encouraged that\, you know signage for the public parking be really clear in the rendering. It looks very clear. In fact\, it almost looks like \nYerba Buena SX80: electrical vehicles charging points. But you know\, if you can make sure that the signage for the Bay trail is very clear\, and that the public parking is is clear\, particularly because this will be a very \nYerba Buena SX80: attractive place for the community to visit\, so want to make it easy for them to park and and get there. \nYerba Buena SX80: So look\, I think with that. I’ll conclude and just ask if you’d like to make any brief response \nYerba Buena SX80: to what you’ve heard. The only thing I was going to talk about is just the interpretive program. And I think you’re it is obviously the least developed part of the design \nYerba Buena SX80: and part of that is just because it is such a tricky thing of we don’t. Wanna. \nYerba Buena SX80: We didn’t wanna bring in fake objects\, but we also didn’t really wanna have the whole interpreter program. Just be kind of\, you know\, a book on a stick that you read. \nYerba Buena SX80: and yet there is really not a whole lot remaining on the site that is real that speaks to the history of it. The the Alta Star Harbor. That housing project is really amazing\, because they were able to keep the entire shell of this on right. So their their interpretive program is basically the structure is still there. And it’s very ornate with all the brickwork\, and it’s large\, and you know it’s kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s just. It’s very cool\, right? And they had that opportunity to do that. And I wish we had that opportunity with an existing structure like that. But we don’t. One of the other ideas we had a photo up there of\, what? Like a viewfinder like a telescope\, the kind that used to put quarters in and look through. And I think this might have been. Yuri’s idea actually was \nYerba Buena SX80: one of our favorite things is that photo of the tall ships. And what if you could put that viewfinder that it looks like a telescope? But you put it in the viewpoint of the photo\, and you look through it. But you see the historical photo. And that way it’s it’s sort of more interesting and more interactive than just a picture on a sign \nYerba Buena SX80: and it makes sure that you are standing in the spot that lets you see\, like one to one the relationship between the present and the past. So that was a really interesting idea. But it is tricky. And we’ll keep working on it. But I I acknowledge that it’s probably the least part of the design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jump in\, make a comment. I have some friends or acquaintances that are using making virtual \nYerba Buena SX80: reality videos of sea level rise both the inundation and also the adaptation measures where you put on goggles. And you can see a vision\, if you will. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so I I think that people really like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s hard to do anything when you have the goggles on\, but otherwise I think it works pretty well. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, spending a lot of time along the waterfront. I really like ballers. \nYerba Buena SX80: and there’s something about them that. They really have a presence. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I recognize those big things that ships tile. You were mentioning that earlier\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I think they’re really cool. I think it’s an opportunity to put in some sort of interpretive sign\, or I don’t know if they’re on the concrete or on the timber. \nYerba Buena SX80: The timber\, because that’s where you would tie off right on the on the yeah. I \nYerba Buena SX80: it would be a shame to lose those\, or at least\, you know\, keep at least one. I mean\, it’s it’s a pretty interesting \nYerba Buena SX80: somebody could actually make something out of those. I think so\, anyway\, very big door \nYerba Buena SX80: and door handles. But yeah\, no. They for people that that are on both\, I mean\, it’s it’s\, you know. You recognize that right away when you see a big one. You understand that it was for large ships\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: if they’re that old\, I think it’s it’s quite. They have a lot of gravitas. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, yeah\, that just reminded me of something\, too. I’m sorry to prolong this. But \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I think when you get into technology effects you mentioned lighting\, you know as possible \nYerba Buena SX80: a possibility for interpretation or \nYerba Buena SX80: effects. And I just think you’ve got to be really clear that that’s going to last the distance. You know. \nYerba Buena SX80: We had an incredible installation along the embarcadero here years ago\, you know\, whole ribbon of lit cubes\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: and that started to fail within a couple of years. So you know\, you just have to be careful about what you choose. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, so with that\, I don’t think we need to see this project again. I think we can leave it in the excellent hands of staff. Is everyone in agreement on that great? Okay? So I think that concludes comments and recommendations. \nYerba Buena SX80: and so we will adjourn the meeting. Could someone \nYerba Buena SX80: put a motion to adjourn the meeting who’d adjourn? \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Tom. Thanks\, Gary. I hope the recording picked that up. Okay\, so we’ll close the meeting. Thank you again for all your hard work\, and wish you the very best with the construction of the project. Thank you.\n \n\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/february-10-2025-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250206T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250206T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241209T183632Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250403T233655Z UID:10000230-1738846800-1738861200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 6\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, 1st Floor Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n\nNapa County Board of Supervisors District 5 Office: 4381 Broadway Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503\nCALTRANS: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl.\, Oakland\, CA 94612\nMountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, 3rd Fl\, City Clerks Office\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\nOffice of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA. 94530\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento CA 95825\n890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\n176 E Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\n2379 Sheffield Dr. Livermore\, CA 94550\n1195 Third St.\, Ste. 310\, Napa\, CA 9455\n500 County Center\, 5th Fl.\, Buckeye Conf. Rm.\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\n1021 O St.\, Rm. 6710\, Sacramento\, CA 95814-4900\n\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. \n  \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82017567726?pwd=iakp7jvDUf7ex9TYJsRWFft1aRoMXi.1 \n  \nLive Webcast \n  \nSee information on public participation \n  \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID820 175 67726 \nPasscode 752282 \n  \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for January 16\, 2025 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Listing // Additional Administrative Listing(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the Treasure Island Marina Replacement Project in the City and County of San Francisco; BCDC Permit Application No. 2023.006.00The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for BCDC Permit No. 2023.006.00\, a proposal by Treasure Island Enterprises\, LLC.\, to remove an existing marina and construct a new\, expanded marina.(Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation // Exhibit A // Exhibit B // Presentation // Staff Presentation // Public Comments\nSenior Staff PresentationExecutive Director Goldzband and Director of Legislative and External Affairs Gervase will give an update on meetings with Administration officials and members of the State Legislature and their staffs\, as well as on BCDC’s current and future budget outlook.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Changing permitting handout // Protecting our San Francisco Bay handout // Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan handout\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nAgency to vet Richmond-San Rafael Bridge bike lane experiment\nNew path forward’: Point Buckler Island sold to John Muir Land Trust for environmental restoration\nThe war over a private island in the San Francisco Bay\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Approved Commission Minutes 2.06.2025 \n \n \n \n \n \n Video 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/february-6-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250206T103000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250206T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20250127T204809Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250228T224334Z UID:10000267-1738837800-1738843200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 6\, 2025 Rising Sea Level Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda\nItem 3: Staff Presentation\nItem 4: Staff Presentation\nItem 4: Regulatory Improvements Handout \nMeeting summary \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording\n \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2025/02/2025-02-06-RSL-meeting-rec.mp3 URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-6-2025-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250205T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250205T150000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20250127T204149Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250205T205523Z UID:10000266-1738760400-1738767600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 5\, 2025 Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group Meeting DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-5-2025-sand-studies-commissioner-working-group-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250122T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250122T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20240917T181313Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241212T200144Z UID:10000195-1737550800-1737565200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 22\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-22-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250122T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250122T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241104T230038Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250109T235119Z UID:10000209-1737538200-1737547200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 22\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-22-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250117T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250117T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20250106T235002Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250115T223936Z UID:10000265-1737108000-1737115200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 17\, 2025 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-17-2025-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250116T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250116T170000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241209T183510Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250121T165055Z UID:10000229-1737032400-1737046800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 16\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary Physical LocationMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locationsNapa County Board of Supervisors District 5 Office\, 4381 Broadway Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503 \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/82307825258?pwd=7T0cKnOb2oS1saD3LkGNeT5Sf3xByA.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID823 0782 5258 \nPasscode553686 \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for December 19\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommissioner Workshop on Richmond-San Rafael BridgeCommissioners and Alternates will participate in a workshop to receive information\, engage with relevant data\, and discuss policy questions on a proposal to modify the existing operations of the separated Class I public pathway on the shoulder of the westbound upper deck of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge that is open 24 hours a day\, seven days a week. Caltrans has proposed to reduce the days and hours of operations of the public pathway for a two-year period to collect additional information about response times and delays related to incidents on the bridge.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Attachment A // Attachment B // Public Comment Part I // Public Comment Part II // Presentation 1 // Presentation 2\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nRising tides could wipe out Pacifica\, but residents can’t agree on how to respond\nA unique floating lab in San Francisco Bay has been invaded — and researchers are learning from it\nOnce listed for $70 million\, controversial private Bay Area island to be auctioned off\nCaltrans to hold Jan. 14 meeting on Highway 37 project\, environmental opportunities\nVote Cinches Robust Regional Response to Sea Level Rise\nWhy seas are surging\nTiburon shoreline project gets closer to launch\n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording \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/january-16-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250116T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250116T113000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20250103T230133Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251126T223820Z UID:10000264-1737021600-1737027000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 16\, 2025 Environmental Justice Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-16-2025-environmental-justice-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250108T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250108T120000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241104T225901Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241220T222859Z UID:10000208-1736328600-1736337600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 8\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-8-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250106T170000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250106T183000 DTSTAMP:20260418T085439 CREATED:20241217T182819Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250107T203750Z UID:10000252-1736182800-1736188200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 6\, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with Gov. Code 11123.5. 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. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan 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/87962804176?pwd=SdYcE1qF49HYO3L0PBfTlFyqidC6oG.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers US Toll-Free1 (866) 590-50551  (816) 423 4282 Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID833 6137 5618 \nPasscode641630 \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nBCDC Staff Updates\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\nSan Francisco Marina Improvement & Remediation Project\, San Francisco; First ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold a preliminary review for the proposed Marina Improvement and Remediation Project\, located at the San Francisco Marina and Marina Green on the northern waterfront of the City\, west of Fort Mason. The project will implement renovations and remediation work to the West and East Harbors of the marina. Remediation activities will take place in the East Harbor. Both in-water and landside public access improvements are proposed including Bay Trail\, pedestrian walkways and viewing areas\, recreation improvements to Marina Green Triangle\, vehicular circulation\, and renovation of the restroom.(Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording and transcript\n Recording\n \n\nTranscript\n\nWould you like to ask questions of staff and then go to the project proponent? Well\, we usually do just check if there’s any clarifying questions on the staff presentation. \nAnything? No\, we’re fine. We can go ahead. Yep. \nGood evening. My name is Monica Scott and I’m a project manager with the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Thank you\, Rowan\, for that presentation. \nI’m here today to present the Marine Improvement and Remediation Project. \nAnd this is the first review. This is a joint project between Rec and Park and PG&E with Wreck and park leading the marina improvement portion and PG&E leading the environmental remediation. \nThis project is a historic opportunity to carry out an environmental cleanup and make improvements to the marina that has been decades in the making. \nThe project area of the East Harbor has contamination from manufactured gas plants or MGPs. \nThat operated over 100 years ago. In 2001\, upon discovery of MGP residues in the East Harbor\, the city commenced legal action against PG&E for the cleanup. \nOver the following 20 years\, the City and PG&E were in litigation with various investigations and studies taking place to assess the extent of the MGP residues. \nThe result of this legal action and subsequent investigations is a settlement agreement between the city and PG&E which was to develop a joint project. \nThe potential project scope was presented to the community in 2023. \nAnd it was modified by the Board of Supervisors in February of last year. \nI’m here today to review the project in its current conceptual form Taking into account the additional financial and design analysis conducted. \nWhat I’ll be discussing later in this presentation the numerous benefits we think this project brings to the bay and the marina. The overarching project goals that are guiding the project. \nAs defined in the settlement agreement\, our environmental remediation\, increased public access and amenities. \nAnd a fiscally sustainable marina. We’re fortunate at this project site to have numerous geographic and community assets\, and our project will enhance these for generations to come. \nWhile providing the city and the environment with a cleanup that is long overdue. \nHere you can see the extent of the marina in the context of the northern waterfront of San Francisco and the bay with Crissy Field to the west. \nAnd Fort Mason to the right. \nAnd here’s a plan view of the marina today. Please note that the docks in the southernmost portion of the east harbour have been recently removed due to their dilapidated condition and the risk of portions of them breaking off and causing hazards in the bay. \nThe piles will remain until the full project remediation begins. \nThe remediation component of this project is developed by PG&E and regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. \nI’ll summarize this briefly\, but I’m joined today by PG&E project manager Ryan Madsen\, who’s available to answer any remediation related questions you may have. \nAs mentioned\, one of the key goals of the settlement agreement and the project is to clean up the contamination in the East Harbour from the manufactured gas plants. \nThe proposed remediation plan will clean the East Harbor and outside East Harbor areas to be protected protective of human health and the environment by dredging and capping sediment with MGP residues and is compatible with our design for an improved East Harbor Marina. \nThe northern portion of the current East Harbor Marina\, including the boat docking area and entrance channel. \nWill be dredged and capped below the improved marina operational depth. \nThe southern portion of the current birthing area features a natural sediment cover over MGP residues which will be monitored under a program to be developed with the water board. \nThe area highlighted for targeted deeper dredging and capping is in the area where there is an occasional sheen on the water at low tides. \nAlso\, as seen on the map\, the red dotted line represents the reactive barrier that will be installed as an extra layer of protection against MGP residue migration. \nAnd lastly\, monitoring will be conducted in the sediments and upland during and after the project and institutional controls will be in place to protect the remedy’s integrity. \nBefore walking you through the proposed plans for the marina and upland areas\, I will briefly review the community engagement and feedback received that has informed the marina design and upland concept. \nAt Wreck and Park\, we pride ourselves on our comprehensive community outreach. In March and August of 2023\, we held two rounds of community meetings at the Moscone Rec Center. \nOver 400 people attended these meetings and we received over 800 responses to the two surveys that were conducted. \nWe received a lot of feedback on what made the marina special and how it could be improved. \nThis feedback was incorporated into the design for the public recreation amenities for the Marina Triangle and Lower East Harbor. \nHere are photos from the March and August community meetings. These meetings included an open house for people to interact with concepts on large boards\, a presentation\, and a question and answer period. \nWe shared precedent images for various activities and amenities to see what was of most interest to attendees. \nThese questions were also included in the surveys\, which could be completed on paper at the meetings or online. \nAnd here’s another board showing how people could select what matters most to them with sticky dots or write in new ideas. \nIn the development of the public access improvements for the marina\, the two main questions we focused on were\, what do you like to do in the marina today? \nAnd what improvements would most excite you. Nature views exercising and meeting up with other people were the most popular activities selected. \nAnd the improvements that generated the most interest were improved natural habitat and more recreational activities. \nAnd here you can see the responses to various questions that helped contribute to the marina and upland design\, focusing on different amenities\, attractions\, and additional suggestions. \nAs many of you may know\, there was strong opposition to the planned relocation of boats from the Lower East Harbor to the West Harbour extension in the project presented in 2023. \nThat’s what’s on the screen in front of you now. This opposition culminated in the Board of Supervisors passage of an ordinance that restricted the extent of the expansion of the West Harbor Marina to the western edge of the wave organ. \nAnd in so doing\, drastically reducing the number of boat slips in a renovated marina. \nFollowing this ordinance\, we conducted additional outreach to key stakeholders as well as design and analysis to develop a project that is financially sustainable while still complying with the ordinance. \nThese analyses included comprehensive morphological modeling to study the effect of a small breakwater on the sedimentation rates in the West Harbor. \nUpdated financial modeling of the projected operating budget for the marina with a reduction in slips. \nAnd a market analysis of marinas along the West Coast. I’m happy to share that the project that we’re presenting today\, which was also shared with the community at a meeting in early December. \nAnd with the Rec and Park Commission in mid-December\, we’ll meet the requirements and goals of this project. \nIn this slide\, you’ll see the proposed framework plan. With a small 225 foot breakwater off of the jetty past the wave organ We installed slips from an earlier West Harbor project to the south of the jetty. \nReoriented docs and an additional breakwater in the east harbor and a shared use community dock and visitors dock dividing the East Harbor with the marina to the north. \nAnd the shallow water basin to the south. Additionally\, we’ve had several conversations with the police and fire departments regarding their critical need For gasoline fuel dock to remain in the marina. \nIn the 2023 project\, the gas dock was located in the extension of the West Harbor. You can see it in the red rectangle there. \nWhile the remediation for this project will not allow for the fuel dock to be reinstalled in its current location in the East Harbor\, we’re studying the incorporation of a fuel dock in the West Harbour directly in front of the old harbormaster’s office. \nOr there’s an existing pump out. This proposed location is not final. \nAnd we’re giving careful study to multiple locations for locating the fuel block in the marina. \nBut need to be mindful of not losing additional boat spaces. \nHere’s a photo of the existing view taken from the Bay Trail to the east of the Harbormaster’s office looking towards the Golden Gate Bridge. \nAnd here’s a photo simulation showing the sheet pile breakwater off of the jetty. \nAnd the reinstalled docks to the west. Which had been removed in recent years due to sedimentation. \nThis is the same image just with call outs. The breakwater will function as an extension of the jetty and is designed to reduce the need to dredge the West Harbour entry channel annually\, which is currently required yearly and costs approximately $1 million with each dredge. \nWith this breakwater\, per the morphological model\, which measured the sedimentation rates over time. \nWill be able to delay the need to dridge to 10 to 15 years after construction. \nAnd reductions to every two to three years following that point. \nThe breakwater is also expected to calm the waters in the West Harbor. \nFollowing the remediation in the East Harbor\, the upper portion will be completely rebuilt with reoriented slips. \nThe existing breakwater will be repaired and have improvements which will allow for pedestrian access and fishing As well as an overlook to Angel Island. \nThe reorientation of the docks was done in response to feedback from the boaters about issues with the current layout. \nGiven winds and other unseasonal conditions. We’ll also be installing a sheet pile breakwater extending 180 feet to the south of the current East Harbor breakwater. \nThat will protect the boats from wave action in the bay that flows under the Fort Mason Pierce. \nAlong the southern portion\, you’ll see an accessible community dock. This will be open to the public\, but a gate will be installed for boater access to the long dock running east-west. \nWhich will allow for guest docking inside tie birthing locations. The boat sizes that can be accommodated in the East Harbour range between 25 to 45 feet in length. \nWith the majority of the boats slips sized for 30 to 35 foot boats. \nRecreation and public access are cornerstones of Rec and Park’s mission\, and we’re excited to be able to make changes to this area that will make it a community space for all to enjoy. \nAnd expand public access to the water. Here you can see the existing conditions in the Lower East Harbor and Marina Triangle with a fitness plaza in blue in the bike head path running along Marina Boulevard. \nThe dashed lines are indicating the BCDC shoreline band. \nBeyond the remediation\, increased access to the bay and recreational opportunities are the most significant transformation this project provides. \nTwo significant transformations are\, number one\, in the East Harbor\, we change over 10\,000 square feet of underutilized parking lanes to park amenities and coastal gardens and what we’re calling the Nature Exploration Terrace. \nSecondly\, we’ll be changing the East Harbor from the existing marina only accessible to marina tenants to a 5.5 acre publicly accessible shallow water basin. \nThat will serve a diverse array of recreational opportunities with the accessible community dock and viewing terrace. \nThe Marina Triangle will also be transformed from an open lawn framed by traffic lanes and to a much more ecologically and programmatically diverse public amenity. \nWe retain the flexibility of an open lawn\, but frame it with bluff plantings. \nWith this providing protection from the surrounding vehicle activities. The bluff plantings also serve to frame the proposed volleyball courts. \nWhich was a specific program highly requested by the public. The three courts proposed or arranged in a playful manner\, which result in a series of seating opportunities for spectators or seating spaces for families when courts are not in use. \nWe’re sure children will enjoy some playtime in the sand when games are not taking place. \nWe’ll also be making improvements to the existing restroom. While we expect the shallow water basin to be popular for kayakers\, stand-up paddle boarders\, and small sailboats. \nWe’ve also engaged with groups that are eager to utilize this space like Outrigger Canoe Clubs and an exciting program for kayak polo. \nWhile you all might be familiar with kayak Polo\, this was new to me. Kayak Polo\, this is a strong program that’s currently operating under the Berkeley Marina and down in San Mateo. It’s basically water polo\, but from a kayak. \nAnd they have an active youth and adult program\, and they’re very excited about the chance to be in this basin. \nAnd here you can see the precedent images for the other activities and features for the Marina Triangle\, including the lawn with the plantings\, volleyball\, nature exploration. \nThe viewing terrace and cafe style seating at the Marina Grove. \nHere you can see the existing circulation and access in the area with a bage trail running along the water’s edge\, access for marina tenants along the docks\, vehicular access through the parking lots. \nAnd the bike ped path and open space. \nAnd I just noticed\, I think we need to update our bay trail\, I believe from looking at Rowan’s slide\, the bay trail seems to not run along the parking lot there. \nHere’s the proposed circulation and access in the area with the major changes being the reduced paved area of the parking lot\, allowing for increased accessible open space and an undulating bay trail and public access to the water of the shallow water basin from the community dock. \nHere are some images of the various types of small watercrafts that will be able to utilize a shallow water basin like kayaks\, sailboats\, and paddle boards. \nAnd here are two sections showing the shoreline along the basin. \nThe project includes rebuilding and enhancing the shoreline. This includes adding a composite material permeable reactive barrier to further isolate the upland soil and groundwater from the bay. \nRiprap will be installed following the remediation\, which will secure the permeable reactive barrier and slope above the native soil and sediments. \nThe section at the top is along the western edge of the basin showing the parking lot. \nThe nature exploration area and the Bay Trail. As you can see\, we’ll be planting in pockets along the upper portion of the slope to increase habitat opportunities. \nAnd we’ll be focusing on plants that can handle saltwater. The section at the bottom is showing the step-down viewing terrace\, which will provide a view of the basin from the southern edge I want to point out that we’ve had conversations with scientists and \nInvolved with Eco RipRap. We were hoping to be able to install Eco RipRrap in this area. \nBut due to the rather slow flow rates. They said that this would not be a good use for that material here. \nAnd here you can see a rendering of the Nature Exploration Terrace\, Bay Trail\, and softened shoreline. \nAnd here’s the lawn area of the Marina Triangle as it appears today\, framed by several mature trees. \nAnd here’s our rendering of the same lawn area with views of the Golden Gate Bridge all framed by low bluff plantings to create some intimacy and buffer from the road and parking lot. \nIn this photo\, we’re looking out on the recently removed docks in the Lower East Harbour with Pier 1 of Fort Mason to your right. \nAnd this is a rendering of the accessible community doc\, which will provide access to the shallow water basin for small crafts. \nAnd for folks to just come down and walk out to be on the water. \nAnd this rendering shows the new view and experiences created at the public breakwater with an overlook to Angel Island and fishing access. \nWrapping up my presentation\, I just want to review our project schedule. As we conclude the community engagement phase\, we’ll be submitting our project application to the planning department to initiate the lengthy environmental review and permitting process. With that\, we’ll be entering the detailed design phase for the project. \nWith construction expected to start in mid-2027. We’re envisioning this project will be carried out in two phases. Phase one will be the remediation in the East Harbor and the work in the West Harbor. \nAnd phase two\, the marina and park improvements in the East Harbor and Marina Triangle. \nThe expected total project construction duration is estimated at three years. \nThank you very much for your time. I’m happy to answer any questions. And I’m also joined by our design team of Moffitt and Nickel and field operations and Ryan Mattson from PG&E. \nOkay\, thank you very much. That was an excellent presentation. And I have to say it’s very significant to have this project coming before the board\, this place that we’re looking at tonight is such a critical part of the waterfront and I feel it’s been very um under \nEnhanced if you like\, for a long time. So it’s very good to see this work underway. \nWe’ll just start with any clarifying questions that the board has on the presentation. \nYeah\, I have a couple of questions. I’m just curious\, what is the ownership structure? Is everything that you presented\, is that all city of San Francisco rec and park owned and operated? So it’s the marina the parking lot and the open space? \nYes\, it’s all within Rec and Parks jurisdiction. I believe a portion of the remediation\, however\, is under Pier 1 of Fort Mason\, which would be a National Park Service jurisdiction. \nAnd then… In the project drivers that you presented at the beginning\, is seismic improvements part of it. I’m just referring to that eastern edge of the seawall\, which is very degraded. Yes\, will be when these when that uh the revetments the area of riprap along that area will be reinstalled with \nSeismic improvements in mind. We’re not thinking of putting in like DSM\, like army corps plans\, as you probably know\, for other areas of the shoreline\, but definitely we need this area for the integrity of the remediation to be seismically stable. \nSo it sounds like it’s more like preparing the finishes on the wall like the the I don’t know\, cladding the cobbles whatever is protecting the wall more than their foundation work So in this area of gas house code the seawall along the marina and I think maybe I’m often a nickel engineers can speak more to this \nBut um there’s a lot of different types of walls here there’s like the rubble wall with the steps down that you see along the northern coast of the marina green\, right? And then you have like riprap\, rubble\, like 1906 \nBig chunks. Maybe\, Ryan\, you can speak to the shoreline treatment\, but my understanding is that we’re getting down to we’re removing enough of the riprap to be able to install the permeable reactive barrier to contain the material that’s below. \nYeah\, that’s correct. \nKristen? Yeah\, thank you. Thank you. \nThank you for the really informative presentation. I was just wondering\, one of the key things you mentioned at the beginning was feasibility. \nAnd I was wondering how that’s addressed. I sort of assumed it would be through rental of boat slips\, but it seems that there’s a net loss of boat slips. \nCan you speak to the decisions there? Yeah\, the feasibility question. Sure. So the settlement agreement was set up in such a way that PG&E is funding the entire project up front and they’re funding the majority of the project. This is $190 million settlement agreement. That’s the maximum amount. \nAnd Wreck and park of that 190 will be repaying approximately $29 million over a 30-year period. \nThat repayment will only be from marina revenues. So that’s why we were at such a critical juncture with the loss of approximately 170 slips. \nOne of the benefits of this rising to the level of the board is that they had their budget and legislative analysts take a look at the financial operations of the marina. And as I mentioned\, the dredging is a huge cost for the marina. \nRight now and right now But it’s at the board’s discretion to approve increased rates for the boat slips So we had always intended that with the East Harbor\, the East Harbor rates have been held artificially low without improvements being able to be made for 20 plus years. \nSo we were always intending to raise the rates of the East Harbor when people would return to those slips. \nWhat the board’s budget and legislative analysts proposed or suggested i guess was to increase the rates right now. \nTo not have rec and parks general fund subsidizing the marina operations today\, the cost of the dredging. \nRight. So that was a policy decision of Rec and Park to no longer have general fund subsidizing the marina when we there’s other priorities. \nSo what we did\, there was a financial analysis done back when that settlement agreement was underway. \nAnd we had a new one prepared with the different slip mix\, slip count\, and slip mix. \nWith the rates as they currently are and with rates that were basically suggested by the board. \nAnd that rate increase actually passed through the board in December of last year. \nSo with the increased rates overall to the West Harbor as well. \nWe’re able to pencil the marina now. \nIt was never… I would say it was never the project’s intention to increase the number of slips here But we did want to maintain them if we could and we wanted to support recreational boating. \nBut clearly\, but clearly there was not public support for that. And we did look at potentially pushing out the East Harbor to the north to have a second breakwater and closing more slips to the north. \nBut that didn’t work either. So we were left with a reduced number of slips and maximizing it as much as we can. \nAnd the breakwater\, as I mentioned\, the breakwater in the West Harbor was very beneficial for that financial modeling too\, if we could eliminate that million dollars a year in dredging. \nThank you. Another question about the sort of feasibility and operations. Is there\, I didn’t see anywhere\, there was a mention of boat storage in some of the Engagement materials\, kayak storage\, small craft storage. Is there a location for an operator or \nIs that sort of planned to be located or is there some access for that planned here? Yeah\, so I’ve been contacted actually recently by a kayak operator\, C-Trek out of Sausalito. \nIn Alameda\, I believe. We’re very much looking forward to partnering with operators here\, but until we get further along\, we don’t want to say\, oh\, your view will be blocked. \nBy this box. So what we’re looking for and what seems to work well is we’ll likely position something by the restroom\, which is in that northeast corner of the marina triangle\, which would just be a short short walk across to the accessible dock. \nBut we’ll be developing that further\, I expect\, by the time we return to you\, we’ll have more. \nOkay. And then just one other question on the um The reason that the additional slips were Next was because of view access is that Correct. That was the dominant. \nSentiment okay Is any of this area state lands by any chance? \nYes\, it is. All of it. I believe. I think there’s a dividing line somewhere in the West Harbor and East Harbor. Okay. But yeah. \nAnd do they have any restrictions on or requirements for parking or is there anything Well\, we are maintaining the same number of parking stalls So I hope we’re okay. I’ll look into that. I don’t believe that there’s any restrictions on parking as we’re not \nWe’ll actually be planning to turn back to a number of those parking stalls in that area are currently permit boat tenant parking stalls\, but with a reduction of slips I would assume we’ll be able to turn more over back to the public. \nOkay. And are there any other requirements that relate to state lands that are pertinent to like uses that you’re allowed to do here? \nWell\, we had considered putting in a playground and I believe that that is not compatible\, right? So\, okay. \nA nature exploration area is kind of a compromise that we’ve seen work really well at Heron’s Head Park and other areas not on the coast. And they consider small craft recreation\, sort of a regional recreation okay yeah Okay\, that’s all of my questions. Thank you. \nThank you. Leo? Yeah\, thank you for the presentation. I guess many of my questions have been answered. The only one I might have is perhaps more for Moffitt Nickel. \nIt appears from the diagrams that the bottom level of the East Harbor will be different where the boat slips are\, it’d be deeper and where the recreation area would be shallower Is there any expectations of changes in sedimentation patterns or potential buildup of sedimentation in the shallower areas \nI think I will pass that to Rich. It’s a good question. \nWe’ve done some numerical modeling using a mic 21\, a Danish Hydraulic Institute model to predict sedimentation in the future based on calibrating model. \nData we have and we don’t anticipate a huge change even a significant change. \nSedimentation patterns in East Harbor. Yes\, we don’t expect a change in sedimentation patterns in East Harbor based on the model studies that we’ve done. \nOkay\, thank you. Again\, just a couple of clarifying questions. Oh\, I’m sorry. Let’s just go to our online members. \nTom. \nThanks. That was a really great presentation. And maybe you’ve answered this question already\, but what I’m understanding is that all of the all of the edges. \nThat are facing the water are being protected from seismic liquefaction. \nI just want to confirm that’s And then are there areas behind the barrier within the scope of the project that are also subject to liquefaction. \nRich\, do you want to add? Respond. Another good question. The answer is still being addressed. \nWe have a geotechnical engineer. Local who’s done some sediment sampling and studies specifically for engineering properties But it’s been done in the water where the original project really involved most of the improvements In this round of this round project the improvements have \nIncluded the triangle. So we’re going to get additional data points in that triangle park area in which we can develop appropriate solution and be able to answer your question. \nThat’s going to be done shortly. \nGood. \nNo\, that’s it. \nAnything else\, Tom? Okay\, good. We’ll move to Bob. Bob\, I’m just going to make one comment before opening it up to you. \nAnd for everyone in the room as well\, this project is going to also be reviewed by the engineering design criteria board. \nThe staff have given us pretty clear direction that our priority is reviewing the landside access and some of the more technical aspects\, the technical engineering\, technical remediation aspects will be dealt with in detail at that meeting. So Bob\, I just wanted to give you a heads up on that in case \nWhether you were aware or not about that\, that you’ll be reviewing this again in that technical review environment. \nThank you\, Chair. We can. I actually wasn’t aware of that but we have we had looked at this before on the ECRB. \nFocus just on the remediation and ground stability but i uh thank you for that context. That’s very helpful. \nCan i should i proceed with? Any questions? Oh. \nYes\, go ahead. Yes\, please. Thanks\, Bob. \nThank you. Thank you. I just\, this is kind of a dumb question\, but I just want to clarify the extent of the marina expansion. \nIn front of the marina green. The exhibits we received Specifically on page 18 show a I think it’s called the 2023 framework plan Which I believe is no longer in consideration. Is that it? \nDo I have that correct? \nYes\, that’s correct. We were just showing that for context. For feedback that you may have heard. \nSo we’re not reviewing we’re not reviewing that extent\, which is much greater. \nThat’s correct. Yes. The plan on sheet 19 is the plan that’s being presented today. \nOkay. \nOkay. Thank you. I know it was kind of a stupid question\, but I just felt like I needed to be clear on that. \nYeah. \nCan you clarify nature investigation element of Improvements. \nI couldn’t quite follow that. Again\, I apologize if I missed something. \nSeems like I missed a couple of things. In preparation for this meeting but What is the nature investigation element in the project? \nOh\, I think you might be referring to our nature exploration area. \nOh\, nature exploration. I’m sorry. I don’t know where I got investigation. I think it’s in one of the slides again. \nBut what\, yeah\, that’s what I’m talking about. Yeah. \nThat’s okay. Yeah\, well\, there were investigations. There were investigations for sure. But let me flip to So on slide 27\, the proposed site plan There’s a precedent image showing another nature exploration area. It’s basically a playground without calling it a playground. \nMade. Comprised of mostly\, you know\, you can have big logs boulders It’s a spot for all to to kind of explore\, oh yeah\, sorry\, thanks. On slide 32\, there’s a rendering of the nature exploration terrace. \nSo… Yeah\, hopefully that will help clarify. And this is still in development \nOkay. Yeah\, I just\, it’s kind of hard for me to understand what it really is because I appreciate all the plants on the shore\, but right now it’s riprap and I’m not quite sure how you what the actions are to achieve this very \nColorful shoreline\, but that’s okay I have some other We can talk about that later. Maybe you can address that before your next submittal. \nOh\, okay. Sure. \nOh\, yeah. Actually\, a landscape architect wants to weigh in. Hi\, sorry. So basically\, the project is reducing the traffic lanes in the parking lot\, right? Like right now it’s a two-way traffic lane So by making it one way\, we gain about 20 feet for the shoreline itself. And now in that thickened shoreline\, right in between the riprap and the existing parking\, now we have a wider stretch of park \nWhere we are now meandering the Bay Trail. So as you’re along the Bay Trail\, you get different views and perspectives. \nBut also creating these wider nooks One of which is a nature exploration terrace. And as Monica said\, it’s basically an area for children and family to climb up on logs and boulders and play around adjacent to to the waterfront. \nOh\, I got you. But it’s not the the greenery and flowers that we see on the shore. It’s on the other side of the trail. It’s not part of the shoreline. \nNo\, no\, no. No. \nIt’s part of the upland fill area. \nIt’s still within the shoreline. It’s still within the shoreline band. But if you look at the plan\, the Baytrail meander. So in the belly of when the Bay Trail is most proximate to the shallow water basin\, that’s where we can accommodate this nature exploration terrace. \nOkay. So\, but it’s landward of the trail and it’s a flat area with some logs and rocks and stuff. \nOkay\, great. Thank you for clarifying that. I really appreciate it. \nExactly. Exactly. That’s exactly right. Absolutely. \nSo\, um. So I guess it’s the depth that displaces the births from the east Basin\, Gas House Cove\, to… the west basin is that is that the reason why the remediation triggered this shifting of the births from one basin to the other? \nThat’s in the original October 2023 framework plan\, correct? In this new project\, we are not relocating slips. We are just deleting slips. \nOh\, I got you. Okay. \nSo yeah\, and you’re right. The reason why we are not able to reinstall them in place in the Lower East Harbor is because basically the project cannot\, the project budget cannot cover that extent of remediation to return the entire \nEast Harbor back to a marine and navigable depth. \nOkay. Thank you. Yes\, I just… So that’s the nexus is you’re losing some ships in Gas House Cove or some berths. \nAnd you’re mitigating that somewhat by adding births in at West Harbor at the entrance. \nI think I got that right. And that’s the only reason why we’re really looking at the West Harbor. \nRight. \nOr… In the breakwater. \nAnd for the breakwater\, I believe\, I believe it’s under the purview of the design review board\, yeah. \nOkay. \nYeah\, and to note\, those slips in the West Harbor were originally in those replacement slips those had been installed in the 2012 West Harbor renovation project. \nBut due to the significant sedimentation rates\, they had to be removed. \nSo with the right\, you might be aware Yeah. \nYeah. Yeah\, I remember that\, actually. But there wasn’t a breakwater there on the east side\, was there or was there? \nThat’s correct. There was a floating wave attenuator which \nOh\, okay. But now you’re going to have a solid breakwater to to protect from the northeast winds. \nCorrect. Exactly. \nThat can put some ways. Okay\, I got it. So\, um. \nI think there are some historical assets within the the marinas\, especially in the West Harbor\, if I remember correctly. \nAnd I don’t know that that affects anything\, I think\, but And I’m not an expert on that. Obviously\, I’m an engineer but i think it’s it would be interesting if nothing else to have some maybe discussion of that\, a review of that next time you come around. There’s some pretty cool \nPieces in there in the West Basin. That’s more of a comment. \nUnless you wanted to to indicate that there is information on historical information assets in this submittal or in this review. \nRight. Okay. Gotcha. Yeah. \nSo at this time. We’re not prepared to really cover that except for the historic gas plants. We know about those\, but the planning department will be carrying out their environmental review. And so that will be going in depth into the historic significance of the site. \nOkay. Great. Yeah\, I think the members would find that interesting\, although I don’t know that it has any bearing\, but thank you for entertaining that. \nQuestion. So… Where does the sand go now? I know that sand\, I have some familiarity with the area. \nWaves drive sand\, primarily waves\, drive sand from the ocean through the Golden Gate\, along Christie Field\, and it deposits On the west side\, a little of the old breakwater and then also in a tip shoal at the mouth And that’s why\, as you say\, the births were removed before \nNow you have a breakwater extension And eastern breakwater. \nThat implies that the sand will just kind of move around those structures\, but may still deposit in the entrance or do you expect to I’m just kind of wondering what happens to the sand and You know\, just so I can maybe think about the implications. \nSure. Well\, I’ll definitely pass this off to Rich Dornhelm\, but I’ll just say that the summary\, the high level summary for the is that we expect the dredging to only need to be taking place not annually but for 10 to 15 years post installation of the breakwater. Following that\, we do expect \nThe sedimentation to have to be dealt with on probably twice every two years\, every two to three years It’s not going away. The sand will continue. But I’m going to pass it off to Rich\, who knows more about what will happen. \nRight. That’s a pretty good answer\, but I would like to hear from Rich if everybody has time. \nFor people that don’t know\, was my My supervisor for many years when I was with Moffitt and Nickel So it’s Still working hard there\, aren’t you\, Rich? \nBut you’re working harder. I only have one project with many. \nWell\, it’s nice to be back in touch\, mom. And it’s a tough question. \nYes\, thank you. Nice to see you. \nBecause it started out with a study of replacing the wave attenuator\, which had to be removed. \nWith a fixed breakwater to quiet the outer west harbor basin and we discovered through mathematical again computer modeling using our Mike 21 models that the sediment patterns circulation patterns\, along with the waves in the current. \nWere disrupted by this relatively short piece of breakwater that changed the way currents and waves pass around the tip. It’s like an airplane wing in certain respects. It flies. \nWhen they come in for landing\, they just trim things a little differently and that changes dramatically. \nHow the plane generates lift and slows down and lands. \nWe foresee that there will be a change in the deposition patterns as a result of this small breakwater extension. \nThat will not eliminate the need Bob has done some very nice studies that led us to this conclusion. \nAbout sand movements in the San Francisco literal cell that we can expect redistribution of the sand rather than trapping in the harbor. \nEventually\, there will be a need to dredge but has Monica pointed out where foresee about a 10\, maybe 15 year interlude While this redistribution occurs before it once again finds a way to migrate towards the entrance of the marina. \nOkay\, thank you\, Rich. I really appreciate it. I also appreciate the tolerance\, other patients\, other patients board members have for that question. It’s kind of a big deal in the circles that I move in\, although in this case\, I don’t see major concerns. \nI’m speaking to sand transport. But… Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Okay\, my last and final clarifying question. \nOkay. \nBut before I get off that is… \nBob\, just remember\, we also have our board discussion for other questions. So just if it’s a clarifying question\, yes\, fire away. Yeah. \nYeah\, yeah. I have one i have \nYeah\, so I have two quick ones. One\, can we see the… the studies about the sand transport Can the design review board see those or maybe public\, I don’t know. \nAnd then secondly. Are there any sea level rise criteria for this project or any elements that relate to sea level rise or is that something that will be has been put off to the ECRV. \nSo to answer your first question\, yes\, we can provide via Ashley\, I believe\, the studies on the morphological modeling. \nThank you very much. \nAnd yeah\, of course. And for sea level rise um what’s been designed so far\, and this is just as a concept level. \nWas taking into account BCDC sea level rise guidance and criteria. \nAs well as the city’s sea level rise\, their capital planning. So it went through\, there’s like a checklist that the city has. \nTo meet the standards. And so this is designed to 2067. \nOkay. \nAnd in the sections\, you can actually see those two sections. \nLet’s see\, slide 31. Those are showing in small print. \nProjected sea level rise. They’re showing the mean high\, high water and then 2050 as well as 2\,100 all the way up. \nSo even though this project isn’t technically designed to 2100\, We’re still looking ahead to that and what will happen with this area. \nOkay\, thank you. I’ve taken enough of everyone’s time. Thank you. \nChair McCann\, I’m done. \nYeah\, thanks\, Bob. Good questions. I just want to clarify one more thing before we move on. And it’s in the context of the outreach program\, which looks to be very effective and a lot of input. It’s always impressive to see 400 more than 400 people participating \nBut a question I have is how much outreach has happened with a key stakeholder\, which is Fort Mason\, immediately adjacent? \nTo these bases. So we’ve presented this project to National Park Service to their review board as well. And we just had a refresh meeting not that\, I think it was in December with the updated project as well. So they are \nWell aware we’ll be coordinating with them for NEPA\, for the remediation portion that will be taking place on their property. \nAnd they\, yeah\, they have been well informed of what we’re working on We’re also aware that the sand comes from a lot of places and there’s some concern that Rec and Park has about Chrissy field So we’re kind of \nWe’re all neighbors here. Yeah\, good. Great. And then just another quick follow up on the outreach um you know tourists are a very big component of the usage of this area. Were you able to capture any input from tourists or observational input? \nSo that’s a great question. I think through our actually through the Marina Harbor Association and the Marina Tenants\, a lot of the people a large number of people that have boats in the marina are not San Francisco residents. They’re coming here seasonally. \nBut in terms of tourists\, I would say It’s a hard one to capture aside from the conversations we’ve had with the bike rental people. We know that people are excited. We know people also have been excited about a water taxi potentially. \nThat’s not in our current plan. But we know that this is a popular destination all along this northern waterfront is a very popular destination for tourists. \nAnd we think it will continue to be. And just one more detail follow up. \nWith the removal of the fueling dock. I don’t know whether they’re related or not\, but on the land site up against the wall to Fort Mason\, there’s a large storage container and some other things that are pretty unattractive. Do they get to be \nReviewed as part of the project? So yes\, one of those containers is actually for the bike rental operator So yeah\, we are intending to improve that area as well. And with that\, we’ll be looking to relocate as much of that storage as possible. \nI think we can really make a big difference in improving the feel and also improve the connection between Fort Mason to the marina through that right okay thank you. I think that Oh\, I think this one will follow up. Sorry\, one more thing I’m dying to ask. So I was just wondering if you could share some of your design process. I was just noting that so much of the parking is inside the shoreline band. Was there ever \nYou know a thought about flipping the planting and the parking? There was\, yeah. Yep. Well\, that was also shared in 2023 \nAnd I have to say there was so much opposition to what we were really considering to be the goals of the project that we had to kind of let that pass. \nWhen you start talking about all the parking people get very\, very excited about it. So at this point. \nWe’re doing what we can to buffer the experience I think we also were considering that people are also having a very pleasurable experience going along the bike ped path now without parking up against it. \nSo kind of have some trade-offs. \nIf you can visualize that. \nDo you guys have the slide deck? Anyway\, yeah\, there’s a… It’d be better to get on the screen if it’s possible. \nOn the north side\, that’s where you still have most of the parking goes right up to the water’s edge\, whereas on the east side you have the planting buffer. \nSo I’m… The project isn’t proposing to kind of modify the parking towards the north of the triangle\, swapping the eastern edge of parking with the triangle itself was the first concept. But as Monica said that didn’t move forward during the community engagement process. \nAnd then the bike path that Monica is referring to is the one that’s kind of parallel to Marina Boulevard that right now runs next to the marina triangle green. \nSo the users of that path kind of enjoy not having moving vehicles and parked vehicles be what they see on both sides. So it’s kind of a trade-off in that regard. \nDoes this image help? Yeah\, yeah\, very much. Yeah\, I mean\, you know\, there’s this moment where you think\, oh\, wouldn’t it be great to have a park right at the water’s edge and then you have all this incredible views and a buffer on Marina Boulevard. \nAnd the parking in between the buffer. And anyway\, so I’m sure\, I mean\, it’s obvious that it had to have been discussed in detail. So I was just curious how that went. \nThank you. Okay\, very good. Well\, look\, that concludes the clarifying questions from the uh Proponent presentation and So now we will move to public comment and we have a combination of in-person people who will ask questions and then we have online questions and we also had submitted comments as well so we’ll take some time and go through all of those. \nShall we start with in the room? Yes\, please. The first person is Chrissy Kaplan. If you could come up to the mic and state your name and affiliation\, you’ll have three minutes. And next up will be Dan Clark. \nThank you. Good evening. My name is Chrissy Kaplan. I have operated the fuel dock at Gas House Cove for the last 51 years. It has been there for 55 years. \nI’m a huge proponent of public access. But public safety has to be kept in mind. \nThe fuel dock operates seven days a week with United States Coast Guard\, police. \nFire\, Caltrans\, Army Corps of Engineer\, the bulk of our day-to-day customers are either commercial fishermen or emergency services. \nWhere the fuel dock is currently located is in a nice little corner of San Francisco Bay. There’s no concerns about the neighborhood. There’s no concerns about other boats being impacted. It is by nature a rather dangerous occupation. \nWe have had two explosions. In the last 55 years\, but of no consequence either physically to anybody Or to anybody’s personal property. \nThe other thing I want to point out to this board is where the fuel tanks are currently located. \nThey have been there underground in a concrete vault for 60. \nNine years old since 1969. They have been updated\, the actual physical tanks themselves\, but the location has been through Loma Prieta. \nHas been through all of the\, well\, we had quite a tsunami in 2011. This most recent tsunami warning was quite interesting. \nAs soon as the warning subsided\, my phone was ringing off the hook. \nBy the Coast Guard\, by the police\, by the fire\, will you be there? We’re having to deploy our fleets and we need fuel to do that. \nI think having the one and only fuel dock in the city of San Francisco cannot be a second thought. We’re just going to unplug it here and plug it in somewhere else. It has to be a vital service to not just the boat owners\, but to our entire city. \nWhen Loma Prieta happened\, it was the fire boat that put out the marina grain\, not the fire department. It was seawater that was brought in. \nOn a very small note\, the floating docks that are being considered to be putting in the water\, when they’re not being used by the public\, they will be used by the sea life. \nSea lions and seals will occupy those docks\, will destroy those docks\, will take advantage of those docks. \nAnd they are not shy about taking over that kind of \nAccess because uh uh when a young pup gets kicked out of Pier 39\, he needs a new place to go set up camp. And it’s usually that gas house code. \nThe other thing I wanted to point out was the fiscally sustainable part of the project The fuel dock is not broken. Your three minutes are up. Thank you. Okay\, I’m sorry. \nThank you very much for your consideration. And I’d love to be part of the conversation. \nThank you. Going forward. Yep. Thank you very much. Okay\, up next\, I have Dan Clark. And following that will be Patricia Vonley. \nThank you\, Dan Clark. No affiliation. This project has been controversial from the get-go\, and I’m going to explain some of the reasons that it’s fundamentally flawed. And with all due respect\, Chair\, you’re remarks about the outreach to the community are possibly being\, you may be being led a little bit too much by the propaganda slides that are coming from the proponent about how much outreach \nWhat you see in this room is only a small fraction of the people who are having a problem with this with this project. So just be aware. \nThe problems here stem from the toxic chemicals that are beneath Gas House Cove that are driving everything. And what’s not being exposed to you or not being focused to you now is that this project is requiring an approval of land use changes to Gas House Cove \nThat have never been never been really discussed by any independent agency And these land use changes are they’re significant and they undermine the beneficial use of this public resource. So that is the subject that I want to bring up. \nI know you’ve heard here that there’s greater public access from some components\, for instance\, shallow water basin. \nAsk yourself\, would there be a paddlecraft recreation area in a shallow water basin had if there were no toxic chemicals that had to be kept in that place. \nAnd the answer is no. The income\, the financial questions. That’s really trying to make something good out of something that’s really bad. And so this is a fundamental thing. \nI realize I don’t have much time to go into all of this. I will point out that if you look at the San Francisco Bay Plan and the policy statements in there\, just Google hazardous substance in there\, you’ll find the guideline that at least talks about \nKeeping hazardous substances and what needs to be done about it. You’ll see that it talks about no harm to people And the harm to people from a hazardous substance will be handled by the water board But you\, BCDC\, should be looking at whether this \nKeeping this hazardous substance there in the form that it is now proposed at this time. \nIs the right answer. And is the right trade-off to do with these trade-off What I’m saying is the detrimental use of the uh of the beneficial use of gas house code. I know I’ve only got seconds\, but allow me to just say there are alternatives \nTo this plan. They are not being proposed because they cost more. \nIf you look into this in any detail\, you’ll see that\, yes\, there are viable alternatives\, reasonable alternatives that cost cost more\, but not significantly more. So that’s this whole subject about beneficial uses changes change of land use Thank you for your public comment. We’re out of time. And I just hope that it is done so. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. \nPatricia\, you’re up next. You’re next. Could you put a… Up here\, the picture of the picture existing plan and the new plan. \nI have something to show you. We may have to move between them and we only have three minutes for this comment. \nOkay\, that’s what the problem is with this hearing. And I will give you some writing on this. \nMarina\, I’m Patricia from Marina Calhalla Neighbors Merchants. And I have worked with the planning department the park and rec for years. \nAnd I’m very disappointed about the outreach on this The fact that we asked after 223 plan to work on this with the department before it got to you so that we could come up with some compromises. \nOne of my big issues is the big issues is What Christy talked about. \nIn the old plan\, we have a very long pumping station. \nIn the new plan\, we have one about a third the size with boats around it. I was at the Loma Prieta earthquake. \nThe boats were backed up. After that earthquake. \nIt was extremely important to have extremely important something that long. \nTo solve the problem for public safety. That is one of my main issues concerning this. \nAlso\, I have some serious concerns. I’m sorry you work for that company\, but we’ve gone through plans since 1960. \nAnd we’ve had every time a plan comes up\, it’s failed about the themselves. \nThe sales push really caused by when the Presidio changed to a coastal area and sand dunes back to sand dunes and that caused a lot of problems with the cell changes And we have to look at that sandpit. \nWe have a way to go\, but I am looking for compromises. \nAnd we need to have compromises. And right now\, all I’m saying is rush this through from this department. \nWe’ve got to have it bam\, bam\, bam. Where we can sit down and we can work out some issues. But we are not getting it. \nAnd this is what’s disturbing me the most. And I have a degree in environmental design. \nAnd I have some concerns about the toxics. With kayaks polo with the kayaks turning over. \nAnd is this going to cause a problem in volleyball on a previous toxic area. \nI’m not sure if the studies are good enough We have not had the privilege of having Being given the studies. \nHidden. What are they hiding? And I want us to have this as a good project. \nAnd one that we can all be proud of. And I have the statistics on the jurists\, we have thousands of tourists who go down there every day. \nHundreds\, thousands. And as the city builds back up again the marina green and these yacht harbors are between one of the largest national historical deals\, Fort Mason. \nAnd we’ve got Palace of fine arts and the Presidio on the other side. Thank you for your public comment. You’re out of time. Thank you. Thank you. \nThank you very much. We appreciate that. Steven Striels\, you are up next\, followed by Bill Clark. \nCan I get slide 23 put up on the screen? \nOh\, let me stop sharing. \nYeah\, that’s good. \nThis one\, yes. Thank you. \nBoard members. My name is Stephen Street. Sorry for the bad handwriting. I actually am a member. I live in the community at the in uh the marina. In fact\, I live adjacent to the triangle. \nThis area and this project\, this is probably one of the\, it’s an iconic world-class public environment with a public art installation. \nThis area as we all know. So this is vitally important both to the community and to everyone else. \nBoth in the city and in the nation and potentially the world. \nUnfortunately\, from the perspective of the community members\, I think that Parks and Rec has taken on a cavalier attitude towards the design of the project and has had ample disregard for the community input. \nAnd then we’re still trying to fix that. That’s why I think you’re hearing from us. \nAnd I brought this picture up it has a problem. It represents it from a camera angle not from a an eyeball angle. And what you don’t see from this is that that breakwater is not integrated into the rest of the breakwater environment. It’s a concrete pier square \nDoesn’t fit in there. It’s not visually the right thing for that space. \nSomething that’s iconic. Further\, the wave organ\, this public art installation\, is there. \nAnd I’ve been assured that the wave organ will still function. \nBut I have assurances of people that are probably not a marine public art experts. \nAnd I would have asked that\, I think this is an iconic feature of the area\, and I would ask that the board asked for some more questions about this. \nTo ensure that it’s still functional. And as we get to the end. \nI urge the board to request some design revisions to to the breakwater to ensure that it’s visually integrated. \nAnd then two\, because of the repeated failure of all attempts to prevent this silting. \nI would ask that the board recommend that additional conditions be put on their approval that the breakwater would be removed if it fails to meet the goal of preventing silting. \nBecause if we spend $5 million\, we put this in there\, we obstruct it\, we destroy the wave organ\, and then it doesn’t function and we’re still dredging every year. We haven’t accomplished the goal and we’ve only destroyed our environment. So I think there’s a reasonable condition. And I would also\, if the \nWave organ does no longer functions because of the breakwater we’re in worse shape. \nI would also ask that the breakwater then be removed. \nThank you for your time. I think that we’re very excited to participate and you’re hearing from just a small group of more than 500 people that objected to the original plans. Thank you very much. \nNext up\, we have Bill Clark\, followed by Maggie Hallahan. I may go over. I prefer not to speed read\, so I’m hoping I can get a little extra time perhaps. \nOkay\, here we go. My name is Bill Clark. And here we go. The issue with RPD’s design of East Harbor is that the southern half still contains a proposed recreation area where marina berths used to be. \nThere was some hope that a compromised solution for more births could be reached with the return of smaller powerboats requiring a shallow harbor depth and therefore less remediation. \nBut after over a year of deliberations\, no such alternative appears to be in the mix. \nEquity inclusion of the lower income small boat owning public who had mostly been left out of the previous design remain left out. \nNothing has changed regarding a toxic waste storage facility in our harbor posing as a paddle graft paddlecraft recreation Area. The same concerns for relocating the fuel dock storage tanks exist for the buried toxics without the benefit of being encased in cement. \nThe public will be encouraged to recreate in three to four feet of murky marina water with three to five feet of sediment cap covering the toxics. \nWould you trust three to five feet of shifting settlement between you and MPG contaminations? \nWhen you could launch your kayak from Aquatic park where no such threat exists. \nOr paddle in the dirty backwaters of East Harbor when the cleaner bay waters can be found nearby? \nKayaks are rarely seen in east and west harbors\, even with a fancy wheelchair accessible paddlecraft launch in West In the West Harbor that is never used Why would they suddenly appear now? \nIf we can all agree with the premise that the southern half of East Harbor is best suited for boats due to existing conditions\, why was this not the starting point for the redesign? \nWhat kind of public use will there be when three defeat water depth becomes one to two feet from silting? \nOr a mud flat like the West End of West Harbor. \nThe foreseeable obsolescence of the proposed paddlecraft area must be considered now while PG&E is still responsible for the contamination. \nAn ungrudgeable south southern east harbors offering PG a pass on their obligation\, leaving SF citizens with a future eyesore to bookend the other mud flat in West Harbor and a taxpayer liability to convert the area into something usable again. \nWe deserve a better plan from RPD with PG&E funds spent on contamination cleanup starting point\, not jumping the gun harbor retrofits. \nIf SF Marina is counting on the revenue from new births in the northern half of East Harbor\, how about starting with the dredging of multiple vacancant West Harbor berths that are too shallow to rent? \nConstrained by an outdated settlement. Rpds harbor improvement and remediation project simply doesn’t meet the severity of the environmental or best youth of the southern half of East Harbor. \nThank you very much. Appreciate that. \nOkay\, Maggie Hallen\, you’re up. You’re best. \nJust an overhead\, just the overhead one the original one before all the splits were taken out. \nThe existing or the plan that’s not happening? The existing. Or before you took out\, yeah\, the one before you took out the slips. \nYeah\, that’s fine. Or maybe this one. Yeah. \nHi\, everyone. Thank you very much for hearing from me. My name is Maggie Hallahan. \nAnd I’m a licensed captain. I also… I’m a sea scout. Okay. \nI’m working on that. Sorry\, I just… got over a cold. I’m a Licensed Coast Guard captain and i have been teaching youth boating canoeing For more than half my life\, I’m a sea scout leader and we used to have a Sea Scout base there in this marina. \n100 years ago when it first started. And we have a sea scout based in aquatic park When I’ve looked back on some of the research that the Park and Rec has done\, they haven’t really researched how youth are going to have access \nConsistent access to really learn how to navigate and to get on the water. And this space is ideal for that. \nI think that that it hasn’t been a great outreach to people. I grew up here. \nMy uncles used to call the area Gas House Cove and Small Boat Harbor\, but when they put out all the information\, they just call it East Harbor. And if you’re a navigator\, you never call that area east because it’s actually west \nSo I didn’t know for a long time that’s what they were talking about\, but they’d never used the word gas has coke\, which I think that the information should all be titled And if you look on the state sites of the waterways\, all the state sites call it gas house code so i think it should be called that. \nAnd I also think that we have our sea scout youth come across with our oil and things like that into the You know\, you said there was a lot of things over where the launch where the old boat launches\, that’s where we deposit our oil and other boats deposit \nOil and gas there. So we need to rebuild that And then also when I was young\, we used to launch boats there um Gatekeeper\, we launched our first boat right there. And I’d like to keep the boat launch there\, the crane and fix it. It’s been broken for 15 years. \nAnd we’d like to have a place to launch our boats per youth. And there could be storage there for seed track and other types of small sailing boats\, people that could lead trips for youth out of that area. \nSo anyway\, please think about the sea scouts and other youth. We have hundreds and hundreds of youth that want to get on the water and they need support in buildings and places to meet. \nTo be able to do that. So thank you so much. \nThank you. I appreciate the comments. \nOkay\, Chair\, we have four comments online Howard Strasner\, I’m going to unmute you and you have three minutes. \nHi. So I’ve heard some interesting comments. \nThere you are. \nI’ve had a birth in the guest house cove for over 50 years. \nAnd one of the things we have is very reasonable rent because it was subsidized by a very low interest rate loan. \nAnd I’m concerned that you keep space for small boaters. One nice solution seems to be to use some of this shallow water for motorboats that don’t draw very much. That may be a useful change I would also hold BCDC responsible \nTo doing a really deep study\, how much mud is enough to protect us from the the terrible stuff that’s underneath there. And I also note that you I look at the things and you have reduced parking and that’s okay. \nWhen you run out of money since you’ve already raised the cost of keeping a boat. \nIn the marina\, maybe you want to start getting some of that money from the parking that’s left. \nI would suggest that very much. I also want to say hi to Christy. I’ve known her for over 50 years. \nAnd you do need\, we’ve never bought gasoline from her. We just pick up\, fill a little tank of it for a small sailboat. \nBut certainly big boats need it and it has to be done very well. It’s a very important thing. I don’t know. \nI don’t hope enough is done about that. Oh\, I would support removing the parking from against the seawall. This is a major place to walk. \nAnd here are you devoting for people who want to drive there and sit in their cars and look at the weather. \nThat’s not a reasonable use of San Francisco Bay. This is a use for San Francisco Bay for sailors. \nFor walkers\, for hikers and everything You’re doing a lot of it well. I like the trail as it goes near the old guest house cove. That looks very nice. \nBut I think you can get some more nickels. From parking i would remind that they collect for parking in the Presidio and they collect the parking At the other place. \nWhy San Francisco can’t charge for parking for this really great place to visit. \nIs craziness you know um doesn’t make any sense. And there is transit very close. People can walk a few blocks from the transit so That’s enough. Good luck. I’m really concerned. \nHow many feet is enough mud over the that stuff that’s below. Thank you. \nThank you. \nOkay\, up next I have Danny\, no last name. You have three minutes. \nHello\, can we get the slide up of the new proposed Marina Green Triangle design \nI have to stop sharing. \nHmm. \nWhile that’s getting pulled up\, just want to thank Monica Scott for your work on this. And I am grateful of all the things that we are have lost the west harbor boat proposal that is a huge improvement and why there was \nYeah\, anyway\, so… that focusing on this next\, I do agree with many of the other people that the community outreach as far as designing some of these things is not as thorough as it was made out to be. \nSo the fitness plaza Is what I’m here to comment on today in this trail This actually is one of the This is one of the hallmarks\, I think\, of the marina\, the ability to have an outdoor workout area where you can \nHave space for dogs to play And that’s a huge part of the reason that I live here. Three volleyball courts. \nDoes a tremendous\, I think\, disservice to the space. I can’t see any use why three volleyball courts would be used. \nPeople do set up volleyball sometimes but those would be very\, very underutilized and would be really\, that would cost a lot of maintenance and they would take a huge amount of they would have a huge impact on that space. So there’s people that set up \nVolleyball elsewhere and it’s Fine\, but if maybe one is fine\, but three\, I think\, removes a huge amount of the ability for people to have dogs run in that area. \nSecondly\, on the bay trail parks about two or three years ago removed all of the trash cans that were along the water. So there’s like no place to put dog poop as you’re walking on the trail. \nSo if the idea for this area is community benefit hopefully we can increase get some of the trash cans back so that If people are walking on the trail\, they have a place to put poop and there will be less like litter and food scraps \nAnd dog poop that finds its way just on the side of the trail. \nThank you so much. \nThank you very much. I appreciate that comment. \nDo we have anyone else online? Two. Okay\, thank you. \nOkay\, next I have Steve Welch. Followed by Bruce Stone. \nHi\, I’m Stephen Welch. Can you hear me? \nWe can hear you\, yes. \nSo I’m the sea scout committee chair. We have a historic cultural connection We were operating in the San Francisco Marina East Harbor from 1920 to 1947. \nWhen San Francisco Rec Park moved us over to Aquatic Park. \nAnd now that the National Park Service is our landlord\, they have let our facility completely fall apart into the water this year they chainsawed our pilings we don’t have more than one boat that we can get to get kids in and out of. Since 2021\, we’ve had a 400% increase in membership. \nThis marina renewal is a once in a lifetime opportunity to have a new facility for our city junior high and high school kids who we introduced to the maritime careers to accommodate the needed youth training facility which can be accomplished if you just require that community doc to have an H \nConfiguration. So one side could be secured for youth boats and youth access and then where the enhanced bathrooms go or maybe somewhere else But we need like a clubhouse with a classroom you know this would be the largest park or marina facility \nWithout a supporting building. Anywhere around the Bay Area that I know of. And as the C. Scott committee chair i actually cover San Francisco\, Alameda\, Contra Costa\, Napa\, Solano and lake counties and work with many\, many of our programs. \nThat’s all I have to say. \nThank you for those comments. Next. \nOkay\, Bruce Stone\, you have three minutes. \nThank you. Can you hear me? \nYes\, we can hear you. \nSo I wanted to turn up my phone. Let me see the computer. Okay. So I’m head of the arena harbor association And we’ve got concerns about the gas dock location. \nThe proposed area that they’ve indicated\, which is a over at west harbor is too crowded. It’s a choke point for sailboats filling up and down the harbor without motors to get past that spot. \nAlso\, on the tour side\, you have a problem. Of the fuel trucks coming to a very congested area to refuel the tanks there It’s very difficult to make cars making that turn. Then you had some fuel trucks every two or three days in there\, that’s further issues. \nThe tanks that they’re proposing in West Harbor have to be vented directly upwind of the playgrounds. \nSo you’d be having toxic fumes going to hitting the soccer moms and their kids in that area. The better location is east harbor Just inside that breakwater that’s going to be built there. \nIt could be right along the new peer that they’re proposing for public access And if that peer moved maybe 30 feet further to the south\, you would have no impact really of the turning basin issue that they cite in there would go away. \nSo both could come in and refuel on a nice long dock\, a much safer location And without little sailboats coming by and trying to get past them. \nSo I really believe this is in your bailiwick as the PCDC people to really opine about the fuel dock location because the location in West Harbor is terrible from a toxic standpoint to pedestrians and and users of the park and also to the kids sailing up and down that harbor without motors to get around commercial boats trying to come in and refuel \nNeither the art clubs nor the Marina Harbor Association want that location. \nWe all want to see it over in East Harbor. Obviously\, it might not be able to be kept where Chrissy has her right now but transformed over to the north west corner is an area where fuel trucks could easily get in \nAnd the tanks that would be installed would vent back out towards the harbor and open water they wouldn’t affect people enjoying the marina green. \nSo appreciate if you take a look at that and get some guidance to RPD about that. Also to Steve Walsh’s idea about shore site amenities for youth sailing We’ve sent Rec and Park a detailed design about a clubhouse and a pier that could adopt that could have showers and lockers and \nFacilities for small boats to be stored there and launched off of a that area and wouldn’t need much dredging\, maybe a couple of feet from what they have right now. \nIf you’re interested\, I can send you those designs. They were done by a professional naval architect. \nThank you very much for those comments. Sarah had one more sneak in on us. Okay\, one more. Let’s go. Thank you. \nMargo Attard\, I’ve unmuted you and you have three minutes\, please. \nHello\, can you hear me? \nYes\, we can hear you. \nThank you all so much for your time this evening and for this presentation. And while I do think it’s a step improved from the initial proposals last year um i think there are still some major issues. And I just wanted to raise some concerns there. So I don’t have any personal relationship to the sea scouts \nBut I definitely love their ideas and want to support those initiatives. So anyway\, you could prioritize the needs of the sea scouts\, I think that’s great. \nI also wanted to emphasize something that the guy said earlier who had issue with like the volleyball courts and the\, you lack of trash cans and stuff like that. I just wanted to mention that the marina green can be used for volleyball\, not to officially put up a volleyball court\, but like people can use that for their volleyball needs. And I think that \nThe percentage of volleyball players in San Francisco and in the marina area as compared to like the percentage of dog owners. I think the dog owners are the majority by far and making sure that we’re able to keep the space for dog walks and fetch and stuff I think is pretty imperative. And I am a little confused by some of the \nLike the amount of recreation that is proposed at this time. I think being able to maintain at least You know\, some space and keeping things the way that they are. And like the person said about protecting the wave organ and stuff like that\, I think all of that is \nIs really crucial in maintaining the marina as we know it and love it. \nAnd that is all I have. Thank you. \nThank you very much. One more comment. Oh. \nWe do also have public comments submitted to staff and they will be posted to the website. \nDo you want me to read through now? Maybe a summary. Yes\, yes. \nBill Clark already spoke\, so I won’t review his comments. They were similar to what was submitted in the letter. \nJanet Rocco said\, please don’t obscure our shoreline and many more any more than it already is and boat slips are fine\, even desirable\, but anything else is a hard no. Let people enjoy what little is left of the views while walking marina green or driving down the marina boulevard. \nLi Wo of MTC The Bay Trail. Commented on the bay trail width and capacity the San Francisco Marina is a high use area. There’s a high demand for public shore and trail area or trail use in this area. \nAnd this project presents an opportunity to increase the capacity of the Bay Trail through widening the overall corridor designated for the Bay Trail and its users. \nCurrently\, the existing matril is 12 feet and they’re proposing to rebuild it at that same width\, but the bay trail guidelines request a starting point of about 18 feet. \nFor the Bay 12 corridor. With additional with additional width to be considered. \nBased on the level of use. Also\, Baytrail user amenities. We request that the DRB and project sponsor to include amenities valuable to bay trail users\, such as a bottle fill station\, water fountains\, and bike repair stations. \nAs part of the marina project. We appreciate that the project sponsor’s proposal to renovate the existing public restrooms that will be needed and a useful amenity to patrol users. \nAnd finally\, the connections to the Bay Trail. Mtc request that the DRB and project sponsor consider whether the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the SF Marina Project provides safe\, usable\, and low stress connections to the bay trail for bicyclists and pedestrians from the surrounding areas and roadways. \nAnd whether additional connections are needed. Okay\, thank you for that summary. And I just want to say again how much we appreciate all of the public comment. \nPeople here in person\, people online\, people who submitted comments and I also want to say that we are in a process at this time. So I think this is perfect timing to be providing input like this. I know there has been outreach and \nSome of you may have been able to engage more directly than others. \nI’m sure the project proponents are writing as many notes as we are and we’ll be taking all of your comments on board. \nOkay\, at this point\, we’ll move to the next part of the agenda which is Board discussion and advice and what we do during this stage is we We have a comment period and discussion between ourselves. We base it on \nThe key objectives for public access\, which is our priority. And they are just a reminder to make the public access as accessible as possible for everybody and as public as possible. \nTo make sure that the visual access to the bays enhanced and maintained and is preserved as a resource for users. \nAnd to make sure we enhance or where we can and at least maintain the visual quality of the bay and the adjoining developments and making sure that to a point that Ashley was just making and is that the connections and the continuity to the Bay Trail and access are as optimal as possible. \nAnd making sure that we take wildlife into account and we take advantage obviously of the incredible base setting that exists at this location. \nAnd staff have asked us\, so I’m speaking to the board now\, staff have asked us to look at two\, well\, four questions and Rowan actually provided a number of sub points which are in your notes. I’ll just summarize the four questions and \nWhat we’ll do is we’ll go around and just have each board member comment on one or possibly two of the questions that really stand out to them. \nThe goal being at the end to make sure that we’ve addressed these questions in a way that the staff and the proponent can take this feedback forward. \nThe first question is… Is the proposed project concept plan that we’re reviewing tonight. Is it providing adequate\, usable and attractive public access that maximises the public use and enjoyment of the area. \nAnd so there are some sub points that were highlighted to do with creating a sense of place. \nDiverse activities Are we balancing? Is the proposal balancing the needs of the public Are there adequate microclimate considerations for users? \nFor example\, wind protection\, shade\, so on and uh And the… community engagement process\, a specific point here about will the project concept is presented\, preserve the open horizon and the views from Marina Green. So that’s all bundled up under question one. \nThe second question really concentrates more on the connections to and through the public access spaces that we’re reviewing tonight. \nThe public’s use and enjoyment of the site. So maybe if you could really focus on other connections being optimized in the proposal and other potential conflicts or congestion points the pedestrian paths\, parking lots\, bike paths and what could be done to mitigate \nThose conflicts if we see the conflicts there And then the third question\, are there adequate support facilities proposed for water oriented uses? \nAnd the support facilities that we would be considering\, of course\, parking and the vehicular circulation\, the restrooms\, equipment storage etc. And then does the project design adequately address resilience and future adaptation for sea level rise? \nNow\, I think we heard at the beginning of the proponent’s presentation that they anticipate coming back. So there’s definitely I think more. \nThe more data that we will have when we see the proposal again And more response to these questions of resilience an adaptation as needed. \nI’m going to start with the our online team here Tom\, do you want to just lead off with and address any one of those questions that really strikes you as being critical. \nSome of them are interrelated\, but you know it’s the location of open space relative to the shoreline\, I guess. \nOkay. \nI feel like we didn’t get an adequate answer to Gary’s question. \nLike why so much vehicular circulation so much parking in the shoreline band. \nAnd I can understand it’s probably a very Hot button\, but… I think we need to understand more. What is that hot button and are there no ways to Why is that such an overwhelming criteria here because normally Just like Gary said\, you’d expect to see parking to the rear. \nAnd see the public access maximized Unless somehow the parking is uh something more i don’t know. I don’t know. That part I don’t get. And then secondary concerns were uh I feel it seems like there’s a lot of questions to be answered about the fuel \nUh fueling. Location and safety and things like that. And third. \nI feel like the… amount of sand in volleyball is out of proportion I agree with some of these comments out of proportion to the amount of green open space there\, given that it’s kind of a at a premium. I’m all for recreation\, but I feel like the \nThe sand somehow is… taken up a bit too much space. \nYeah. Okay. Thanks\, Tom. We’ll go to Bob. \nThat’s all I’ve got. \nBob\, do you want to weigh in on any one of these questions issues that strike you? \nYeah\, I mean\, I really agree with what Tom said about the fuel dock and sea scouts and also what Gary brought up and Tom mentioned about the parking on the marina green i I sense that this is a very touchy subject any kind of change can \nRaise concerns about people. So I don’t mean to say I think that this is an easy topic necessarily but I do think it makes sense to move the Bay Trail back from the shore from the shore perspective of adaptation of that \nAmenity with sea level rise i think One way to handle sea level rise is to accommodate some overtopping and flooding by moving things back from the shore And maybe also raising them Bye. \nI also think that it would be\, I think it would be nice if people could stand near the shore And not worry about conflicts with bicyclists and vice versa. \nSo for pedestrians that are running or on their own. So I kind of feel like the trail should be moved back. I do know people like to park there and You know\, it’s a nice place to listen to music or whatever. \nElse that people do in their cars. Depending on the hour of the day. \nBut I think it’s maybe that’s a little old school. Maybe it’s something that needs to be changed. \nThe fuel dock rings really true to me as somebody that’s worked around marinas and facilities. \nBoats need fuel. If this is one of the only fuel docks around. \nI haven’t studied this\, but intuitively it makes sense that putting it over in the west harbor it might cause more problems? \nThen it solves. And I think that’s particularly strange to me. I’m sure there’s something I don’t understand. She’s got some very You know\, being a water person myself\, not a sailor i think Sea Scout facilities are\, I think it’s really important our children \nAnd I think the adults get a lot out of it too. They need things to do. \nAnd we’re by the water and it seems like a very healthy thing. So I would like to see the city County of San Francisco support. \nThat amenity. And then just jumping down to the uh… sea level rise thing\, I think there really are no criteria provided. I appreciate the explanation. It’s not clear what actions are being taken. \nRelated to sea level rise in this presentation. So if the DRB is going to review this\, I suggest there’s a few things that need to be included. \nAnd the next topic\, you know\, or if not certainly the ECRB would like to\, what are the datums used What are the elevations in a datum that I can understand? \nRelative to the ocean. How is sea level rise being considered? What does it look like in the future? Will the Bay Trail be underwater? \nEtc. And how do you adapt? I mean\, what’s the plan? \nSo there’s nothing really provided that I saw that really indicates it has even been considered. \nI don’t think that’s the case\, but certainly if we are going to review this or someone is\, there needs to be some information So those are my comments. \nI don’t think I have. Oh\, the one thing about the sand transport that is kind of a very interesting issue. \nAnd also\, again\, I think the history is very interesting. And I think we’ve lost some context here. \nThere’s a lot of context but i think This is an iconic area\, so I think a little more on the context. \nMight be of interest. And might actually be of interest to all the real… talented and effective designers on the design review board. \nWhich is not really my area of expertise. \nThank you. \nYeah\, thank you bob we’ll Keep going and then we’ll just see how these threads are coming together. Leo. \nDo you want to make some comments? Sure. Thank you\, Chair. \nFirst of all\, I want to thank the public for coming out. These projects are very challenging and it’s important that we hear everybody’s voices so thank you This project is so important to the city. This is one of our most important public spaces. It’s one of the most memorable. It’s what everybody \nThinks about\, I think\, when they think about San Francisco and certainly Just down the road\, Chrissy Field shows what can happen with significant transformation of a waterfront. \nThe design team is great and super capable. So I do think for me\, there are a couple of significant questions. I am very sympathetic to what Gary and Tom raised\, I think that It is strange that the most recreation focused portion of our waterfronts \nIs separated from the waterfront by parking and roads for its full length And it does get very congested. Those intersections on either side of the triangle Because of the odd geometry and the crossover of traffic\, I’ve seen it many\, many times\, particularly when there’s events over it. \nFort Mason gets very\, very overrun. The movement patterns are not obvious sometimes. And so\, you know\, people walking in the drive aisles and such So I do think it’s um more consideration. I think there are options probably to move the marina triangle closer to one side or the other of the waterfront without having to put the parking up against Marina Boulevard. I think there’s other ways to do it. \nI think that’s very important. And I think also it would improve access to the waterfront for the public. \nWe have… neighbors and residents of the area who use the space. We have folks from all over the city. There’s so many programs that are run out on the green. \nWe have tourists\, we have visitors. It’s a large and diverse group of users. And I think that the amount of options for usage seems like there needs to be more thought given into that. I think that there’s I think as the population of the city continues to grow and will continue to grow that \nDemand from open space and how it can serve our public is going to continue to grow. So we really need to think about what those options might be. \nI think that\, you know\, whether it’s sea scouts or supporting these uses is important. Most of the small neighborhood parks have community centers associated with them. \nIt’s a bit strange that this area does not have one. \nI can imagine it would be very popular with the public and well supported. \nAnd then\, um. I think just in general\, oh\, and on the parking The dedicated spaces right now are the ones obviously closest to the waterfront for the boats boat owners and users. \nI think it’d be worth thinking about how parking is dedicated to the boat users. I think there is a kind of preferential treatment for the boat users above and beyond everybody else in the public. And I think the convenience is important. I understand how that \nThe maintenance and equipping of the vessels is important\, but I think we can find other ways to do that. \nOh\, and one last comment. I think that for me\, the spaces are still And this is probably in the course of development they still feel a little transitory for me. There are pathways. \nAnd I think some consideration really about how people could occupy and use the spaces. So I would love to see more seating\, more variations on types of seating. \nThat really kind of support and encourage people to linger and enjoy what is going to be transformed. \nThank you\, Leo. Kristen. \nI have a lot of questions and I don’t have a lot of coherent sort of recommendations. But I sort of think of there’s this story about two people are fighting over an orange They both want the orange and it turns out one person wanted the juice and the other person wanted the peel. So they both get to have what they wanted out of the orange. \nAnd I think of design as sort of the opportunity to figure out how to have multiple users get what they would like. \nAnd I can see from the materials that were shared about outreach. And it’s difficult to wade into conversations like this that have obviously been ongoing. \nRpd is incredibly thoughtful about how to design parks and spaces and be stewards of these spaces. \nDefinitely believe that there’s been a lot of thinking put into it. \nExcellent team of design firms who are thinking about all of these things in very sophisticated ways. \nAnd it strikes me that we’re hearing a lot from the folks who are sort of users of the waterfront in a more industrial commercial way that maybe didn’t have an opportunity to be as involved in that outreach or Potentially. \nThat’s question. It strikes me that one of the things that is so wonderful about San Francisco\, I grew up sailing and paddling on the San Francisco Bay. And it’s true that these fuel docks are really important pieces of infrastructure. And it’s so great to stand at \nThese spaces and see all these boats out on the water and see the fishing boats going out. And the reason they can do that is because there are these pieces of infrastructure that support those uses like fuel docks\, which are incredibly important for even sailboats need fuel\, right? Everybody needs fuel. \nSo it also seems like that has been a little bit of an afterthought. \nAnd it maybe shouldn’t be. I also realized that there’s the settlement from PG&E that probably has a you know limit to how much money can be spent in which ways and probably this solution about the kind of shallow cove is a way to meet the remediation needs in a more cost-effective way and so \nI’m sure that’s why this solution has been decided and that the best use then of this shallow water area is for kayaking. \nAnd so then potentially this solution doesn’t allow for dredging and maintaining this fuel dock in this location. And so I understand how all of those things can kind of come to a decision like what we see here. \nSo it does seem very important you know as a boater and hearing the public comment and you know to be honest\, we rarely get this much public comment it’s really you know there’s obviously a lot of interest and sentiment in this issue \nAnd it came across very clearly that the fuel dock and the opportunity of the sea scouts is really important. \nSet of stakeholders in this area And I would love to see a way that the fuel dock can be maintained or moved in a way that is functional. \nI’m a little confused by why people are worried about spaces for dogs when there’s this huge green to the west that seems like a great space for dogs. \nThe volleyball courts\, there are lots of impromptu volleyball courts set up. There’s a whole big space here and we’re kind of only looking at this triangle and I’m assuming that that’s because people kind of like things the way that they are and there’s resistance to change there. \nI would also just say that as somebody who comes to this waterfront every weekend and I literally walk this whole thing every weekend. \nMarina Boulevard itself is this wonderful public space the street itself is this great public space and it’s really wonderful to be walking down that promenade and have the grass on the one side and the beautiful houses on the other and kind of enjoying that space. \nFrom that promenade\, your view is not really of the water. It’s of cars\, parked cars. \nAnd then you can see the hills in the distance. And I would think actually having some boats parked beyond the cars would be more scenic looking at a bunch of parked cars. \nOr bringing people out closer to the waterfront and having those cars be next to Marina Boulevard. I can understand why there’s tension around some of those design choices but And again\, this is a team that I’m sure has thought through all of these things. \nSo yeah\, I guess\, what am I trying to say? I think… If we want to see people continue to use the water the water. \nBeyond just recreation\, beyond paddling\, we really need to support those types of uses\, which require slips\, which require slips that are affordable to people and which require fuel docks and other pieces of infrastructure like that. \nIt’s a ramble. That’s my ramble. Okay. Thank you. An excellent ramble. \nWe’ll come back to some of those points. Yeah\, I agree. This is the most public participation we’ve had in a project probably in couple of years that I can remember. \nAnd\, you know\, it’s not everybody’s been heard. So I think that point’s been made. \nIt’d be great to try to resolve some of these comments\, including the wave organ kind of strikes me as a good one. Is it possible to do studies or to predict what is going to be the effect on the wave organ? Because that is an important monument in San Francisco. \nAlso wanted to mention a little bit Leo hit on a little bit\, you know\, the entrance to Fort Mason\, you know\, that big wide curb cut on the curve of Marina Boulevard there does create a lot of confusing congestion for pedestrians and \nCars and bikes already and i think that The triangle Park being more kind of intimately scaled than the Marina Green is going to probably get a lot of activity. So it’s going to\, I think it’s going to intensify the circulation \nIn this area and so The other thing is that there’s There’s the marina grove we haven’t really talked about. I think that’s another destination that’s going to bring people into that you know very complicated circulation Nexus. And then in addition \nAbove Fort Mason\, you know\, you have the Fort Mason park So people coming from aquatic park are walking on that roadway and up over the big meadow and then down and then you’re kind of unceremoniously dumped onto the Laguna where it meets Marina Boulevard. It’s a very narrow sidewalk there are bikes \nPeople\, I mean\, it’s such a such a difficult intersection there so I don’t know that we’re going to solve all that. I just want to bring it to everybody’s attention that the the you know it’s going to ripple out from here \nIt’s not just the triangle park i i think that intersection of Laguna and marina is a little bit problematic. \nEverything else I think has been said here. I just want to say the When I look at the conceptual sections and then look at the render of the very green shoreline\, I’m having a little bit of a disconnect and I’d love to see a section of how that really works. \nStructurally\, if it’s really possible. Because the image is really appealing\, but then I kind of feel like maybe we’re not actually\, it’s going to be hard to pull off. \nAnd then finally\, I think Bob didn’t mention that there’s all this historic debris because this was a fill area from the 1906 earthquake there are some classical columns that are sitting in the shallow basin that I saw the other day when I went by and i know that \nNorth of the marina green at a very low tide\, you used to be able to see all kinds of interesting things\, you know\, keystones and\, you know\, Corinthian column capitals. And I don’t know if it’s something washed\, you know\, further into the bay it seemed less \nVisible when I was there last. But anyway\, there’s definitely a story there that could be told. \nSo I think that’s it for me. Thank you. Yep. Thanks\, Gary and um Thanks\, everyone\, for just weighing in on those with your priority\, if you’d like\, reactions to this. \nI just want to pick up on A couple of points. I’m going to focus my comments here more on questions two and three\, I guess. \nAnd before I do that\, I just want to step back a bit because This is actually one of my favorite places along the entire San Francisco waterfront and The reason that I really like it is the um i like the \nContextual setting to it you know um marina green Fort Mason. \nWe talked about some of the other places in the environment but when you are in this location is a very intimate place. And I think there’s something incredibly… important that respond to when you see them walking or see them \nBicycling you know along uh it really is a place that has a different character to it and and it’s associated with the boating and the marina and a whole range of other things. \nI think the challenge with this is that When you look at it just as defined by the project site that we’re reviewing. \nYou look at it in a very specific almost it’s the inclination is to look at it as a in isolation almost from what’s immediately adjacent to it and And I think we can be To question three\, you know\, focused primarily on how the connections are being made \nBut perhaps not the primary question\, which is you know what is the uh what is the fundamental nature of this place? Is it is it a Is it a series of important connections with you know important infrastructure Is it an important park in itself? \nIs it something that everyone should put everything that they’ve ever wanted into you know or is it something that we should think about distributing you know\, some of these very interesting possibilities across a broader landscape. \nAnd I think\, you know\, the points that you guys were bringing up about the parking\, balancing parking\, where is it located? You know\, can it be taken away from the edge i i I really agree with that. I suspect. \nThat going back to some of the the first question about the first question budget and and how do you spend your money effectively. \nI’m sure there’s a lot that’s gone into how much can we move\, take away\, reconfigure versus what we bring in. \nBut I think for a space as important as this. And given everything we’ve heard tonight. \nI think it is\, I would like to see it some of these comments that you’ve made. \nJust brought into bear in the next iteration of this design. \nSo that the concept may be maybe everyone doesn’t get exactly what they want. \nBut maybe the fundamental importance of this space in terms of meeting critical access criteria\, critical connections and ensuring visibility to the bay which are out primary purviews as well as a good balance of uses is accomplished. I mean\, I like \nThere are things that I really like about this concept. I like the establishment of a clearer plaza\, the marina Grove space is currently named. \nAnd I think the connection to Fort Mason is very critical. And at the moment\, it’s not very well handled. The vegetation is really overgrown. There’s a narrow gateway that you walk through that doesn’t actually feel very safe. You know\, if it was dark\, I’m not sure I would want to walk through there. \nYou have… I’m not sure that the wayfinding for tourists is very clear. I mean\, even as a local\, if you don’t know this area very well you’re coming up over the Fort Mason Hill and coming down into Fort Mason coming\, which is a very popular direction for people to be going in\, heading towards the \nGolden Gate Bridge\, it’s not exactly clear what’s happening in this sort of mixing area. And maybe it’s fine for it to remain undefined. It mixes reasonably well most of the time. Sometimes it’s extremely busy and very sort of chaotic but uh \nBut I think… I think the just making sure that the connections at the eastern end of the I was the uh east bay here and bay here making sure that the connections at the West are accomplished adequately is important. \nI like the i like creation of the nature exploration terrorists. I think\, you know\, it’s definitely widening that area which is very narrow at the moment from the standpoint of pedestrian walkway. \nAnd so you know\, that’s a good start. \nIt would be good to understand more about what the real required level of parking is in this area versus perhaps just keeping it as close to the existing count as possible. I know that it does get very busy at \nYou know\, key times it would be good to look at that. \nA couple of small points. I’m just going to mention it because I was very intrigued in the in\, you know\, in terms of user groups And what came out as being important and maybe this is important you know we have the fuel dock\, which is such a critical infrastructure for the bay and \nI would like to understand better you know uh white here why not here perhaps further east uh you know we have the in fact we reviewed the um the fire uh the new fire department what pier is that again that’s at um \n35\, 35? Firehouse\, 35. Firehouse 35. Anyway\, you know what I’m talking about but uh you know and south beach harbour marina you know we’ve got a whole dotted series of very important places where people need to fuel so I’m not quite sure exactly \nYou know why why Exactly. It’s critical versus other locations. And do we need more than one? You know\, I mean\, what is the situation and I think the point made by the the public comment speaker in relation to safety is really critical as well. And I’d like to understand more about that. \nWhen we see it again. \nYou know\, on question three\, just a comment about support facilities you know again uh I think we should have. \nAs much water oriented uses as we can in this area. \nAnd landside facilities are obviously required. But again\, I think we have to be I’d like a lot of thought to go into\, you know\, at each point whether there’s uh \nWhether this is starting to be filled up too much you know or not with all of those facilities. I do agree with the I think someone made about making sure that there’s still plenty of places to sit. We obviously need trash cans \nAnd all the other things that I’m sure will be in the more detailed plans. There’s an excellent team on this project. \nSo I think that’s all I want to say. I’ll come back and just make a summary comment later on but I think there’s some… general agreement on a a lot of these issues from the board so I think we’ll pause there. \nAnd do you want me to just make a short summary as well? \nI will just sort of go down what I think we’ve all discussed tonight\, not necessarily with strong recommendations but you know for the fuel dock location I think we’d like to understand why it is so critical that it be here\, taking into account the historic \nAssociations with it and you know we’ve heard a lot about the importance of it. So like to really understand if it’s going to move somewhere Let’s have an agreed location for where it should be and make sure that the appropriate outreach has been done. \nThe Sailing use programs\, you know\, I just think So sad to see so sad the um The Sea Scouts building falling into the water around an aquatic park and so if there is some way to\, in a new way looking forward to incorporate \nSea Scouts operations into this area\, I think that would be\, especially with the removal of the docs here you know that that would be a very exciting opportunity The adequacy of mud cover on the contaminated areas has been brought up a number of times. And again\, I just think some \nClearer \nAnalysis or if you’ve done it just for people to understand the adequacy of that. \nThis is a very big project. I think everyone’s concern is that at the end. \nIt’s going to accomplish the objectives that you set out very clearly at the beginning of the presentation. \nThe sand buildup we we’ve and the potential for that to occur or not. It sounds like there’s technical studies there and it would be good to make sure that that’s thoroughly reviewed with the key stakeholders who are concerned about this before we see the project again. \nThere seemed to be some questioning\, you know\, are kayaks\, do we want kayaks or not? I think one speaker spoke with about some concerns about that. \nAnd again\, I think it just comes back to managing the uses and the stakeholder groups and\, you know\, is that a use that can be accomplished here\, which with the environment that exists here that makes sense. So some justification for that \nI agree there seems to be plenty of areas for dogs to play in. \nObviously appropriate disposal areas are needed. \nThe question of volleyball courts\, are there too many? I mean\, it is… when you think of that scale relative to the existing fitness plaza which is actually quite a strong focal point as you come along Marina Boulevard and This is a big zone and it’s a use that is very popular and I think the question there really is \nYou know do you need three permanent three permanent volleyball courts or you know Is there still the ability to balance? I just think evaluating the stakeholders who are behind that use and just understanding more whether three is really the number would be helpful to us. \nThe adequacy of outreach\, we hood the number of speakers. \nSpeak to the fact that they have not maybe don’t feel or have not had the the level of contact they would like to discuss their issues so maybe I would just suggest that there be some targeted outreach to continue with some of these stakeholders. \nWe talked about historical significance of the area and the wave organ. And again\, I think these elements that are So\, um. \nKnown to the community and the historical significance of this area is weighed into the concept as it continues to develop. So I’ll stop there but uh i I think that summarizes Our comments. \nCan I… add a comment. \nSure\, Bob\, go ahead. \nYeah\, you know\, I had mentioned\, I kind of alluded to historical aspects of the marina Just to clarify\, just working on memory here. \nThere was at one point a waiting area on the far west end of the marina when it was originally or constructed or subsequently modified where people were to walk into the marina waters and for various reasons\, including facilitation I don’t know that that ever really worked. \nAlso\, the marina has changed size various times because it’s it’s fill And there are some old kind of lighthouse looking structures that at one point were the entrance and now is part of a fairway. \nI just feel like there’s a number of those things. And of course\, the wave organ\, which I think is plugged with sand. Maybe it’s not now\, but it has been in the past. \nI think there’s just some really interesting aspects of this site. \nThat deserve some review for the context of the site in my So I just wanted to add a few more facts if those are correct. \nTo why I said that. \nYeah\, that’s great\, Bob. And I think… I think the proponents are making notes on this question about exploring the historical significance of a number of elements. Yeah. \nThank you. Okay. We can move to the proponent. Thank you. \nGreat. Well\, thank you so much for all of the comments and considerations. And thank you also to the public. \nI guess a couple of things that I just want to Really quickly\, high level\, I know it’s been a long long meeting already So the fuel dock\, we had analyzed keeping it in its existing location The cost of that would be about $20 to $25 million. So there’s \nThat one had a clear economic financial reason for why we could not keep it there. \nWe looked at about 15 other locations in other parts of the East Harbour and the West Harbor and Moffat and Nickel led that review with our harbormaster. We also reviewed that with Bruce Stone of the Harbor Association and some \nMembers of the yacht Club. We are also\, Wreck and Park is also eager to speak with the port about other potential locations for a fuel dock. \nAnd I had spoken with the fire department\, police department\, and the Coast Guard The fire department has mobile fueling options. That’s what’s happening now with Hyde Street Pier closing. \nSo this is definitely a citywide problem. It’s a bay wide problem\, but really a citywide problem and they seem to be closing I know at Oyster Point it closed\, Berkeley Marina closed so Yeah\, we’re doing our best and we’re continuing to to \nFind the best solution that will not annoy everybody. \nThen we have feasibility to the cover question\, and Ryan can maybe speak up\, but we have the feasibility studies were submitted to the water board They’ve reviewed them. Those are on our website as the project website\, as well as the water board’s website \nSo hopefully answers to concerns around the toxic toxicity in the cap can be reference there\, but we can also return with more information next time we come back to you. \nI have met repeatedly with the Exploratorium and the artist of the wave organ\, Peter Richards. \nSo he’s reviewed these plans. He’s on board with the understanding without the breakwater\, the wave organ would become a beach. And that’s not ideal for him and it yes we do expect it to continue to function with despite the breakwater with these change conditions. And we’re looking forward to keeping him engaged as the plans develop. \nThen let me see. Sea Scouts\, right? This is wonderful news actually for me to hear some more context. I’d spoken with Maggie at length. \nI didn’t realize the aquatic park facility was failing. I thought\, oh\, great\, you’re at Aquatic Park. \nThat’s close enough. But yeah\, we’re happy to work with them. I think Rick\, I can’t speak for all of Breck and Park\, but I know that We definitely are always looking for partnerships with community organizations and we understand the significance \nSignificance of the Sea Scouts. So I hope to contact Stephen Welch\, I believe is his name. \nUm and Great feedback on the volleyball. We’ll do more. We’ll do more research on this. \nAnd parking as well. Thank you for that feedback i think so many iterations of this have happened over the Now\, two years that I’ve been involved with this project but i think we’re I’m always happy to make it better if we can. So we’ll see what we can do there. \nYeah\, I will\, as was mentioned\, a lot of people aren’t here that had spoken up against the project or for the project. \nBut happy to do we do outreach is ongoing for rec and park and for me. So most of these people that you’ve heard from have my contact information. \nHappy to keep the conversation alive. And then\, yes\, thanks\, Bob\, for the references to all the historic features one of\, you know\, as a project manager\, it’s like scope creep is real But we’re happy to include what we can. I’m sure there’ll be some signage. \nI think some of the rubble and the remnants we hope to reinstall as riprap right so I think I’ll end there. \nThank you very much. And again\, I just want to say you know recognize the hard work that the project teams put in. This is a very complex and a very important project so Thank you for all the hard work today. We’ll look forward to seeing you \nAgain\, I usually ask the board if we should see the project again\, but I think in this case it’s a given the project will come back to us. \nWith that\, we’ll move to concluding the meeting. I’d like to entertain a motion and a seconder to… I will make a motion to adjourn. \nThank you\, Gary. Leo\, second. Okay\, thank you very much. All in favor? \nSecond. \nBye. \nBye. \nAll right. Okay. So the meeting is adjourned. Just want to thank everyone and particularly thank the people who took the time from people from the community who took the time to come here tonight and And make us aware of your concerns and interests. So thank you again \nAnd thank you to the staff for all your hard work. Okay\, see you next time. Thank you.\n \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/january-6-2025-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR