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:20230312T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20231105T090000 END:STANDARD 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:VTIMEZONE TZID:UTC BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:UTC DTSTART:20230101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Asia/Shanghai BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0800 TZOFFSETTO:+0800 TZNAME:CST DTSTART:20230101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250310T170000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250310T183000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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:20260420T013005 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 BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250102T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250102T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20241209T183405Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241219T232725Z UID:10000228-1735822800-1735837200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 2\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-2-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241224T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241224T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240130T050519Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241205T184813Z UID:10000148-1735032600-1735041600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20241219T130000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20241219T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240127T065510Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241231T175750Z UID:10000112-1734613200-1734627600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 19\, 2024 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. \n  \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \n  \nTeleconference locations \n\nMountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, 3rd Fl\, City Clerks Conf. Rm.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\nNapa County District 5 Office: 4381 Broadway\, Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503\nCALTRANS: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl.\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n14265 Highway 128\, Boonville\, CA 95415\n1028A Howard St.\, San Francisco\, CA 94103\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n176 E Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley CA 94941\n11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\n\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/84286402603?pwd=iJ9G2kbab1r4zaWNahbqXQsGRptU5R.1 \n  \nLive Webcast \n  \nSee information on public participation \n  \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID842 8640 2603 \nPasscode299058 \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]Public comment\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for December 5\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nProposed Adoption of Stipulated Civil Penalty Order No. 2024.002.00(Unauthorized Solar Plant)Staff proposes that the Commission adopt stipulated CCD 2024.002.00\, the terms of which have been agreed to by the respondent and BCDC staff\, to resolve ER2017.004.00 located in Richmond\, Contra Costa County.(Bella Castrodale) [415/ 352-3628; bella.castrodale@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the Chipps Island Restoration in unincorporated Solano County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2024.001.00mdThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for BCDC Permit No. 2024.001.00md\, a proposal by the California Department of Water Resources\, to restore and enhance approximately 910 acres of managed wetlands to tidal marsh habitat.(Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation // Exhibit A // Presentation // Staff presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nShould cyclists continue to have full access to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge?\nKing tides surface a murky problem for the bay: debris\nRegional plan approved to prepare Bay Area for sea level rise\nRegional plan approved to prep Bay Area for sea-level rise\nBay Area Plan To Prepare For Sea Level Rise Approved\nBCDC Adopts Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan to Combat Climate Change in the Bay Area\nGuiding BCDC plan for sea rise actions approved\nTurning San Francisco Bay into a bathtub\nRegional plan approved to prepare Bay Area for sea level rise\nRegional plan approved to prepare Bay Area for sea level rise \nThe Bay Area Now Has Its First-Ever Regional Sea Level Rise\nGuiding BCDC plan for sea rise actions approve\nCan Democrats win climate messaging? – POLITICO\nThe Bay Area Now Has Its First-Ever Regional Sea Level Rise Plan\nHomes vs. beaches: Court makes key decision in battle over California seawall construction amid ocean rise\nRichmond setting up plan to deal with impending sea-level rise along its 32-mile coastline – Richmond Confidential\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording & transcript\n \n\nTranscript\n\n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GOOD \nAFTERNOON. THANK YOU \nCOMMISSIONERS. WELCOME TO OUR \nHYBRID COMMISSION MEETING. MY \nNAME IS REBECCA EISEN\, VICE \nCHAIR OF THE COMMISSION. I’M \nCHAIRING THIS MEETING BECAUSE \nVICE CHAIR WASSERMAN IS OUT OF \nTHE COUNTRY TODAY BUT HE WILL BE \nIN THIS CHAIR AT OUR NEXT \nMEETING WHICH IS JANUARY 16TH. \nI WANT TO THANK ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS HERE AT THE METRO \nCENTER FOR ATTENDING IN-PERSON. \nGOOD GROUP. AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE \nTHOSE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY. OUR FIRST ORDER OF \nBUSINESS IS TO ROLL THE VIDEO. \nSIERRA\, WOULD YOU PLEASE DO \nTHAT? \n[RECORDED MEETING PROCEDURES \nANNOUNCEMENT]. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. NOW IT’S TIME TO CALL \nTHE ROLL\, COMMISSIONERS. THAT \nHAPPENS TO ZACK TOO. PLEASE \nENSURE YOUR CAMERA IS ON \nTHROUGHOUT THE MEETING IF YOU \nARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY AND \nFOR THOSE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELVES\, AND MUTE YOURSELF \nAFTER YOU RESPOND. ROLL CALL. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGIOIA? GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSION ARE HASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I’M HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE \nCHAIR MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nHAVE A QUORUM. \n>>SPEAKER: >>ANDREW GUNTHER: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nAPOLOGIZE\, COMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \nYOU STILL HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nBECAUSE WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT \nAND MAY NOT HAVE ONE LATER IN \nTHE MEETING WE ARE GOING TO MAKE \nA SLIGHT ALTERATION TO OUR \nAGENDA AND MOVE ITEM EIGHT\, \nSOMETHING WE MAY VOTE ON IF YOU \nCAN TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEM \nEIGHT PUBLIC HEARING AND \nPOSSIBLE VOTE ON THE CHIPPS \nISLAND RESTORATION IN THE \nUNINCORPORATED AREA OF SOLANO \nCOUNTY\, WHICH IS WHERE I GREW \nUP. THE COMMISSION WILL NOW \nHOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND \nPOSSIBLY VOTE ON AN APPLICATION \nFOR BCDC PERMIT 2024.001.00MDA \nPROPOSAL BY CALIFORNIA \nDEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE TO \nRESTORE AND ENHANCE \nAPPROXIMATELY 910 ACRES OF \nWETLANDS TO TIDAL MARSH HABITAT \nON CHIPPS ISLAND. SAM FIELDING \nOF OUR STAFF WILL BEGIN THE \nAGENDA ITEM. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NTT\, \nIF WE COULD HAVE THE \nPRESENTATION BROUGHT UP\, PLEASE? \nTHANK YOU. \n>>SAM FIELDING: ALL RIGHT. \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, COMMISSIONERS\, \nAND THANK YOU. MY NAME IS SAM \nFIELDING\, AND I AM A PERMIT \nANALYST AT BCDC. TODAY YOU’RE \nSCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING \nAND VOTE ON THE CHIPPS ISLAND \nTIDAL RESTORATION PROJECT IN \nSUISUN MARSH IN SOLANO COUNTY. \nI’LL PROVIDE A BRIEF \nINTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT AND \nTURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT TO \nPROVIDE FURTHER DETAILS. AND \nI’LL CONCLUDE\, THEN\, WITH A \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. \nNEXT SLIDE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YEAH. \nNTT\, IT’S THE STAFF PRESENTATION \nSLIDES. APOLOGIES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NTT\, \nIF YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DROP THE \nPRESENTATION\, I’LL GO AHEAD AND \nSHARE. \n>>SAM FIELDING: THANK YOU AGAIN \nFOR YOUR PATIENCE AND SORRY FOR \nTHAT INCONVENIENCE. AGAIN THE \nPROJECT LOCATION IS LOCATED IN \nSUISUN MARSH IN THE EASTERN \nCORNER. THIS IS IN AN \nUNINCORPORATED SOLANO COUNTY \nTOWARDS THE EASTERN EXTENT OF \nBCDC’S JURISDICTION\, JUST \nBORDERED ON THE SOUTH BY \nSACRAMENTO RIVER\, TO THE WEST BY \nHONKER BAY\, AND TO THE NORTHEAST \nBY SPOON BILL CREEK. THE ISLAND \nIS APPROXIMATELY 910 ACRES. THE \nNEAREST PUBLIC BOAT RAMP LAUNCH \nIS ABOUT A MILE AND A HALF SOUTH \nAT THE BITS PITTSBURGH MARINA \nAND THE NEAREST LAND IS \nPRIVATELY MANAGED DUCK CLUB TO \nTHE NORTH VAN SICKLE ISLAND \nACROSS FROM SUNDOWN CREEK. THE \nPROJECT INVOLVES RESTORING TIDAL \nACTION TO 1/3 OF THE ISLAND \nAPPROXIMATELY 362 ACRES ALSO \nENHANCING THE REST OF THE ISLAND \nAPPROXIMATELY 546 ACRES OF \nEXISTING TIDAL MARSH HABITAT AND \nTHE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT IS TO \nBENEFIT FISH SPECIES IT WILL \nFULFILL A PORTION OF THE DWR’S \nMITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. TO \nOTHER NATURAL RESOURCE WILDLIFE \nAGENCIES FOR IMPACTS RESULTING \nFROM THE STATE WATER PROJECT. \nWORK WILL INVOLVE EXCAVATION OF \nSIX PRIMARY INTERIOR CHANNELS \nAND SEVERAL SMALLER CHARTER \nCHANNELS\, FILLING ONE INTERIOR \nCHANNEL AND DISTRIBUTED \nSEDIMENT\, REACHING EXTERIOR \nLEVEES AND REMOVING UP TO FIVE \nWATER CONTROL STRUCTURES AND \nOTHER DEBRIS. THE PROJECT WILL \nALSO REMOVE ONE SUNKEN SHIPPING \nCONTAINER IN SPOON BILL CREEK \nWHICH WILL RESOLVE A 2017 \nENFORCEMENT CASE FOR ITS AHN \nAUTHORIZED PLACEMENT BY THE \nPREVIOUS LANDOWNER. NEXT SLIDE. \nTHE PROJECT INVOLVES FILL IN \nBCDC’S BAY AND MANAGED WETLAND \nJURISDICTIONS. THE PROPOSED \nFILL ACTIVITIES INCLUDE THE USE \nOF EXCAVATED MATERIAL\, TO FILL \nINTERIOR CHANNELS\, TO BACK FILL \nLEVEES AFTER WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND \nDISTRIBUTING SEDIMENT THROUGHOUT \nTHE MARSH PLANE TO CREATE \nDYNAMIC TOPOGRAPHY. IN ADDITION \nTHE OLD INFRASTRUCTURE AND \nDEBRIS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE \nBAY AND MANAGED WETLANDS \nINCLUDING SUNKEN SHIPPING \nCONTAINER IN SPOON BILL CREEK. \nIN TOTAL THE PROJECT WILL RESULT \nIN NO NET INCREASE AND FILL WITH \nALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL TO BE \nBENEFICIALLY REUSED ON-SITE AND \nNO IMPORTED FILL MATERIAL \nBROUGHT ON. RESTORATION WILL \nRESULT IN THE CREATION AND \nENHANCEMENT OF TIDAL WETLAND AND \nSUBTIDAL HABITATS\, WHICH WILL \nPROVIDE VALUABLE FOOD WEB \nBENEFITS TO NATIVE AND ENLISTED \nFISH SPECIES\, INCLUDING \nSALMONIDS\, SMELT\, LONG FIN \nSMELT. AND IN THE REGION IN \nADDITION THE PROJECT WILL \nPROVIDE CONNECTIVITY TO THE \nMARSH PLANE WILL IMPROVE WATER \nQUALITY AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL \nECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND BENEFITS. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nDUE TO THE ISLAND’S REMOTE \nLOCATION\, IN ACCESSIBILITY BY \nROAD AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION \nSTATUTES\, ON-SITE PUBLIC ACCESS \nOPPORTUNITIES WERE LIMITED. \nHOWEVER\, THE PROJECT WILL RESULT \nIN THE CREATION OF NEW TIDAL \nCHANNELS\, WHICH WILL BE \nACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC VIA \nSMALL WATERCRAFT. THIS WILL \nINCLUDE APPROXIMATELY THREE \nMILES OF NEW TIDAL CHANNELS\, AND \nTWO AND A HALF MILES OF ENHANCED \nEXISTING TIDAL CHANNELS. THE \nAPPLICANT WILL ALSO INSTALL NEW \nNAVIGATIONAL AND INTERPRETIVE \nSIGNAGE ALONG THESE WATERWAYS. \nIN ADDITION\, THE APPLICANT HAS \nAGREED TO DEVELOP A CULTURAL \nLANDSCAPE AUDIO TOUR\, WHICH MAY \nBE ACCESSED ON-SITE FROM THE \nWATER\, AS WELL AS OFFSITE AS AN \nONLINE ONLY PROGRAM. THIS AUDIO \nTOUR WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION ON \nTHE SITE’S UNIQUE HISTORY\, \nINCLUDING ITS FORMER USE AS A \nCONNECTING SPUR FOR THE \nSACRAMENTO RAILROAD\, AS WELL AS \nITS INDIGENOUS GROUPS\, DUCK \nHUNTING\, AND NATIVE WILDLIFE \nSPECIES. FINALLY THE APPLICANT \nWILL ALSO CONTRIBUTE $150\,000 IN \nLIEU FUNDS TO FARTHER DEVELOP \nPUBLIC ACCESS IN SUISUN MARSH. \nTHIS WILL POTENTIALLY BE \nDEDICATED TO THE UPCOMING GOAT \nISLAND TIDAL MARSH RESTORATION \nAND PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENT \nPROJECT AT RUSH RANCH AND LED BY \nTHE SOLANO LAND TRUST OR OTHER \nSIMILAR PROJECTS IN SUISUN MARSH \nIN THE PROJECT VICINITY. \nTHE PRIMARY ISSUES RAISED BY \nTHIS PROJECT ARE ITS CONSISTENCY \nWITH THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND \nTHE SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN\, AND \nTHE SUISUN MARSH PRESERVATION \nACT AND SUISUN MARSH PROTECTION \nPLAN. \nWITH THAT\, I’LL TURN IT OVER TO \nSEAN OF VWR TO PROVIDE FURTHER \nDETAILS ABOUT THE PROJECT. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON \nEVERYBODY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \nALL RIGHT. I HAVE A \nPRESENTATION WE’LL PULL IT UP. \nBEFORE I GET GOING I WANT TO \nACKNOWLEDGE SAM AND THE REST OF \nBCDC STAFF AND TEAM THAT I HAVE \nBEEN WORKING WITH FOR TWO YEARS\, \nTO PROVIDE ME WITH THIS \nOPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR \nPROJECT. WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING \nQUITE SOME CHALLENGES ON THIS \nPROJECT AND I’LL GO OVER OUR \nKIND OF SCHEDULE AND WHERE WE \nARE IN THE PROJECT. OUR \nOPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS \nPROJECT PRESENTATION TO \nEVERYBODY IS CRITICAL. I’M \nSEAN\, DEPARTMENT OF WATER \nRESOURCES ON SENIOR \nENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST IN TIDAL \nHABITAT RESTORATION SECTION. \nDOANHA COULDN’T ATTEND IN-PERSON \nI’M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO \nTHE NEXT SLIDE. THE FISH \nRESTORATION PROGRAM IS \nRESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING 8400 \nACRES IN THE SUISUN MARSH AND \nSAN JOAQUIN SACRAMENTO DELTA FOR \nNATIVE FISH SPECIES\, I HAVE A \nMAP UP HERE\, ALL THE GREEN ARE \nSITES THAT HAVE BEEN \nCONSTRUCTED\, THE PURPLE IS A BIT \nOUTSIDE OUR PROGRAM BUT KIND OF \nIN OUR WHEELHOUSE\, YELLOW ARE \nOUR LAST TWO SITES TO BE \nCONSTRUCTED CHIPPS ISLAND\, THE \nONE DOWN THERE IN THE SOUTHERN \nPORTION KIND OF JUST WANT TO \nREITERATE THESE ARE REQUIRED \nPROJECTS WE HAVE TO RESTORE SO \nMUCH ACREAGE IN THE DELTA AND \nMARSH THESE ARE OFFSET \nOPERATIONS OF THE STATE AND \nFEDERAL WATER PROJECTS WE’RE \nGETTING PRETTY CLOSE WE’LL GO \nAHEAD AGAIN. NATIVE FISH — \nLONGER SMELT — WE COVERED THAT. \nNEXT SLIDE. CHIPPS ISLAND ON \nTHE LEFT — IT’S EVERYBODY’S \nLEFT. IT’S MY LEFT. CHIPPS \nISLAND\, THE BLUE SUISUN MARSH\, \nSAM HAD THIS MAP BUT THEN THE \nOTHER SIDE WE HAVE WHERE \nPRIORITY PROJECTS ARE IN CHIPPS \nISLAND FITS INTO THE SUISUN \nMARSH PRIORITY AREA FOR \nRESTORATION. AGAIN\, SAM COVERED \nPRETTY WELL\, OUR PROJECT GOALS \nARE TO BENEFIT NATIVE FISH \nSPECIES WE’RE GOING TO — OUR \nOBJECTIVE ENHANCE HABITAT FOR \nNATIVE FISH SPECIES AND PROVIDE \nCONNECTIVITY TO THE MARSH \nOUTSIDE THE MARSH BY\, AGAIN\, THE \nFISH FOOD MOVING OUT OF THE \nPROJECT SITE. SO\, THAT\, AGAIN\, \nSAME KIND OF THING WE’RE \nREQUIRED TO DO THIS WE HAVE SO \nMANY ACRES AND CHIPPS IS GOING \nTO BE A CRITICAL PN AND ONE OF \nTHE LAST PROJECTS TO BE \nCONSTRUCTED. NEXT SLIDE. THIS \nSLIDE BASICALLY WILL BE HISTORY \nOF CHIPPS ISLAND. CHIPPS ISLAND \nIS THREE DISTINCT PARCELS\, EAST\, \nWEST\, AND NORTH PARCEL. IF IT \nWASN’T CLEAR IN THE SLIDES\, I’LL \nGO INTO\, MOST OF OUR WORK IS \nCONDUCTED IN THE NORTH PARCEL\, \nMANAGED WETLAND FORMER DUCK CLUB \nTHE OTHER PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY \nMUTED TIDAL. WE’RE OPERATING \nTHE NORTH PARCEL AS A MANAGED \nWETLAND AND I’LL GET INTO \nDETAILS OF WORK WE’RE DOING \nRIGHT NOW. OVER HISTORY\, IT WAS \nTIDAL AT ONE POINT AND OWNERS \nBUILT UP LEVEES IT WAS USED FOR \nCATTLE GRAZING\, THERE WAS A \nFERRY THAT RAN TO CHIPPS ISLAND\, \nTHE RAILROAD RAN TO CHIPPS \nISLAND AND DUCK CLUB OPERATIONS \nWERE THE MOST RECENT USE FOR \nCHIPPS ISLAND. AND YOU CAN SEE \nIN THIS FIGURE THE NORTH PARCEL \nIS HEAVILY VEGETATED. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nONE THING I WANTED TO TOUCH ON\, \nTHIS IS A UNIQUE PRESENTLY \nDELIVER METHOD FOR DWR\, OUR \nFIRST CMGC PROCESS. IT’S \nCONTRACT MANAGER GENERAL \nCONTRACTOR. BASICALLY\, WE \nUSUALLY DO A DESIGN BID BUILT \nWHEN IT COMES TO PROJECTS FOR \nTHIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WE KNEW \nIT WAS GOING TO BE CHALLENGING \nWE BROUGHT ON A CONTRACTOR THAT \nWE SELECTED IN EARLY 2023 BACK \nIN SPRING WITH DIXON MARINE \nSERVICES\, WORKING WITH THEM\, WE \nHAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK THROUGH A \nLOT OF CHALLENGES WE WILL BE \nSUCCESSFUL IN THIS PROJECT. WE \nHAVE THREE SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION \nCONTRACTS\, PHASE 2A AND 2B ARE \nJUST MAINTENANCE AND WE HAVE \nBEEN UTILIZING REGIONAL GENERAL \nPERMIT THREE\, A PERMIT THAT \nFALLS UNDER SUISUN MARSH PROGRAM \nMANAGED WETLAND AND DUCK CLUB \nOPERATIONS THEN WE’LL TRANSITION \nTO RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION \nWHICH IS WHY WE’RE HAVING THIS \nPRESENTATION AND GETTING THE \nLAST BIT OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nPERMITS IN ORDER TO TRANSITION \nTO THAT RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION \nCONTRACT. AND ONE OF THE ITEMS \nTHAT’S CRITICAL IS THE TIMING OF \nIT ALL\, GETTING THE PERMITS IS \nONE FACTOR THEN IT TAKES \nSOMETIME TO PROCESS CONSTRUCTION \nCONTRACT. WE CAN’T JUST GET THE \nPERMITS AND SAY CONTRACTOR IS \nGOOD TO GO\, YOU HAVE A PROCESS \nTO GET THE CONTRACT THROUGH AND \nWHY PRESENTING ON THIS DATE IS \nHUGELY APPRECIATIVE ON OUR END. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. BY THE WAY \nTHAT LAST FIGURE\, THAT WAS AN \nEXAMPLE OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT \nOUR CONTRACTOR POSSESSES WHICH \nIS KEY IN OUR SELECTION\, THEY \nHAD SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT TO \nHANDLE WETLANDS AND PROJECT \nSITES. THESE TWO PICTURES ARE \nEXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE \nCHALLENGES WE FACE IN OUR \nMAINTENANCE PHASE. WE HAVE SOME \nBREACHES. THIS LOCATION WAS A \nWATER CONTROL STRUCTURE THAT \nFAILED. GENERAL PERMIT THREE IS \nFLEXIBLE BUT IT’S PRETTY \nSPECIFIC ON HOW TO REPAIR THESE \nSITES. WE WORK CLOSELY WITH \nSRCD AND ACTUALLY BCDC TO COME \nUP WITH SOME TEMPORARY REPAIR \nMETHODS THAT FALL UNDER \n[INDISCERNIBLE] RGB THREE IS ONE \nCONSTRUCTION SEASON FOR US\, WE \nWILL BE REMOVING THESE \nRESTORATION\, THE IDEA IS JUST TO \nNOT BE UNDER TIDAL INFLUENCE \nWHILE WE DO INTERIOR \nCONSTRUCTION. NEXT SLIDE. SAM \nBROUGHT UP THIS SLIDE\, THIS IS \nOUR RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION\, \nFOCUS IS NORTH OF US IS WHERE \nOUR RESTORATION DESIGN COMES IN\, \nWE DON’T WANT THE STRAIGHT \nCHANNELS WE WANT MORE CURVATURE \nIN THERE. THE STARTER CHANNELS \nAND IN THE WESTERN PARCEL YOU \nCAN SEE WE’RE GOING TO EXCAVATE \nA SLIGHT NEW CHANNEL THAT’S PART \nOF OUR ENHANCEMENT. YOU SEE \nBREACH 4 AND 5\, THOSE WILL BE \nALSO ENHANCEMENT\, BECAUSE WE’RE \nCONNECTING THE OTHER PARCELS TO \nOUR NORTH PARCEL AND THEN SOME \nWORK IN THE EASTERN PARCEL \nREMOVING WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES. AND SIX I’M GO INTO \nTHAT LATER\, THAT LOCATION IS \nWHERE THE SUNKEN SHIPPING \nCONTAINER IS\, MADE SENSE TO HAVE \nA BREACH ON OUR RESTORATION \nDESIGN THERE AS WELL AND THE \nYELLOW IS FILL WE’RE NOT FILLING \nUP TO UPLAND LEVELS WE’RE GOING \nTO FILL MARSH POINTS WE HAVE \nMORE OF THAT GRADUAL HABITAT FOR \nOTHER SPECIES. NEXT SLIDE. ON \nTHIS SLIDE HIGHLIGHT\, RED \nCIRCLES ARE WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES THAT WE WILL BE \nREMOVING IN SOME PLACES\, WE’LL \nBE BREACHING IN SOME LOCATIONS \nAND OTHER LOCATIONS REMOVING AND \nBACK FILLING. WE HAVE DEBRIS \nLOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN \nLEFT OVER FROM THE FERRY WE’LL \nBE REMOVING THAT THEN KIND OF ON \nTHE TOP KIND OF ZOOMED IN \nPICTURES WE HAVE BUILDINGS THAT \nWERE REMNANT STRUCTURES FROM \nDUCK CLUB OPERATIONS WE’LL BE \nREMOVING THOSE THERE’S AN OLD \nPIECE OF FARMING\, LOOKS LIKE A \nCRANE\, IN THE CORNER THAT’S THE \nLOCATION OF THE SUNKEN SHIPPING \nCONTAINER WE’LL BE REMOVING THAT \nALL IN THE WATERWORKS WINDOW \nNEXT YEAR. STARTING AUGUST 1ST \nMAYBE SEPTEMBER 1ST DEPENDING ON \nOUR ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS. NEXT \nSLIDE. OUR DIGITAL ELEVATION \nMODELS\, LIGHT GREEN UP TO DARKER \nGREEN MEAN HIGH WATER MARK LEVEL \nSO ONCE WE RESTORE THE SITE IT \nSHOULD ACT THE WAY WE EXPECT IT \nTO ACT. NEXT SLIDE. THIS FISH \nDATA SO THE STAR IS WHERE CHIPPS \nISLAND IS\, 2021\, AGAIN THIS DATA \nIS USED AND USEFUL TO US TO SEE \nIF THIS SITE IS A GOOD LOCATION \nFOR US. CHIPPS ISLAND IS A NICE \nLOCATION FOR RESTORATION IT’S AT \nTHE EDGE OF THE DELTA\, AND \nPASSAGE WAY FOR MIGRATING FISH \nTHAT WILL POTENTIALLY BE THERE. \nNEXT SLIDE. WE ARE RIGHT AT THE \nEDGE OF THE GREEN BOX IN 2024\, \nHAD TO MOVE THE ALL PERMITS \nRECEIVED LINE A FEW TIMES. BUT \nGOOD NEWS WE GOT WORD FROM THE \nU.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE \nFROM OUR BO\, WE SHOULD BE SEEING \nTHAT BY END OF THE CALENDAR \nYEAR. OUR 404 SHOULD ARE COMING \nA FEW WEEKS AFTER THAT NO \nPRESSURE TO THE FEDERAL \nAGENCIES. THEN WE CAN \nTRANSITION\, NOT GOOD FOR THE \nBCDC TEAM BECAUSE I WASN’T SURE \nWHEN WE WERE GOING TO GET THOSE \nPERMITS BUT AS MUCH YESTERDAY \nWE’RE IN BETTER SHAPE. SO THE \nPLAN WE WERE HOPING TO BE READY \nFOR CONSTRUCTION BY NOW BUT WE \nHAVE HAD SOME DELAYS. SO THE \nPLAN\, I HAVE GOT TO TALK TO THE \nDIVISION OF ENGINEERING TEAM BUT \nONCE WE GET THE CONTRACT READY \nTO ROLL WE CAN START ISSUING A \nWORK ORDER TO OUR CONTRACTOR. \nAS OF RIGHT NOW OUR TAKE-OFF \nDATE WAS MARSH FIRST HAVING A \nSCHEDULE FROM OUR CONTRACTOR \nSHOWS THAT WE WOULD BE PRETTY \nMUCH DONE WITH A CHANNEL \nEXCAVATION ALL THINGS GOING WELL \nABOUT MIDDLE OF JUNE GIVES FLOAT \nTO START WORKING IN THE \nWATERWORKS WINDOW STARTING \nAUGUST 1ST THEN WE HAVE UNTIL \nNOVEMBER 30TH OF 2025 TO WRAP \nTHIS PROJECT UP. AT THE END OF \nTHE WATERWORKS WINDOW WE’RE \nGOING TO BE BREACHING AND \nREMOVING THE WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES ALONG THE EXTERIOR \nISLAND LAST\, SHOULD BE THE \nCONTAINER OF COURSE SOME EFFORT \nTHEN ONCE WE GET CONSTRUCTIVE WE \nWILL TRANSITION TO A CREDITING \nTHE SITE THAT TARGET IS WHAT WE \nNEED THEN BY MARSH 2026 SO WHY \nOUR SCHEDULE IS PRETTY TIGHT. \nWE HAVE A NICE DEADLINE. I \nTHINK I’M FEELING CONFIDENT THE \nCLOSER WE GET TO THE END OF THE \nYEAR HERE. NEXT SLIDE. I WANT \nTO TOUCH ON NEW DWR PROJECTS WE \nTOUCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE \nPOTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS \nFOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WE \nDID MODEL\, LOOK WHAT POTENTIAL \nCLIMATE CHANGE COULD BE AGAIN \nLIKE TO EMPHASIZE THIS IS A \nMITIGATION PROJECT. WE HAVE TO \nDO THESE PROJECTS. THE CHIPPS \nLEVEE IS NOT THE STANDARD FLOOD \nCONTROL LEVEE. IT’S MADE OF \nPRETTY POOR MATERIAL. WHAT THE \nMODELS KIND OF DON’T SHOW IS \nWHAT SOME OF THE WORK WE HAVE \nPUT INTO SINCE OUR MAINTENANCE \nPHASE. WE HAVE RAISED THE LEVEE \nIN SOME LOCATIONS\, WE WILL BE \nCREATING HABITAT TRANSITION \nZONES\, AS WE EXCAVATE THE \nMATERIAL\, IF WE DO NOT USE IT \nFOR FILL\, WE’LL BE SIDE-CASTING\, \nCREATING\, NOT BERMS OR POCKETS \nOR POOLS WHERE TIDAL WATER CAN \nGET CAUGHT SO NICE TRANSITION \nZONES AND HAVING OUR CONTRACTOR \nON BOARD RIGHT NOW\, WE’RE ABLE \nTO SORT THROUGH DISCUSSIONS NOW. \n— IT’S BEEN NICE HAVING THEIR \nINPUT. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nYES\, I MISSED THIS. OUR LARGER \nCONCERNS ARE OUR DIRECT IMPACTS \nTO OUR NEIGHBORS. SO\, VAN \nSICKLE\, IT DOES BORDERER OUR \nPROJECT SITE. WE EMPHASIZED \nHEAVILY IN OUR MODELING WHAT \nWILL THE VELOCITIES BE OF OUR \nBREACHES\, WOULD IT IMPACT THEIR \nPROPERTY AT ALL. AND EVERYTHING \nLOOKED PRETTY GOOD. IT’S KIND \nOF HOW WE ANGLE THE BREACHES AND \nHOW WIDE THEY ARE WITH THE \nVELOCITY. NEXT SLIDE. AN \nEXAMPLE\, THIS WENT INTO OUR BCDC \nAPPLICATION ABOUT POTENTIAL \nCLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS. THIS IS \nTOTAL LEVEL INCREASE 12 INCHES. \nCHIPPS ISLAND THERE IN DOESN’T \nSHAPE WEST PARCEL NOT SO GREAT \nSHAPE AGAIN WHAT WENT INTO OUR \nDESIGN IS THERE WILL BE SEDIMENT \nDISPOSITION OVER TIME WITH THE \nTIDAL ACTION. WE DID NOT — \nTHAT’S KIND OF HARD TO \nANTICIPATE BUT THAT’S PART OF \nOUR PROJECT PLAN AND DESIGN. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nI’M GOING TO TRY TO BE BRIEF I \nTHINK I HAVE BEEN TALKING TOO \nLONG ALREADY. ADAPTIVE \nMANAGEMENT ONCE WE CONSTRUCT \nTHIS PROJECT WE WOULD LIKE TO \nDROPOUT MIC AND WALK AWAY BUT WE \nWILL MONITOR 5 TO 10 YEARS ON \nTHE PARAMETERS\, THE SITE WILL BE \nPROTECTED IN PERPETUITY. NEXT \nSLIDE I’LL GO OVER PARAMETERS. \nSOME OF THE ITEMS WE’LL BE \nMONITORING. DID WE CONSTRUCT \nTHE PROJECT AS DESIGNED\, IS IT \nWORKING AS WE ANTICIPATED\, ARE \nWE SEEING THOSE IMPACTS OR \nBENEFITS THAT WE WANTED TO FOR \nTHE NOT ONLY NATIVE FISH SPECIES \nBUT ARE OTHER NATIVE FISH \nSPECIES BENEFITTING FROM OUR \nPROJECT AND IF THERE ARE \nCHALLENGES OR ISSUES COMING UP \nHOW DO WE USE THAT INFORMATION \nTO CORRECT ACTION. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nSO\, AGAIN\, THESE ARE SOME OF THE \nMETRICS. I WOULD RATHER NOT GO \nINTO ALL OF THEM BUT WE’RE GOING \nTO LOOK AT THE HYDROLOGIC \nPROCESSES\, TIDAL REGIME\, WATER \nQUALITY\, FOOD WEB PRODUCTIVITY \nARE WE PRODUCING THE FOOD THIS \nWE ANTICIPATE TO PRODUCE\, \nWETLANDS AND VEGETATION\, I THINK \nONE ITEM I WANT TO POINT OUT IS \nINVASIVE PLANTS. THEY ARE \nALWAYS A PROBLEM. THEY WILL \nCONTINUE TO BE A PROBLEM AND \nTHEY’RE A PROBLEM RIGHT NOW AND \nPART OF OUR MAINTENANCE APPROACH \nIS TO MANAGE — WE HAVE \nPHRAGMITES ON OUR SITE OUR \nMAINTENANCE IS TRYING TO MANAGE\, \nONCE WE OPEN UP THE TIDAL \nINFLUENCE\, IT BECOMES MORE \nCHALLENGING TO MANAGE THOSE \nSPECIES. IT’S SOMETHING WE SEE \nON OUR OTHER PROJECTS AND ARE \nLEARNING A LOT MORE AS WE GO. \nTHEN [INDISCERNIBLE] HARVEST \nMOUSE HABITAT\, JUST OTHER \nMONITORING. WE WON’T BE \nTRAPPING FOR MICE BUT WE WILL BE \nASSESSING THEIR HABITAT THERE SO \nWE COULD ASSUME PRESENCE IF SO. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nPUBLIC ACCESS\, APPROXIMATELY SIX \nWE WILL BE OPENING UP NEW \nNAVIGABLE WATERWAYS FOR OUR \nPROJECT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nPROTECTING THE SITE IN \nPERPETUITY THERE IS NO \nDEVELOPMENT THERE IS NO — \nPEOPLE CAN’T LIKE DOCK THEIR \nBOAT AND WALK AROUND. THEY WILL \nHAVE TO STICK TO THE WATERWAYS\, \nTHEN KIND OF WHAT ELSE — WE’RE \nGOING TO PROVIDE CULTURAL \nLANDSCAPE AUDIO TOUR. THIS \nISN’T IN MY WHEEL HOUSE\, WE WILL \nHAVE NO TRESPASSING SIGNS\, SO \nYOU PULL OUT YOUR SMART PHONE \nAND IT WILL TAKE YOU ON YOUR \nJOURNEY. WE’LL HAVE SIGNAGE\, \nTHIS SITE WILL BE PROTECTED IN \nPERPETUITY AND THEN IN LIEU \nFUNDS TOWARDS OTHER SUISUN MARSH \nPROJECTS. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS \nA FUN LITTLE GRAPHIC THAT EMMA \nPUT TOGETHER. NAVY LAUNCH \nPITTSBURGH IT IS THE CLOSEST \nBOAST LAUNCH AREA\, HOP OVER TO \nTHE SOUTH LANDING OF CHIPPS \nWHERE THE FERRY WOULD HAVE \nLANDED. [INDISCERNIBLE] THERE \n— I’M NOT SURE IF WE’LL HAVE QR \nCODES AT EACH STATION. THEN YOU \nKIND OF POP AROUND. WE’RE \nWORKING CLOSELY WITH NATIVE \nAMERICAN TRIBES THAN INTERESTED \nIN OUR PROJECT AND WE’LL WORK \nCLOSELY WITH OUR TRIBAL LIAISON \nOFFICE. WE’LL WORK CLOSELY TO \nPROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR \nNATIVE AMERICAN BACKGROUNDS. \nAGAIN\, I WOULD ASSUME\, UP THE \nEASTERN SIDE OF CHIPPS\, UP NEAR \nSPOON BILL SLOUGH WHERE OUR \nLANDING IS THAT’S WHERE THE \nRAILROAD BERM CROSSES CHIPPS \nISLAND\, SOME INFORMATION ON OLD \nRAILROAD TRACK ACROSS CHIPPS\, \nVAN SICKLE UP NORTH TOWARDS \nSACRAMENTO. THEN IF YOU’RE \nSTILL HUNGRY FOR MORE KNOWLEDGE \nYOU GO UP CHIPPS SPOONVILLE \nSLOUGH THERE AND YOU CAN GET \nSOME INFORMATION. I MEAN IT’S \nGOING TO BE OUR PROJECT \nSPECIFICALLY RESTORATION IN THE \nMARSH AND DELTA. DON’T KNOW IF \nWE FIGURED THAT OUT\, JUST \nRESTORATION IN THE MARSH IN \nGENERAL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nTHIS IS PUBLIC ACCESS ONLINE \nLINKS. YOU CAN SEE OUR PAST \nPROJECTS UP THERE\, AND IMAGINE \nONCE CHIPPS UP AND ROLLING\, YOU \nWILL SEE THAT UP THERE. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nQUESTIONS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nGOOD. THANK YOU. WE’RE GOING \nTO NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING \nAND THE FIRST THING THAT WE CAN \nDO IS ASK COMMISSIONERS IF THEY \nHAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR \nEITHER SEAN OR SAM. \nANYBODY IN THE ROOM? \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I WAS \nWONDERING ABOUT YOUR ADAPTIVE \nMANAGEMENT PLAN. IT SOUNDS LIKE \nA GREAT PROJECT. WHAT’S THE \nPROCESS FOR YOUR ADAPTIVE \nMANAGEMENT PLAN? DO YOU HAVE \nCIVIC CONFERENCES YOU HAVE? — \nYOU RUN? OR WILL THIS BE DONE \nEVERY OTHER YEAR? WHAT’S THE \nIDEA? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH\, SO ONCE WE \nFINISH OUR CONSTRUCTION\, THIS \nWILL BE SOMETHING LIKE WE HAVE\, \nALL OF OUR SITES CURRENTLY HAVE \nPROJECT MANAGERS THAT MANAGE THE \nSITE AFTER CONSTRUCTION. AND \nIT’S NOT JUST — SOMETHING LIKE \nONCE A YEAR WE’LL BE GOING OFF \nTO THE SITE. I SEE EMMA JUMPED \nON\, SHE MIGHT HAVE MORE ON IT. \nWE WILL BE VISITING THE SITE AS \nOFTEN AS POSSIBLE. WE DO WORK \nWELL WITH CDFW\, THEY DO A LOT OF \nLOWER TROPHIC SAMPLING. THEY \nVISIT THE SITE MORE OFTEN THAN \nWE MIGHT. THEY LET US KNOW IF \nTHERE IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE \nAWARE OF THEN WE DO WORK IN THE \nADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT. THE \nWORKING GROUP TEAM\, MAYBE EMMA \nWANT’S TO CHIME IN. DON’T MEAN \nTO PUT ON YOU THE SPOT\, EMMA. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT’S FINE. WE \nHAVE 11 DIFFERENT RESTORATION \nPROJECTS AND WE HAVE STACY \nSHERMAN IS OUR LEAD UNDER CDFW \nSO SHE BASICALLY RUNS THE \nADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT\, ITS PLAN \nFOR TEN YEARS FROM CONSTRUCTION \nAND TEN YEARS OUT. THERE ARE \nSEASONAL\, SO TYPICALLY SPRING \nAND FALL SAMPLING OF FISH\, MACRO \nINVERTEBRATES\, PHYTOPLANKTON\, A \nWHOLE RANGE OF ZOO PLANK TON. \nALSO PUT OUT CONTINUOUS \nMONITORING\, COLLECTIONS\, AND \nWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS\, AT \nLEAST ONE IF NOT MORE AT CHIPPS \nISLAND SPECIFICALLY THEN ALSO \nHAVE REFERENCE SITES TO BE ABLE \nTO COMPARE HOW OUR RESTORATION \nPROJECTS ARE DOING OVER TIME AS \nCOMPARED TO REFERENCE WETLANDS \nNEARBY. COMPARE ACROSS \nDIFFERENT SITES TO DETERMINE HOW \nTIDAL PROJECTS ARE DOING \nTHROUGHOUT THE OVERALL AREA. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK \nYOU. I FOUND OVER TIME THAT \nSTUDYING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND \nFOLLOWING UP IS VALUABLE FOR \nMAKING SURE THAT WE LEARN HOW TO \nDO RESTORATION BETTER. SO I’M \nGLAD TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE SUCH A \nWELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN. THAT’S \nGREAT. THANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: PAT\, \nI ALMOST DIDN’T SEE COMMISSIONER \nNELSON’S HAND BECAUSE YOUR \nEARRINGS HAVE BEEN DAZZLING ME. \n[LAUGHTER] \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: NOW MY \nEARRINGS. THREE QUESTIONS FOR \nTHE APPLICANT. FIRST IS ABOUT \nTHE FISH SAMPLING DATA. THIS IS \nA GREAT LOCATION FOR TIDAL MARSH \nRESTORATION FOR A HOST OF \nSPECIES. BUT I WAS CURIOUS \nABOUT THE FISH SAMPLING DATA \nTHAT YOU SHOWED. I DIDN’T SEE \nTHE LOCATION FOR THAT JUVENILE \nSAMPLING DATA WAS IT RIGHT AT \nCHIPPS ISLAND? \n>>SPEAKER: I BELIEVE SO. EMMA? \n>>SPEAKER: I KNOW WE HAVE A \nREFERENCE SITE AROUND BROWNS \nISLAND WHERE THE FISH SAMPLING \nTOOK PLACE\, OR CLOSE MIGHT RIGHT \nOUTSIDE OF THE RIVER OF THE \nSLOUGH. \n>>BARRY NELSON: I WAS JUST \nCURIOUS ABOUT THAT. TWO \nQUESTIONS\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, FIRST \nI WAS SURPRISED TO SEE FIVE AND \nA HALF TO SIX MILES OF POTENTIAL \nACCESS FOR SMALL CRAFT. I WAS \nWONDERING IF YOU COULD WALK US \nTHROUGH THAT. WHEN I LOOKED AT \nTHE MAPS IN THE REPORT IT WASN’T \nOBSTACLE WHERE THOSE FIVE AND A \nHALF TO SIX MILES WOULD BE \nLOCATED. AND IF IT’S EITHER \nEXISTING OR NEW CHANNELS\, IF YOU \nCOULD GIVE US A SENSE OF THE \nSIZE OF THESE CHANNELS. ARE \nTHESE SMALL CHANNELS FOR KAYAKS? \nARE THEY CHANNELS THAT LARGER \nCRAFT COULD GET THROUGH? \n>>SPEAKER: YES THE SMALLER \nSTARTER CHANNELS THOSE ARE GOING \nTO BE 15 TO 20 FEET WIDE AND 20 \nTO 30 FEET LONG. SO PRETTY \nSMALL\, BUT AGAIN THE POINT OF \nTHOSE WE’RE HOPING TO START THE \nCHANNELS AND ONCE WE RETURN THE \nSITE TO NATURE THE WATER KIND OF \nTAKES OVER. THE LARGER CHANNELS \nOUR BREACHES KIND OF VARY FROM \nSIZE. AND THOSE ARE THE \nCHANNELS THAT WERE\, LIKE\, THE \nDARK BLUE IN THE MAP. SOME OF \nTHOSE BREACHES ARE GOING TO BE \n55 FEET WIDE SO WE’RE TALKING \nABOUT SMALL CRAFT THAT CAN GET \nIN THERE. SOME OF THOSE ARE \nGOING TO BE LARGER\, THE CHANNELS \nARE ALL VARIED IN WIDTH\, LOOKING \nAT 20 TO 30 FEET WIDE AND THE \nLENGTH IS LIKE THAT LONG CHANNEL \nTHAT RUNS ALONG SPOON BILL WHERE \nWE’RE FILLING. A LOT OF \nDIFFERENT CHANNELS MADE UP OF \nONE LONGER CHANNEL. SO YEAH \nTHAT’S LIKE ONE\, CHANNEL 1\, 2\, \n3\, AND SO THAT YOU — THOSE ARE \nALL THE NEW CHANNELS\, ALL THE \nEXISTING CHANNELS ARE KIND OF \nLIKE THE WHITE ON THE MAP. \n>>BARRY NELSON: I SEE. \n>>SPEAKER: WE’RE TYING BREACHES \nINTO EXISTING CHANNELS WHERE \nWE’RE NOT EXCAVATING NEW \nCHANNELS. AGAIN THE NORTH \nPARCEL IS THE FOCAL POINT OF \nRESTORATION AND THE OTHER TWO \nPARCELS ARE ENHANCEMENT WHERE \nWE’RE KIND OF TYING THE WHOLE \nSITE TOGETHER. \n>>BARRY NELSON: FINAL QUESTION \nIS — AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR \nSTAFF\, AS WELL AS FOR YOU\, THIS \nIS A GREAT AREA FOR SMALL CRAFT \nFOR PADDLING\, BUT I’M A PRETTY \nDEDICATED PADDLER\, AND I HAVE \nNEVER BEEN OUT TO CHIPPS ISLAND \nBECAUSE YOU EITHER HAVE TO \nPADDLE ALL THE WAY OUT TO \nSUISUN\, IF I’M REMEMBERING \nCORRECTLY\, MAKE THE CROSSING \nFROM PITTSBURGH PADDLE ALL THE \nWAY FROM SUISUN CITY WHICH IS A \nLONG PADDLE AT MONTEZUMA TO GET \nDOWN THERE. I ALSO WONDERED IF \nTHE SUISUN MARSH COMMISSION OR \nWATERWAYS OR BCDC STAFF HAVE \nEVER LOOKED INTO WHETHER THERE’S \nA POSSIBLE LOCATION FOR ANOTHER \nBOAT RAMP IN SUISUN MARSH \nBECAUSE PUBLIC ACCESS FOR PADDLE \nCRAFT IN MOST OF THE MARSH IS \nNOW EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH\, AT LEAST ON \nOUR SIDE\, AND\, AGAIN\, IF EMMA \nHAS ANYTHING TO ADD. LIKE\, AND \nTHAT WAS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES\, \nWE REALIZE PUBLIC ACCESS EVEN \nJUST GETTING TO THE SITE FOR \nRESTORATION\, YOU NEED A BOAT\, \nYOU NEED A BARGE\, YOU NEED A LOT \nOF ITEMS TO GET THERE\, YOU CAN’T \nJUST ROLL UP WITH A TRAILER AND \nTHAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS\, LIKE\, \nWE DO HAVE THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR \nTHIS’S VAN SICKLE\, PRIVATE LAND. \nYOU’RE RIGHT SUISUN CITY MIGHT \nBE THE CLOSEST LAUNCHING POINT. \nPITTSBURGH IS CLOSE BUT BEING \nOUT THERE\, IN THIS PROJECT IT \nLOOKS FEASIBLE TO LAUNCH A CRAFT \nFROM PITTSBURGH THAT’S WHAT I \nWOULD CAUTION ESPECIALLY NOT \nEVERY DAY IS CALM AS SOME OF THE \nLAST DAYS HAVE BEEN OUT THERE\, \nMINUS THIS PAST WEEKEND\, AND I \nTHINK EMMA TO HER CREDIT\, I’M \nDRAWING A PLANK ON THIS\, LIKE A \nBOAT OR — NOT DAY USE BUT IT \nWAS LIKE A PATH FOR CRAFT WE \nWERE THINKING WE COULD GET \nCHIPPS ON THAT BUT IT’S \nCHALLENGING FOR KAYAKERS IT’S A \nTOUGH SPOT. \n>>BARRY NELSON: NOTE FOR STAFF \nI DON’T EXPECT WE’RE NECESSARILY \nGOING TO SOLVE THAT IF THIS \nPROJECT BUT PROJECTS IN SUISUN \nMARSH YOU KNOW THERE ARE PARCELS \nLIKE RUSH RANCH WHERE THERE \nMIGHT BE SOME POTENTIAL DOWN THE \nROAD\, NOT TOO FAR AWAY SOMETHING \nFOR STAFF TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE \nPUBLIC ACCESS BY IT SHOULD BE \nWONDERFUL PLACE TO BE ON THE \nWATER. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nASHLEY DID YOU WANT TO SAY \nSOMETHING ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS. \n>>ASHLEY TOMERLIN: I’M THE \nDESIGN ANALYST AT BCDC WE WORK \nON THE PUBLIC ACCESS WE ARE \nCONTINUE JUMP TRYING AND \nCONTINUED PURSUIT TO GET PUBLIC \nACCESS ESPECIALLY BOAT ACCESS IN \nTHE MARSH IT’S COMPLEX BECAUSE \nMOST OF THE PROJECTS ARE COMING \nARE IN RESTORATION PROJECTS THAT \nHAVE HABITAT CREDIT SO IT’S \nWILDLIFE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCOMPATIBILITY QUESTION\, RUSH \nRANCH WE HAVE A CURRENT PROJECT \nGOING THROUGH\, EXPLORING THE \nIDEA BOAT LAUNCH THERE IS \nMONTEZUMA DAY USE AREA THAT HAS \nHISTORICALLY HAD A BOAT LAUNCH \nIT WAS DAMAGED IN THE STORM \nPURSUING GETTING THAT \nRE-ESTABLISHED IT’S AN ONGOING \nEFFORT TO GET ADDITIONAL BOAT \nACCESS OUT THERE. WE’RE TRYING. \n>>BARRY NELSON: APPRECIATE IT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: PAT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I WANTED TO SAY \nTHAT HAVING WORKED FOR THE ARMY \nCORP AND US EPA FOR OVER 43 \nYEARS I’M VERY FAMILIAR BUT I’M \nNOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE \nCHIPPS ISLAND AND CHALLENGES \nTHAT ARE THERE. THIS IS AN \nINCREDIBLE MULTI-AGENCY \nCOORDINATION PROJECT THAT YOU \nHAVE LED WITH THE DIFFERENT \nPERMITS\, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT \nTHE WHOLE TEAM AT DWR AND ALSO \nTHE TEAM AT BCDC THERE IS ALWAYS \nA STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT \nAND REGULATORY AGENCY TRYING TO \nGET MORE PUBLIC ACCESS AND A BIT \nMORE EFFORTS. LIKE ONE OF THE \nQUESTIONS THAT I HAD IS THAT ONE \nPART OF THE REPORT SAID THAT NOT \nALL OF THE FILL IS GOING TO BE \nUSED\, WE’RE GOING TO PUT IT IN \nANOTHER LOCATION TO USE IT IN \nTHE FUTURE. BUT IS SOMEONE \nGOING TO MONITOR THAT? SO\, I \nHAVE THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS. \nBUT THAT — THAT’S NOT AS \nIMPORTANT AS SOME OF MY OTHERS. \nBUT COULD YOU GO TO YOUR SLIDE \nEIGHT? AND I REALLY WANT YOU TO \nHELP ME UNDERSTAND\, WHAT AM I \nLOOKING AT ON THE LOWER \nRIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THAT? AND \nIT’S THE ONE — IT JUST SAYS \nSLIDE EIGHT. AND IT DOESN’T \nHAVE ANY LANE OLE IT AT ALL \nWHICH WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING \nMYSELF. IT LOOKS LIKE IT’S A \nCONCRETE AREA. OR IT’S A — \nWITH THE — \n>>SPEAKER: OH. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: IT’S SLIDE \nEIGHT. \n>>SPEAKER: THE BREACH AND \nSOMETHING — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT’S IT RIGHT \nTHERE. LOWER RIGHT. \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S A WATER \nBARRIER. SO\, BASICALLY IT’S A \nBRAND\, AND I GUESS I COULD GIVE \nSOME SHOUT OUT TO THE COMPANY\, \nIT’S AN AQUA DAM. IN G P3 HOW \nYOU GENERALLY REPAIR LEVEES \nUNDER PERMIT YOU TAKE NATIVE \nFILL THEN BORROW FROM PITS YOU \nPLACE THEM IN THE LOCATION\, I \nWENT OUT TO DESIGN THE BUILDING \nSO THIS IS HOW YOU’RE GOING TO \nREPAIR IT THEY WOULD LAUGH SO \nTHERE’S NO WAY MATERIAL IS GOING \nTO STAY IN THIS LOCATION\, WITH \nBCDC AND RCD ALL THE OTHER \nAGENCIES — BREACH THE LOCATION \nBECAUSE IN OUR RESTORATION \nDESIGN. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO YOU’RE GOING \nTO BREACH THE AREA. \n>>SPEAKER: WE’RE GOING TO\, \nYEAH. KIND OF CLARIFICATION HOW \nIN OUR CASE WORK WITH THE \nAGENCIES TO GIVE US A YEAR TO 16 \nMONTHS\, DOUBLE TRIPLE HANDLE \nMATERIAL THAT GETS KIND OF \nCOSTLY\, HOW MUCH MATERIAL\, ARE \nWE GOING TO LOSE TO THE \nCONDITIONS AND SO FORTH THOSE \nHAVE BEEN WORKING OUT WELL BUT \nEVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE THREE \nBRIDGE LOCATIONS WE HAVE USED \nTEMPORARY MATERIALS AND WE WILL \nREMOVE ALL OUR RESTORATION \nCONSTRUCTION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: WELL OVERALL \nQUESTION I HAVE TOO IS WHEN I \nSTARTED REALIZING THAT THERE IS \nA LOT OF CONTAINER SHIPS\, WHAT \nARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THOSE \nMETAL THINGS OR CONCRETE OR \nWHATEVER IT IS. WHAT ARE YOU \nGOING TO DO WITH THEM? TAKE \nTHEM TO A RECYCLING FACILITY? \n>>SPEAKER: WE CAN. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: WE CAN. BUT YOU \nHAVE ACTUALLY CALCULATED OR \nIDENTIFIED WHAT CAN BE AND WHAT \nCAN’T BE? BECAUSE SOME OF THE \nSHIPPING CONTAINERS COULD HAVE \nSOME HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN IT. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nINVESTIGATING. INVESTIGATIONS \nON IF THERE IS ASBESTOS AND \nLEAD. WE HAVE DONE \nINVESTIGATIONS ON THAT AND IF \nONE OF THE BUILDINGS COME UP \nPOSITIVE FOR BOTH THAT’S ONE OF \nTHE BEAUTIES OF CMGC AS WELL. \nWE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WE \nHAVE NEGOTIATIONS\, WE HAVE TO \nIDENTIFY THE ISSUE\, WE HAVE \nASBESTOS TAKES A QUALIFIED \nINDIVIDUAL REMOVE THAT OVERSEE \nIT THEN KIND OF TALK ABOUT COST\, \nRECYCLING IS A GREAT OPTION IF \nWE CAN\, I THINK THAT WE HAVE\, IS \nTHE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS\, THAT \nGOES INTO OUR CONSTRUCTION \nCONTRACT. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: WHICH REGULATORY \nAGENCY IS GOING TO MANAGE THAT \nASPECT. \n>>SPEAKER: OUR FILL. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YOU’RE GOING TO \nBE TAKING MATERIALS OUT AND WHAT \nARE YOU DOING WITH IT IS THERE A \nREGULATORY AGENCY THAT’S GOING \nMONITOR THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: I DON’T KNOW IF \nTHERE IS NECESSARILY AN AGENCY \nOR REGULATORY BODY THAT — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THERE ISN’T? \n>>SPEAKER: WELL\, THE COUNTY\, I \nIMAGINE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY WELL WE’LL \nHAVE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION \nABOUT THAT THEN. BECAUSE TAKING \nTHESE THINGS ALL TO THE \nLANDFILLS THE LANDFILLS YOU KNOW \nARE RIGHT ALONG THE BAY MOST OF \nTHEM ARE AND THEY’RE FILLING UP \nAND THAT’S REALLY IN MY OPINION \nNOT THE BEST THING TO DO GIVEN \nTHE CHALLENGE WE HAVE AS A \nCOMMUNITY IN CALIFORNIA ABOUT \nWHAT WE’RE GOING TO DO WITH OUR \nWASTE AND THAT’S WHY I’M A BIG \nPUSH FOR RECYCLING EVEN IF YOU \nHAVE TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE \nHAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ANYWAY \nTHAT’S A DISCUSSION — AN ISSUE \nFOR DISCUSSION LATER. \nSO\, CAN — I GUESS THE QUESTION \nFOR BCDC K WE REQUIRE SOME\, SORT \nOF\, A REUSE FOR THESE TYPES OF \nMATERIALS THAT ARE GOING TO BE \nREMOVED TO HELP MITIGATE THE \nIMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT? SO\, \nGREG\, IS THAT — YOU’RE OUR \nATTORNEY. I DON’T KNOW IF EP \nBCDC HAS ANY AUTHORITY OR IS \nTHAT SOMETHING THAT US EPA NEEDS \nGET INVOLVED WITH OR WHAT? \n>>GREG SCHARFF: I’M NOT SURE TO \nBE HONEST. I DON’T KNOW IF \nANYONE ELSE — YEAH\, WE CAN LOOK \nINTO IT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nMAYBE WE CAN GET BACK TO \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND ABOUT THAT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: SURE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. IT’S \nSOMETHING THAT I FEEL VERY \nSTRONGLY ABOUT. AND LET’S SEE\, \nYEAH\, YOU SAID OTHER EXISTING \nFEATURES\, INCLUDING BUILDINGS\, \nABANDONED SHELTER-IN-PLACING \nCONTAINERS AND BUILDINGS AND \nEQUIPMENT ALL OF THAT IS GOING \nTO BE REMOVED. \n>>SPEAKER: REMOVING ALL \nMAN-MADE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE \nISLAND. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT’S ANY TO \nTAKE PLACE. \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL NOTE THE \nSTANDARD CONDITION IS TO HAVE IT \nREMOVED OUT OF BCDC JURISDICTION \nBUT USUALLY PERMITS ARE AGNOSTIC \nON THE LOCATION OUTSIDE OF BCDC \nJURISDICTION IN THE PROCESS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: REALLY BCDC MAY \nNOT BE DOING — WELL\, I JUST \nTHINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT \nTHIS HOLISTICALLY\, IF IT \nGENERATES FROM THE BCDC AREA WE \nSHOULD HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY \nON WHERE IT GOES IT’S\, SORT OF\, \nLIKE IF THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS \nWE HIRE A CONTRACTOR WE’LL JUST \nGET IT OUT OF THE CITY OF \nNOVATO. I DON’T CARE. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: COMMISSIONER \nECKLUND\, I WANT TO CLARIFY BCDC \nWOULD HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY WE \nMIGHT HAVE REGULATORY AUTHORITY \nTO REQUIRE SOMEONE ELSE TO DO \nSOMETHING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT’S WHAT I \nMEANT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: WANT TO CLARIFY \nBECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE \nRESPONSIBILITY TO MOVE ITEMS TO \nBE RECYCLED OR SENT TO LANDFILL \nOR SOMETHING. I JUST WANT TO \nGIVE YOU — WE HAVEN’T BEEN \nDOING THAT AT BCDC AND DIDN’T \nWANT TO JUST GIVE YOU — YES\, WE \nCAN DO IT OR NO WE CAN’T — WE \nDON’T — I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT \nABOUT IT AND I’M NOT SURE STAFF \nHAS EITHER BEEN DOING GOING IN \nTHAT DIRECTION — \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THIS \nIS SOMETHING YOU CAN LOOK INTO \nAND GIVE US MORE INFORMATION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ON PAGE 15 STAFF \nREPORT TALKS ABOUT WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES THAT ARE GOING TO BE \nREMOVED. ALONG WITH THE DEBRIS \nAND SUNKEN SHIPPING CONTAINER \nWHAT ARE THOSE STRUCTURES MADE \nOF? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHAT’S ALONG THE LINES OF THE \nSAME — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: IN THE STAFF \nREPORT SHOULD IDENTIFY A LITTLE \nBIT MORE SPECIFICS I GUESS IN \nTHE FUTURE IF ANYBODY KNOWS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: IF \nANYBODY KNOWS THE ANSWER? \n>>SPEAKER: SOME ARE CORRUGATED \nMETAL PLASTIC PIPES FLAT GATES \nTHAT MIGHT BE MORE METAL \nPLASTIC\, I DON’T THINK WE HAVE \nANY CONCRETE — [INDISCERNIBLE] \n>>PAT ECKLUND: LAST TWO \nQUESTIONS WHAT IS GOING TO BE \nTHE REPORTING AND TO BCDC ON HOW \nTHEY’RE PROGRESSING THROUGHOUT \nTHE PROJECT AND WHAT ARE WE \nGOING TO BE ACTUALLY DOING SOME \nINSPECTIONS ON SITE TO SEE HOW \nTHE MATERIAL IS BEING HANDLED? \n>>SPEAKER: JULIE — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YOU MIGHT WANT \nTO PULL THAT DOWN. \n>>SPEAKER: JULIE GUERIN\, \nRESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGER THE \nREPORTING THEY’RE DOING\, WITH \nTHREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF \nMONITORING THEY WILL BE \nSUBMITTING AN ANNUAL MONITORING \nREPORT TO US WE REVIEW AND MAKE \nSURE THEY’RE ON TRACK\, IF WE \nHAVE THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS\, NEXT \nSTEPS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT \nSOMEHOW THEY’RE NOT MEETING \nCRITERIA WE WOULD HAVE \nCONVERSATION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: TYPICAL ANNUAL \nREPORTING ON A PROJECT LIKE \nTHIS? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AT SOME POINT\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO HAVE DISCUSSION \nESPECIALLY ON A PROJECT LIKE \nTHIS IT’S A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME \nBECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY DO THE WORK \nUNTIL NOVEMBER. \n>>SPEAKER: THIS IS AFTER THE \nCONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE FOR \nRESTORATION THEY DO THE \nMONITORING AFTER THAT WE DON’T \nDO ANY INSPECTIONS ON SITE \nOURSELVES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nOTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE \nCLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR \nCOMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. THAT \nLET’S LET THE PUBLIC WEIGH IN \nNOW WE’LL OPEN THE AGENDA FOR \nPUBLIC COMMENT EACH SPEAKER WILL \nHAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO \nSPEAK. SIERRA CAN YOU CALL \nFIRST THOSE IN THE ROOM THEN \nWHOEVER HAS THEIR HAND RAISED \nONLINE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nHAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE \nROOM CHAIR EISEN\, AND THERE ARE \nCURRENTLY NO HANDS RAISED \nVIRTUALLY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: DO \nWE WANT TO SEE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION BEFORE WE HAVE A \nMOTION? OR THE MOTION FIRST? \n>>GREG SCHARFF: STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION FIRST. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: CAN \nWE PUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nUP THEN? \nAND YES AS LARRY REMINDS MERE\, \nWE’RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: I \nMOVE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>SPEAKER: SECOND. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: DID \nYOU GET THE MOTION? ALL IN \nFAVOR\, SAY AYE. \n[AYES] \n. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. OPPOSED? \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION\, PLEASE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NTT\, \nCOULD YOU PLEASE PULL THAT UP? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OH I \nSEE. \n>>SAM FIELDING: STAFF \nRECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE \nCHIPPS ISLAND RESTORATION \nPROJECT\, BCDC APPLICATION NUMBER \n202400100MD\, WITH THE CONDITIONS \nDESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT. \nAND THE SUMMARIZED ON THIS \nSLIDE. THEY INCLUDE CREATING \nAND ENHANCING NAVIGABLE CHANNELS \nON-SITE AND INSTALLING NEW \nNAVIGATIONAL AND INTERPRETIVE \nSIGNAGE\, IMPLEMENTING IN LIEU \nPUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS \nINCLUDING DEVELOPING A CULTURAL \nAUDIO TOUR AND DEDICATING FUNDS \nFOR FURTHER PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS IN SUISUN MARSH \nMONITORING AND ADAPTIVELY \nMANAGING THE RESTORATION SITE \nAND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES TO \nPROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES AND \nWATER QUALITY DURING \nCONSTRUCTION. AS CONDITIONED \nTHE STAFF BELIEVES THE PROJECT \nIS CANNOT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS \nOF THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT\, SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY PLAN\, SUISUN MARSH \nPRESERVATION ACT\, AND SUISUN \nMARSH PROTECTION PLAN. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nBEFORE WE DO THAT\, PAT\, HOLD FOR \nA SECOND. DO WE HAVE AGREEMENT \nFROM THE APPLICANT DWR TO THE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION? SOMEBODY? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE THE \nRECOMMENDATION. AND AFTER A \nSECOND — \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANKS\, SEAN\, FOR YOUR \nAGREEMENT. ALL RIGHT. DO WE \nHAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: MOTION MADE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, PAT. ANY SECOND? \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD BE GLAD TO \nSECOND IT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. WE HAVE COMMISSIONER \nPESKIN CAME IN FIRST. THANK \nYOU. CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL \nTHEN? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: BEFORE WE CALL \nTHE ROLL ON THE MOTION CAN I ASK \nFOR A POSSIBLE AMENDMENT? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AN \nAMENDMENT TO. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: NO YOU CAN’T — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I CANNOT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: YOU JUST MADE \nTHE MOTION. THE YOU MADE THE \nMOTION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ADDING \nADDITIONAL CONDITIONS? NO. YOU \nCAN’T DO THAT? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: FOR \nUS TO ACCEPT THAT’S THE \nVERBIAGE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: USUALLY AT OUR \nCITY COUNCIL WE MAKE THE MOTION \nTHEN START WITH THE CONDITIONS. \nI GUESS BCDC — \n>>GREG SCHARFF: WE DO IT \nDIFFERENTLY. ENROLLE SOMEONE \nELSE WOULD MAKE THE MOTION — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I WAS GOING ASK \nTHAT WE PUT A CONDITION THAT IF \nBCDC HAS THE AUTHORITY TO \nIDENTIFY WHERE THE MATERIALS ARE \nTAKEN FOR REUSE OR DISPOSAL THAT \nWE’RE NOTIFIED OF THAT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: WE HAVE A \nMOTION ON THE FLOOR. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WE \nHAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. \nSIERRA\, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL \nTHE ROLL? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \nYOU’RE OFF MIC. I NEED YOU BACK \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nSORRY. WE NEED 13 AFFIRMATIVE \nVOTES FOR THIS AND THE FEDERAL \nREPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT \nPERMITTED TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. \nSO\, WITH THAT\, CAN YOU CALL THE \nROLL\, SIERRA? THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSION ARE HASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR \nEISEN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE \nI MISSED ANYONE? YOUR AGENDA \nITEM MOTION PASSES WITH 15 \nYESES\, ZERO ABSTENTIONS\, AND \nZERO NOS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIERRA. ALL RIGHT \nWE’RE GOING TO GO BACK TO OUR \nAGENDA ITEM THREE. DON’T WE DO \nTHE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST? \n[LAUGHTER] \nLARRY IS ASKING ME TO GO TO ITEM \nNUMBER SIX\, THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CORRECT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AND \nI GUESS THAT’S BECAUSE WE \nPOSSIBLY NEAT A VOTE ON THAT. \nTHERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR TODAY FIRST IS \nAPPROVAL OF THE MINUTES THEN \nTHERE IS A SECOND ITEM THAT \nAPPARENTLY REQUIRES THAT I GIVE \nYOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT IT. \nSO\, I’M GOING TO DO THAT NOW. \nIT HAS TO DO WITH THE PROPOSED \nADOPTION OF A STIPULATED CIVIL \nPENALTY ORDER FROM THE \nENFORCEMENT PROGRAM REGARDING A \nPROPERTY IN RICHMOND. AT THE \nAPRIL 11TH\, 2024 THE MEETING \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE VOTED TO \nADOPT A RECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT \nDECISION TO ISSUE A CEASE AND \nDESIST IN CIVIL PENALTY ORDER \nREQUIRING THE RESPONDENTS TO \nSUBMIT AND FILED A BCDC PERMIT \nAPPLICATION WITH A FEASIBLE \nPUBLIC ACCESS PLAN TO INSTALL \nAND OPERATED AN UNAUTHORIZED \nSOLAR PLANT WITHIN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION AND TO PAY A \n$30\,000 ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL \nLIABILITY PENALTY. THAT ORDER \nWAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE \nCOMMISSION FOR ADOPTION. \nHOWEVER\, IN THE INTERIM \nRESPONDENTS ADMINISTRATIVE \nPERMIT\, WHICH IS M2019.004.00\, \nWAS LISTED AT THE COMMISSION’S \nOCTOBER 17TH\, 2024 MEETING AND \nWAS ISSUED IN EARLY DECEMBER. \nAS MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF \nTHE EARLIER ORDER WERE SATISFIED \nWHEN PERMIT NUMBER M2019.004 WAS \nISSUED\, THE STIPULATED CIVIL \nPENALTY ORDER NOW ON THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR IS INTENDED TO SATISFY \nTHE REMAINING REQUIREMENTS \nTHROUGH THE RESPONDENT’S PAYMENT \nOF THE $30\,000 IN ADMINISTRATIVE \nCIVIL LIABILITY. THE ORDER\, \nWHICH HAS BEEN AGREED BY THE \nRESPONDENTS AND BCDC STAFF \nCOMPLETES RESOLUTION OF THE \nENFORCEMENT MATTER. \nFURTHERMORE\, THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE CHAIR\, MARIE GILMORE \nHAS ALSO CONCURRED IN THE \nINCLUSION OF THIS ORDER IN THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR. \nSO\, FIRST\, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC \nCOMMENT REGARDING THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR\, SIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON AND NO HANDS RAISED\, \nCHAIR EISEN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ARE \nTHERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO \nWOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR? ALL RIGHT. \nMAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE \nTHE — \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nSECOND. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN AND \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS \nSECONDS. \nSIERRA\, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE \nROLL ON THIS MATTER? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \nCHAIR EISEN. \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nNELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? COMMISSIONER — VICE \nCHAIR MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: AND \nCHAIR EISEN IF I HAVE NOT MISSED \nANYONE ELSE? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH 15 \nYESES AND ZERO NOS AND ZERO \nABSTENTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nUNLESS LARRY NUDGES ME AGAIN\, \nWE’RE GOING BACK TO ITEM NUMBER \nTHREE\, PUBLIC COMMENT. \nIF ANYONE WANTS TO ADDRESS THE \nCOMMISSION ON ANY MATTER WHICH \nTHE COMMISSION EITHER HAS NOT \nHELD A PUBLIC HEARING — NOT YET \nHELD A PUBLIC HEARING — OR IS \nNOT ON TODAY’S AGENDA\, YOU WILL \nHAVE THREE MINUTES TO DO SO. \nARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS WHO \nWISH TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON AND\, CURRENTLY\, NO \nHAND RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM \nFOUR THE CHAIR’S REPORT. FIRST\, \nWITH RESPECT TO THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN HAS ASKED ME\, AND I \nTOTALLY JOIN IN THE THANKS THAT \nWE WANT TO PROVIDE TO ALL THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE ALTERNATES \nWHO WERE — PARTICIPATED IN OUR \nVERY THOROUGH DISCUSSIONS AT OUR \nLAST COMMISSION MEETING\, WE KNOW \nTHAT THE MEETING RAN LONG\, AND \nIT DIDN’T — AND WE DIDN’T HAVE \nTIME THEN TO THANK EACH AND \nEVERYONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nPARTICIPATED IN THIS \nEXTRAORDINARY EFFORT\, IN \nPARTICULAR THE STAFF AND ALL THE \nWORK THAT THEY DID. SO WE \nWANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TODAY TO \nEXTEND THOSE THANKS. JUST AN \nAMAZING EFFORT. \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, I’M SURE WOULD \nSHARE EVERYTHING THAT ANYBODY \nWILL WANT TO ADD TO THOSE \nCOMMENTS TODAY. \nWITH RESPECT TO THE RICHMOND SAN \nRAFAEL BRIDGE\, I KNOW EVERYONE \nHAS BEEN GETTING A LOT OF \nE-MAILS AND THERE ARE A LOT OF \nQUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN THIS IS \nGOING TO GET RESOLVED. SO\, WE \nHAVE A PLAN\, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF \nISSUES THAT CHAIR WASSERMAN AND \nTHE STAFF HAVE PUT TOGETHER\, TO \nHOLD A WORKSHOP ON THIS TOPIC \nDURING OUR JANUARY 16TH MEETING. \nSO\, IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN THAT \nWORKSHOP\, YOU SHOULD BE SURE TO \nATTEND THAT MEETING. THERE WILL \nBE NO VOTES SCHEDULED ON THE \nMATTER ON THE 16th\, BECAUSE THE \nPURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP IS TO \nHEAR FROM OUR STAFF\, TO HEAR \nFROM SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS\, TO \nHEAR FROM THE MTC \nREPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS ABOUT \nTHE PROPOSAL AND TO HELP THE \nCOMMISSIONERS ASK QUESTIONS \nABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND PROVIDE \nTHEIR THOUGHTS\, AND ALSO TO GET \nTHE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE ITS \nCOMMENTS\, AS WELL. \nTHE WORKSHOP IS GOING TO PRODUCE \nTHE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT OUR \nSTAFF NEEDS TO ANALYZE THE \nPROPOSAL\, TO BRING IT TO THE \nCOMMISSION FOR A DECISION SOON \nTHEREAFTER\, AND AS SUCH\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN AND I STRONGLY URGE \nTHE COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES \nTO ATTEND THAT WORKSHOP \nIN-PERSON IF THEY CAN\, AND BOTH \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES CAN \nATTEND THE WORKSHOP\, BOTH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THEIR \nALTERNATES. WHILE THE \nPRESENTATIONS WILL BE BROADCAST \nAS PART OF THIS HYBRID SYSTEM \nTHAT WE HAVE\, THE SMALL GROUP \nDISCUSSIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE \nMODERATED BY BCDC STAFF WON’T \nBE. SO\, WE ENCOURAGE ALL OF TO \nYOU PARTICIPATE IN-PERSON\, SO \nTHAT YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN \nTHOSE SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS \nAND HEAR THEM. \nSO\, THE COMMISSION IS NOT GOING \nTO BE VOTING\, AGAIN\, ON THE \nBRIDGE PROPOSAL ON JANUARY 16TH\, \nBUT WE WILL HAVE THIS WORKSHOP\, \nWHICH WILL MOVE US ALONG. \nMY PENULTIMATE ITEM ON MY \nCHAIR’S REPORT IS TO TALK ABOUT \nOUR THREE RETIRING \nCOMMISSIONERS. TWO OF WHOM ARE \nHERE IN THE ROOM. I DON’T KNOW \nIF SUPERVISOR SUSAN GORIN WAS \nABLE TO JOIN US. IT DOESN’T \nLOOK LIKE IT\, SIERRA SAID. BUT \nSUPERVISOR PESKIN OF SAN \nFRANCISCO AND SUPERVISOR DAVE \nBINE OF SAN MATEO ARE ATTENDING \nTHEIR LAST COMMISSION MEETING. \nAT LEAST UNTIL SOMETHING ELSE \nHAPPENS. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI KNOW THAT MANY OF US WOULD \nLIKE TO THANK THEM IN-PERSON FOR \nTHEIR SERVICE\, BUT CHAIR \nWASSERMAN HAS ASKED THAT WE PLAY \nA RECORDING THAT HE HAS MADE FOR \nTHE TWO OF YOU — SUPERVISOR \nGORIN. SO\, IF WE COULD HEAR \nCHAIR WASSERMAN’S RECORDING. \nTHERE HE IS. \n>>SPEAKER: PERFECT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAPOLOGIES. GIVE ME ONE SECOND \nTO ADJUST AUDIO HERE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MUTE BUTTON \nON THE LEFT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nHAVE TO JOIN THE AUDIO\, \nUNFORTUNATELY\, WHICH IS THE \nISSUE. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. \nTRYING TO — \nAND OF COURSE — \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nALMOST THERE. SIERRA\, IF YOU \nNEED A MINUTE\, I CAN DO A FEW \nOTHER THINGS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OKAY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, \nCOMMISSIONER PINE\, DO YOU WISH \nTO SAY ANYTHING? \nI KNEW YOU WOULD \n>>DAVE PINE: IT’S BEEN A \nPLEASURE SERVING ON BCDC. IT’S \nBEEN A GREAT JOURNEY\, \nPARTICULARLY ON THE SEA LEVEL \nRISE CHALLENGES\, AND TO WATCH \nWHAT THIS COMMISSION HAS \nACCOMPLISHED HAS BEEN VERY \nGRATIFYING. IT’S BEEN A \nPLEASURE TO SERVE WITH ALL OF \nYOU. HAVE SUCH A TERRIFIC \nSTAFF\, AND THE GOOD WORK THAT WE \nHAVE ALL ACCOMPLISHED. I \nAPPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. \n>>AARON PESKIN: TO LARRY AND \nSTAFF AND TO PREVIOUS STAFF\, \nTRAV\, AND TO THE COMMISSIONERS \nTHEN AND NOW\, PARTICULARLY FOR \nAGAINST ALL ODDS STANDING UP TO \nTHE COUNTY THAT I REPRESENT AND \nTHWARTING SFOS ATTEMPT TO FILL \nIN TWO SQUARE FILES OF THE BAY \nHATS OFF TO YOU\, GLAD BLESS THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND SYLVIA \nMCLAUGHLIN AND ESTHER KERR\, AND \nKATE GULLICK\, AND EUGENE \nMaCTEER. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ARE \nYOU READY SIERRA. DO ANY \nCOMMISSIONERS WANT TO SAY \nANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO OUR \nDEPARTING COLLEAGUES? PAT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YES\, I AM THE \nNEWEST COMMISSIONER HERE\, OR ONE \nOF THE NEWEST. I WANTED TO SAY \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN AND PINE\, I \nTHINK THE MEETINGS THAT I HAVE \nBEEN ATTENDING YOU HAVE ADDED A \nLOT OF VALUE AND I REALLY ADMIRE \nWHEN WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT \nALL YOUR CAREERS I REALLY ADMIRE \nYOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS AN \nELECTED OFFICIAL AND WISH THAT I \nHAD MORE TIME TO SERVE WITH YOU \nON THIS BOARD BUT AT LEAST I GOT \nA LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND \nCONGRATULATIONS AND I HOPE YOUR \nTRAVELS\, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM \nIN THE FUTURE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: I \nWANT TO THANK BOTH COMMISSIONER \nPINE AND MY LONG TIME FRIEND \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN FOR YOUR \nLEADERSHIP ON THIS COMMISSION \nPARTICULARLY SEA LEVEL RISE BUT \nALSO ON OTHER ISSUES AND FORMER \nSUPERVISOR KATE SERIOUS JOINS ME \nIN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS \nINTO MY NORTH BAY COLLEAGUE \nSUSAN GORIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR \nWORK IN THE NORTH BAY WE \nAPPRECIATE ALL YOU HAVE DONE AND \nWISH YOU ALL THE BEST. THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND ANNETTE \nROWS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nOTHER COMMISSIONERS? NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: I SERVED ON THE \nTOWN COUNCIL FOR THE BETTER PART \nOF 20 YEARS WHERE ISSUES BECOME \nSOMEWHAT PREDICTABLE AS DO THE \nCOLLEAGUE’S RESPONSE ISSUES TO \nSO IT WAS ALWAYS REFRESH TO \nBEING COME TO THIS BODY\, THIS \nSTATE AGENCY\, AND BE PART OF THE \nSTAFF THAT’S TRULY AMAZING. BUT \nGETTING TO KNOW THESE THREE \nSUPERVISORS A LITTLE BIT BETTER. \nAARON PESKIN WAS MY SUPERVISOR \nWHEN I WAS LIVING IN SAN \nFRANCISCO AND ACTUALLY MET HIM \nAT A COMMUNITY MEETING RIGHT ON \nOUR BLOCK I FEEL LIKE I HAVE \nKNOWN DAVE FOR A LOT LONGER THAN \n12 YEARS\, AND SUSAN GORIN\, OUR \nFAMILY KEEPS A SMALL HOME IN \nSONOMA VALLEY AND I OCCASIONALLY \nBUMP INTO HER IN SONOMA\, SO \nTHESE FRIENDSHIPS\, AS THEY ARE\, \nYOU KNOW\, THE WORLD IS SMALL\, \nAND I’VE REALLY ENJOYED BEING A \nPART OF THIS BECAUSE OF THE \nCALIBER OF THESE PEOPLE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: I JUST WANT TO \nADD MY THOUGHTS ON BEHALF OF\, IN \nADDITION TO THE OTHER \nCOMMISSIONERS\, FOR ALL THREE OF \nTHESE COMMISSIONERS WHO IN ROLES \nAS SUPERVISORS HAVE BEEN REAL \nLEADERS IN TERMS OF PUBLIC \nSERVICE IN PARTICULAR LEADERSHIP \nON BAY ISSUES AND HEALTH OF THE \nBAY\, SEA LEVEL RISE\, PUBLIC \nACCESS\, AND A WHOLE HOST OF \nOTHER ISSUES. THEY HAVE DONE \nTERRIFIC WORK FOR A LONG TIME\, \nAND WE THANK THEM FOR THAT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: NOW \nWE HAVE LOST SIERRA ALTOGETHER. \nSHE’S BACK. HOW’S IT LOOKING \nFOR REMOTE? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nAPOLOGIZE. WE HAVE A SETTINGS \nISSUE WHICH DOESN’T ALLOW US TO \nSHARE VIDEO SOUND\, WHICH IS \nPROBLEMATIC. EVEN NTT IS NOT \nABLE TO SHARE THAT VIDEO AT \nMOMENT. GIVE US A FEW SECONDS \nAND WE’LL WORK TO RESOLVE THAT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCHAIR WASSERMAN IS GOING TO BE \nDISTRAUGHT TO HEAR THAT ALL OF \nTHE FINE WORDS THAT HE INTENDED \nFOR YOU TO HEAR TODAY\, YOU’RE \nGOING TO HAVE TO HEAR WHEN HE \nE-MAILS THEM TO YOU. OR MAYBE \nAT OUR NEXT MEETING. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: OR I WAS \nGOING SAY WE POST THEM ON THE \nWEB SITE SO EVERYBODY CAN GET TO \nTHEM. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nHAVE SHARE IT IN-ROOM BUT WILL \nNOT BE ABLE TO SHARE IT \nVIRTUALLY. THE SOUND WILL NOT \nTRANSFER. SO WE WOULD BE HAPPY \nTO SHARE IT IN THE ROOM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: LET’S SHARE \nIT IN THE ROOM IF THAT’S OKAY \nAND EVERYBODY ELSE WILL HAVE TO\, \nSORT OF\, TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A \nBREAK. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSOUNDS GOOD. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: YOU COULD \nE-MAIL IT TO ALL COMMISSIONERS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: WE WILL DO \nSO. \n[VIDEO PLAYING] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nGOOD AFTERNOON. I’M SORRY THAT \nI CANNOT BE THERE WITH YOU \nIN-PERSON TO RECOGNIZE AND \nCELEBRATE THE SERVICE OF THREE \nTRUE REGIONAL STEWARDS WHO ARE \nLEAVING THE COMMISSION. TODAY \nIS THEIR LAST MEETING. SUSAN \nGORIN\, AARON PESKIN\, DAVID P ARE \nALL OUTSTANDING REGIONAL \nSTEWARDS\, REGIONAL STEWARDS ARE \nLEADERS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO THE \nLONG-TERM WELL-BEING OF PLACES \nTHEY ARE INTEGRATORS WHO CROSS \nBOUNDARIES OF JURISDICTION\, \nSECTOR AND DISCIPLINE TO ADDRESS \nCOMPLEX REGIONAL ISSUES SUCH AS \nSPRAWL\, EQUITY\, EDUCATION\, \nECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT\, AND OF \nCOURSE RISING SEA LEVELS. THEY \nSEE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN \nECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND \nSOCIAL CONCERNS AND THEY KNOW \nHOW TO CONNECT THE DOTS TO \nCREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR \nREGIONS AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS. \nREGIONAL STEWARDS ARE LEADERS \nWHO COMBINE 360 DEGREE VISION \nWITH THE ABILITY TO MOBILIZE \nDIVERSE COALITIONS FOR ACTION. \nSUSAN GORIN HAS BEEN A BCDC \nCOMMISSIONER SINCE 2013. SHE \nCLIMBED UP THE POLITICAL RUNGS \nIN THE OLD FASHIONED WAY \nSTARTING AS A MEMBER OF THE \nSANTA ROSA SCHOOL BOARD\, THE \nSANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL\, \nBECOMING MAYOR OF SANTA ROSA IN \n2008\, AND BECOMING SONOMA COUNTY \nSUPERVISOR IN 2012. SHE HAS \nPROVIDED MAJOR SERVICE THROUGH \nTHE SONOMA VALLEY GROUNDWATER \nSUSTAINABILITY AGENCY\, BCD\, THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION \nAUTHORITY\, THE ABAG EXECUTIVE \nBOARD\, AND MOST RECENTLY AND \nVERY IMPORTANTLY\, THE HIGHWAY 37 \nPOLICY COMMITTEE TO REBUILD THAT \nVITAL LINK BETWEEN OUR COUNTIES. \nAMAZINGLY BEFORE THE PANDEMIC\, \nSHE NEVER MISSED A BCDC MEETING\, \nALWAYS GOING FROM SANTA ROSA TO \nSAN FRANCISCO TO OUR MEETINGS \nAND BACK. SHE HAS BEEN STEAD \nROCK AND REALLY HELPED OUR \nCOALITION TO DEVELOP OUR PLANS \nTO ADAPT TO RISING SEA LEVEL. \nAARON PESKIN\, THE QUITE AMAZING \nAARON PESKIN\, HAS SERVED ON BCDC \nSINCE 2017. HE IS NOW RETIRING \nAFTER FIVE CONSECUTIVE TERMS AS \nSUPERVISOR CURRENTLY SERVING AS \nPRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF \nSUPERVISORS. HE A FIRST \nGENERATION AMERICAN BORN IN \nBERKELEY. HE IS A BANANA SLUG. \nAND IN TERMS OF HIS \nENVIRONMENTAL CREDENTIALS\, HE \nWAS ONE OF THE LEADERS OF THE \nFIGHT TO STOP THE EXPANSION OF \nTHE SAN FRANCISCO RUNWAYS INTO \nOUR BAY. HE WAS APPOINTED TO \nTHE COASTAL — CALIFORNIA \nCOASTAL COMMISSION IN 2017\, AS \nWELL\, REPRESENTING THE NORTH AND \nCENTRAL COASTS. \nAND HE HAS BEEN A VERY ACTIVE \nMEMBER OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nRESTORATION AUTHORITY. A TRUE \nTRIFECTA\, HE HAS BEEN A MEMBER \nOF BCDC\, THE COASTAL COMMISSION\, \nAND THE RESTORATION AUTHORITY. \nHIS STEADY LEADERSHIP\, HIS \nSTEADY SUPPORT FOR REGIONAL \nACTIVITIES WHILE CERTAINLY \nPAYING ATTENTION TO THE ISSUES \nTHAT HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT TO SAN \nFRANCISCO AND HIS CONSTITUENTS. \nAND DAVID PINE\, WHO HAS SERVED \nON OUR COMMISSION SINCE 2011 AND \nWHO IS RECOGNIZED BY BCDC AT OUR \nRISING TOGETHER SUMMIT\, AS AN \nENVIRONMENTAL LEADER. HE HAS \nBEEN A VISIONARY LEADER WHOSE \nADVOCACY AND POLICY WORK HAVE \nBROUGHT ABOUT SIGNIFICANT \nCHANGES AT BOTH LOCAL AND \nREGIONAL LEVELS. HIS TIRELESS \nEFFORTS HAVE RESULTED IN THE \nIMPLEMENTATION OF EFFECTIVE \nMEASURES TO COMBAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE BENEFITTING PRESENT AND \nFUTURE GENERATIONS. AS A BOARD \nMEMBER IN SAN FRANCISCO — \nEXCUSE ME — BCDC\, THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION \nAUTHORITY AND THE SAN \nFRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS \nAUTHORITY HE HAS WORKED \nEXTENSIVELY ON THE INTERSECTING \nISSUES OF FLOOD CONTROL\, SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, AND TIDAL LAND \nRESTORATION. HE IS DEDICATED TO \nHELPING LEAD LOCAL ACTION AROUND \nCLIMATE CHANGE AND INDEED SAN \nMATEO IS GROUND ZERO FOR SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND HAS RECENTLY \nCOAUTHORED THE SAN MATEO COUNTY \nCLIMATE EMERGENCY RESOLUTION. \nHE’S ALWAYS BEEN A QUIET STEADY \nVOICE WILLING TO PROVIDE GOOD \nADVICE. THAT’S WHAT WE WANT ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS TO DO\, AND DAVE \nHIS HELPED LEAD THE COMMISSIONS \nRISING SEA LEVEL WORKING GROUP \nFROM EARLY IN HIS TENURE AND AS \nCOMMISSIONER HE ALWAYS ONE OF \nTHE COMMISSIONERS TO WHOM STAFF \nAND I TURNED TO AND ANSWERED \nQUESTIONS PATIENTLY AND PROVIDE \nUS ON THE GROUND PERSPECTIVES OF \nHOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WORK AND \nHOW BEST TO ADVANCE RESILIENCE \nWE THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR \nSERVICE AND ALL OF YOU WILL BE \nMISSED. BE WELL AND ENJOY YOUR \nTIME OUT OF THE PUBLIC \nSPOTLIGHT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WE \nWERE ALL GLAD WE WERE ABLE TO \nHEAR THAT. THAT WAS FANTASTIC. \nI HATE TO TURN TO MATTERS AS \nMUNDANE AS DISCLOSURES. BUT \nBEFORE YOU LEAVE THIS \nCOMMISSION\, I WANT TO KNOW IF \nYOU HAVE ANY. \n[LAUGHTER] \nANYBODY IN THE ROOM NEED TO \nPROVIDE AN EX PARTE DISCLOSURE? \nYOU KNOW ALL OF THE THINGS ZACK \nWOULD SAY. SO. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: DO I HAVE A \nQUESTION ON THE SMALL GROUP \nDISCUSSIONS ON THE CENTER FOR \nRICHMOND BRIDGE. ARE THOSE \nGOING TO BE ATTENDED BY THE \nPUBLIC. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THE \nDISCUSSIONS THEMSELVES ARE NOT \nGOING TO BE\, BUT THE PUBLIC WILL \nBE INVITED AND GIVE COMMENT. \nBUT THEY WON’T BE PART OF THE \nTABLES THEMSELVES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. WELL\, THAT LEADS US INTO \nTHE REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH CHAIR EISEN. HISTORY \nDOES PROVIDE US WITH INTERESTING \nCOINCIDENCES\, FOR EXAMPLE\, ON \nTHIS DATE IN 1154\, HENRY THE \nSECOND WAS CROWNED AS KING OF \nENGLAND. YOU REMEMBER FROM YOUR \nHISTORY BOOKS THAT HENRY WAS AN \nADVENTURER WHO FOUGHT HAS WAY \nINTO THE CROWN BUT IN THE EARLY \nPERIOD OF MODERN ENGLISH HISTORY \nTHE COUNTRY WAS FAR FROM \nUNIFIED. HENRY’S GREATEST \nACHIEVEMENT WAS TO CREATE THE \nBEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH COMMON LAW \nWHICH HELPED INSPIRE CONFIDENCE \nAND CONSISTENCY WITHIN A NATION \nSYSTEM OF JUSTICE. I MENTION \nHENRY BECAUSE HE WAS THE SUBJECT \nOF THE GREATEST CHRISTMAS FILMS \nOF ALL-TIME\, “THE LION IN \nWINTER” THE CHRISTMAS COURT LATE \nIN HIS REIN AND RELATIONSHIP \nBETWEEN HENRY AND ELEANOR\, IN \nPRISON FOR TEN YEARS EARLIER FOR \nSUPPORTING REVOLT AGAINST HENRY \nTHREE SONS JEFFREY RICHARD AND \nKATHARINE HEPBURN WON THE \nACADEMY AWARD. ON THIS DATE IN \n1776 THOMAS PANE PUBLISHED THE \nFIRST IN A SERIES OF PAMPHLETS \nTHAT HE SIGNED AS COMMON SENSE \nIN WHICH HE STARTED TO LAY OUT \nHIS CASE AGAINST THE ENGLISH \nRULE CONTAINED IN THE ENGLISH \nCOMMON LAW THE FIRST PAMPHLET \nREMEMBERED THESE ARE THE TIMES \nTHE SOULS AND SUMMER SOLDIER \nSUNSHINE PATRIOT IN THIS CRISIS \nSHRINK FROM SERVICE OF HIS \nCOUNTRY BUT HE THAT STANDS NOW \nDESERVES THE LOVE AND THANKS OF \nMAN AND WOMAN. WHILE I WOULD \nMOST CERTAINLY NOT CHARACTERIZE \nBCDC’S CURRENT EXISTENCE AS IT’S \nWITHIN SUCH TROUBLED TIMES\, AT \nLEAST NOT YET\, I WANT TO THANK \nALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS FOR \nSTRENGTH THEY DEMONSTRATE DAILY \nAS THEY PERFORM THEIR PUBLIC \nDUTIES\, ESPECIALLY OUR RETIRING \nCOMMISSIONERS\, AARON PESKIN\, \nDAVE PINE\, AND SUSAN GORIN. \nOUR COMMISSIONERS\, ALTERNATES \nAND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS MERIT \nOUR APPRECIATION FOR THEIR \nDEVOTION TO BCDC AND THEIR \nWILLINGNESS TO DEBATE AND CRAFT \nMEANINGFUL AND SOMETIMES \nCONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS AND IN A \nCOUPLE OF MINUTES I’LL DESCRIBE \nONE OF THOSE TIMES. \nWITH REGARD TO BUDGET I WANT TO \nGIVE YOU A REPORT ON BCDC’S \nBUDGET SITUATION WHICH IS \nNEITHER FRAUGHT NOR GRINCH LIKE \nBUT MERITS YOUR ATTENTION. YOU \nREMEMBER THE STATE FACED A \nBUDGET DEFICIT OF AROUND \n$38 BILLION WHEN THE BUDGET WAS \nENACTED IN LATE JUNE. IN THE \nBUDGET\, THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED \nTHE LEGISLATURE APPROVE THE \nELIMINATION OF 10\,000 VACANT \nCIVIL SERVICE POSITIONS AND THE \nREDUCTION OF GENERAL FUND AND \nOTHER AND SPENDING BY EACH STATE \nORGANIZATION OF ABOUT 8%. THE \nDEPARTMENT OF FINANCE\, HOWEVER\, \nIS CONTINUING TO WORK THROUGH \nTHESE NUMBERS EVEN AS THE FISCAL \nYEAR IS ALMOST HALF DONE. WE \nEXPECT THAT WE WILL RECEIVE \nFINAL BUDGET REDUCTION TARGETS \nPRIOR TO THE END OF THIS \nCALENDAR YEAR IF THE GOOD LORD \nBE WILLING. \nHOW WILL THIS AFFECT BCDC? \nFIRST\, THE NEWSOM ADMINISTRATION \nHAS STATED THAT NO LAYOFFS ARE \nTO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS \nDEFICIT REDUCTION PROPOSAL. FOR \nBCDC WE EXPECT WE’LL BE ABLE TO \nMEET BUDGET REDUCTION TARGETS BY \nLIMITING\, ELIMINATING JUST ABOUT \nALL WHAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED \nDISCRETIONARY SPENDING\, SUCH AS \nTRAVEL AND NON-MANDATORY \nTRAINING. JUST AS IMPORTANT\, \nHOWEVER\, WE ANTICIPATE THAT IT \nWILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FILL \nANY VACANCIES THAT HAVE OCCURRED \nTHIS YEAR. WE HAVE SIX \nVACANCIES AT THIS POINT\, WHICH \nIS MORE THAN 10% OF OUR TOTAL \nSTAFF COUNT. FIVE OF THOSE \nVACANCIES EXIST IN REGULATORY \nAND PLANNING. WE WILL NOT FILL \nTHEM UNTIL WE RECEIVE FILE \nNUMBERS FROM FINANCE REGARDING \nOUR CURRENT YEAR BUDGET. \nI HAVE DECIDED TO FILL OUR ONE \nVACANT COMPLIANCE POSITION\, BOTH \nBECAUSE I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT \nOUR ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE \nTEAMS NEED TO BE AT FULL \nSTRENGTH AND BECAUSE THAT \nPOSITION IS PAID THROUGH OUR BAY \nFILL AND ABATEMENT FUND AS \nOPPOSED TO THE GENERAL FUND. \nI CERTAINLY HOPE THAT I CAN \nPROVIDE YOU MORE SPECIFICS AT \nOUR JANUARY 16TH COMMISSION \nMEETING. YOU HAVE PROBABLY \nNOTICED THAT WE DID NOT PROVIDE \nYOU WITH OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED \nOCTOBER BUDGET BRIEFING THAT \nDESCRIBES BOTH OUR PREVIOUS \nYEARS AND EXISTING YEARS’ \nBUDGETS. I HOPE WE CAN DO THAT \nIN FEBRUARY AFTER WE HEAR FROM \nFINANCE ABOUT THIS YEAR’S BUDGET \nAND AFTER WE ANALYZE THE \nGOVERNOR’S JANUARY BUDGET \nPROPOSAL. \nTWO PIECES OF REALLY GOOD NEWS. \nFIRST\, PRESIDENT BIDEN\, THIS \nWEEK\, SIGNED THE WATER RESOURCES \nDEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2024\, WHICH \nINCLUDES A SECTION INSTRUCTING \nTHE U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nTO CONDUCT A STUDY OF MEASURE TO \nADAPT TO RISING SEA LEVELS IN \nTHE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. THE \nSTUDY IS ANTICIPATED TO BEGIN IN \n2026. IT WILL BE DESIGNED TO \nADDRESS IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION \nTO SEA LEVEL RISE AND CLIMATE \nCHANGE IN THE NINE-COUNTY BAY \nAREA’S OCEAN AND BAY SHORELINES\, \nAND WILL CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF \nECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED \nCOMMUNITIES\, EXISTING VULNERABLE \nINFRASTRUCTURE\, AND THE USE OF \nNATURAL FEATURES AND BENEFICIAL \nUSE OF DREDGE SEDIMENT TO \nPROMOTE RESILIENCE. \nWE’LL CERTAINLY KEEP YOU \nINFORMED OF PROGRESS AS THE CORP \nBEGINS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO \nIMPLEMENT THE STUDY. \nFINALLY\, I WANT TO BUILD OFF OF \nCHAIR EISEN’S REMARKS. I \nAPPRECIATE RECEIVING E-MAILS \nFROM SEVERAL OF YOU THANKING \nSTAFF FOR THEIR DIFFICULT AND \nTREMENDOUSLY SUCCESSFUL WORK IN \nCREATING THE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN\, BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT THAT YOU APPROVED \nUNANIMOUSLY TWO WEEKS AGO. AS \nJESSICA FAIN AND I DISCUSSED \nAFTERWARD\, I’M SURE ALMOST EVERY \nMEMBER BCDC HAD SOME PART IN ITS \nCREATION. NOT JUST OUR PLANNING \nAND LEGAL TEAMS WHO RODE THE \nLABORING OARS\, BUT ALSO OUR \nPERMITTING STAFF WHOSE \nCONTRIBUTIONS WILL ENSURE THAT \nWE GAIN CLOSE ALIGNMENT BETWEEN \nPLANNING FUNCTION AND FUTURE \nPERMITTING DECISIONS. THAT \nALIGNMENT WILL BE BASED ON THEIR \nDOZEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF \nPERMITTING RESILIENT \nDEVELOPMENTS ALONG THE BAY \nSHORELINE SINCE 2011 CLIMATE \nCHANGE BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS. \nAND WE CANNOT SKIP OVER OUR \nADMIN TEAM THEY ENSURE WE CAN \nHIRE THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST \nAS MUCH AS THE STATE WILL ALLOW \nAND PROVIDE OUR STAFF AS MANY \nTOOLS AS POSSIBLE TO HELP US \nSUCCEED. THE NIGHT BEFORE THE \nMEETING I WAS REMINDED OF PRIME \nMINISTER WINSTON CHURCHILL’S \nFAMOUS SPEECH AFTER THE ALLIES \nDEFEATED THE GERMAN AND ITALIAN \nFORCES UNDER GERMAN FIELD \nMARSHALL IRWIN ROMMEL IN THE \nSECOND BATTLE OF EL ALAMAN IN \nEGYPT WHICH ESSENTIALLY WON THE \nNORTH AFRICA CAMPAIGN IN LATE \n1942. AFTER THE BATTLE\, \nCHURCHILL TOLD HIS AUDIENCE IT’S \nNOT THE END. IT IS NOT EVEN THE \nBEGINNING OF THE END. BUT IT \nIS\, PERHAPS\, THE END OF THE \nBEGINNING. \nCERTAINLY BCDC AND LOCAL \nGOVERNMENT COLLABORATORS HAVE A \nLONG WAY TO GO TO COMPLETE THE \nR-SAP. BUT AFTER A DOZEN OR SO \nYEARS OR SO OF STUDY BAY ADAPT \nACTION AND REGULATORY SUCCESSES \nFOLLOWING THE 2011 CLIMATE \nCHANGE BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS\, I DO \nBELIEVE THE PASSAGE OF R-SAP IS \nTHE END OF THE BEGINNING OF HOW \nTHE BAY AREA VIEWS AND RESPONDS \nTO RISING SEA LEVELS. \nAND I WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALL \nOF YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU \nHAVE PUT IN DURING THAT TIME \nTHAT HAS MOVED US TO THIS POINT. \nFINALLY\, TO PUT A FINER POINT ON \nTHAT\, SINCE THAT MEETING BCDC \nSTAFF HAVE REVIEWED AND \nCONFIRMED FLOOR AMENDMENTS AND \nUSED A MAGNIFYING GLASS TO GIVE \nTHE R-SAP ONE LAST PASS TO MAKE \nANY REQUIRED NON-MATERIAL \nCHANGES. \nSTAFF ALSO HAVE PREPARED THE \nFINAL APPROVED RESOLUTION FOR \nSIGNATURE BY VICE CHAIR EISEN IN \nCHAIR WASSERMAN’S ABSENCE. WE \nANTICIPATE THAT THE R-SAP AND \nANY NECESSARY SUPPORTING \nMATERIALS WILL BE POSTED ON THE \nBCDC WEB SITE BY END OF DAY \nTOMORROW. \nDANA BRECHWALD CALLS THIS A \nCHRISTMAS MIRACLE. BUT IT’S \nREALLY JUST ANOTHER DAY IN THE \nLIFE OF OUR TERRIFIC STAFF. \nTHAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nEISEN\, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, LARRY\, WE HAVE ONE \nTINY LITTLE MATTER THAT STANDS \nBETWEEN US AND HANUKKAH\, \nCHRISTMAS\, AND HOPEFULLY A VERY \nBRIGHT NEW YEAR. LISTING OF \nADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. AND \nHARRIET ROSS IS HERE TO ANSWER \nALL OF OUR QUESTIONS. ALL OF \nOUR QUESTIONS. ANYONE? \nALL RIGHT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nHANDS RAISED\, CHAIR EISEN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. THAT MOVES US TO \nADJOURNMENT. MOTION TO ADJOURN\, \nANYONE? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: PAT. \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nSECOND. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS. WE \nSTAND ADJOURNED. I’LL SEE YOU \nALL IN 2016 — SORRY \n[LAUGHTER] \n— 2025. JANUARY. \n[ADJOURNED] \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/december-19-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241210T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241210T150000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240130T060725Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241126T235552Z UID:10000160-1733835600-1733842800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 10\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \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/84715067651?pwd=boRImiLjJlxbQD2SvGLjc4lbbRmr5X.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID847 1506 7651 \nPasscode671230 \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\, Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nPublic Comment Period (15 minutes; Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the ECRB on any matter on which the ECRB 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.\nItem of Discussion: Legal Training on ECRB Laws and Policies and New Members Orientation (90 minutes) BCDC staff will brief new and current 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.  This technical advisory board reviews the safety criteria of complex engineering projects and advises the staff on the adequacy of such safety provisions in relation to relevant statutory\, policy\, and regulatory provisions.  (Jenn Hyman\, P.E\, Senior Staff Engineer) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.gov] (Michael Ng\, Senior Staff Attorney) [415/352-3610; michael.ng@bcdc.ca.gov] Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-10-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241210T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241210T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240130T050422Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241120T224059Z UID:10000147-1733823000-1733832000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 10\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-10-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241209T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241209T183000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240130T034919Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241210T203403Z UID:10000124-1733763600-1733769000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 9\, 2024 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/83361375618?pwd=RKN0bFlExeJDzMunsDWd5af2lV5YbX.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055(816) 423 4282Conference 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\nMarina Point\, City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County; First ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold a preliminary review for the proposed 4.92-acre residential development located at 2100 Marina Way South. The proposed project is a residential development with 70 market-rate\, single-family homes and 30 junior additional dwelling units. Within the shoreline band\, there are 12 separate single-family units\, walkways\, utilities\, and landscaping. Public access improvements are proposed along the Bay Trail connecting Richmond Ferry Terminal to Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park. Improvements include additional seating\, landscaping\, signage\, bike infrastructure\, as well as a viewing platform\, picnic\, and fitness area.(Lisa Herron) [415/352-3654; lisa.herron@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits // Public comment\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording \n Video recording \n\n \n\nVideo transcript\n\nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you for joining us 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: Thank you\, Ashley. Good evening\, everyone. My name is Jacinta Mccann. I’m the chair of the Bcdc. Design Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m located here at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our 1st order of business is to call the roll \nYerba Buena SX80: Board members. Can you unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding so\, staff\, could you please call the roll \nYerba Buena SX80: chair\, Mccann\, present Vice Chair\, Strang\, present Board\, Member Battaglio\, present Board\, Member Hall. \nYerba Buena SX80: present board\, member\, leader\, present and board Member Pellegrini\, present \nYerba Buena SX80: Staff\, or Pcdc. Staff attending this meeting are myself Ashley\, Tomerlin\, Yuri\, Jewett\, Catherine Pan\, and Lisa Herron. \nYerba Buena SX80: Very good. Thanks\, Ashley. We have a quorum presence\, so we’re duly constituted to conduct business. So we will move ahead with the agenda. To begin with\, I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible \nYerba Buena SX80: for everyone who’s joined us online and in the meeting room. Please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise for board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it’s on. As Ashley just said. So everyone can see you. And for members of the public\, if you’d like to speak during a public comment period. That’s part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 3 ways. 1st of all\, if you’re here with us in person. \nYerba Buena SX80: 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. \nYerba Buena SX80: and state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: After all\, individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely \nYerba Buena SX80: the second way\, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand \nYerba Buena SX80: in zoom. If you are new to zoom. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s hard to think of anyone who wouldn’t be new to zoom at this point in our in our world. But if you are new to zoom and you join our meeting using the zoom application\, click the hand at the bottom of your screen\, the hand should turn blue when it’s raised. And 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: After you are called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \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. \nYerba Buena SX80: 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 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 and audio for in-person panelists will be recorded through the room’s audio system and is not synced to the individual panelists videos. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties. List to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects. Please call or email Ashley Tomelon\, whose contact information is on the screen. And it can also be found on the Bcdc’s website. \nYerba Buena SX80: With that\, we’ll move to Item 2\, which is the staff update. And Ashley\, I’ll hand to you for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair Mccann. 1st and foremost you will have received an email to complete your mandatory ethics. Training. \nYerba Buena SX80: Please complete this by the end of 2024\, and please reach out to me if you need the link. Resent \nYerba Buena SX80: for project updates. The regional shoreline adaptation plan was adopted by the Commission last Thursday. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Rsap. Framework in the public draft were brought to the Board in June and October of this year and staff look forward to bringing updates on the planning and technical guidance as the implementation of those efforts move forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Staff are working on the permit application for 1499\, Bayshore\, the R. And D. Campus in Burlingame\, came to you in November\, in 2023\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and we will also likely have Brooklyn Basin Channel Park. Coming to the Drb. In spring 2025. The Brooklyn Basin project most recently came before the Board in April 2019. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our next Drb. Meeting will be January 6\, th and will be a review of the San Francisco\, Rec. And Park district or Department\, East Harbor and Marina Green Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that\, concludes the Bcdc staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the Board already. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any questions from board members. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I just have one comment. I just want to congratulate all the staff at Bcdc. For accomplishing the regional shoreline adaptation plan. That was a big day on Thursday\, was it? Last week? Yeah\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: and it was fantastic to see so much interest in it. And it’s certainly got a lot of media attention. So I was really felt\, you guys have accomplished a lot with that. And and it’s work that’s going to be very impactful with all cities as we progress over coming years so well done to everybody. Thank you for the hard work. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so with that\, we’ll move to agenda. Item number 3 \nYerba Buena SX80: which is a public comment for items that are not on tonight’s agenda. So we’ll have public comment for the proposed development. But\, \nYerba Buena SX80: is there any public comment for anything that’s not on the agenda. I see no public comment. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, hearing that\, we will move on \nYerba Buena SX80: to agenda. Item number 4\, which is the 1st review of the Marina Point Development project in Richmond\, Contra Costa Costa County. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we have actually\, I’ll just run through the Project review order so that we can keep track of that. So we’ll start with the Bcdc. Staff project presentations\, and then we will move to clarifying questions from the board \nYerba Buena SX80: on the materials presented to us by the staff. Then we will go to public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we will move to board. \nYerba Buena SX80: discussion and summary\, and then we’ll have the staff response\, and I immediately following the Bcdc staff presentation and the clarifying comments\, we will have the proponent presentation as well. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I do want to welcome our in person representatives from the proposed development. It makes a big difference to us to have people in person. We really appreciate that. I think it helps the \nYerba Buena SX80: level of communication between us all. So\, thanks for being here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So with that. Bcdc\, permit analyst\, Lisa Herron will introduce the project. Thank you. Lisa. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Thank you. Chair Mccann\, and good evening board members. I’m Lisa Herron\, a shoreline development analyst at Bcdc. \nYerba Buena SX80: Before I present the staff introduction. I’d like to remind anyone who’s on the project team and staff to please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions\, and when you’re not actively engaged \nYerba Buena SX80: with the board. Please turn off your video so that we can minimize the distractions on the screen. And for now I’d like to introduce the project for tonight’s Review. This is the 1st review of the Marina Point development in the city of Richmond and Contra Costa County \nYerba Buena SX80: boom. \nYerba Buena SX80: little Eager. Okay. The proposed project is located at the terminus of Marina Way\, south in Richmond’s Marina Bay and South Shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s located between Marina Way south\, a school in a park to the East and the National Park Service\, Rosie\, the Riveter Historical Park. To the west. \nYerba Buena SX80: to the north the site is bordered by industrial development\, and to the south the bay trail. On the bay side of the trail is the Ford Channel\, which connects both to Richmond’s inner harbor and to Marina Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: The site is highlighted in several local plans as an asset due to its location along the Bay trail proximity to open space and waterfront amenities. \nYerba Buena SX80: This includes the Richmond Ferry terminal and transit connecting Inner Richmond to the waterfront. We’ll detail this more in the planning context. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here are some local context for parks and public access along the shoreline. The open space areas are shown in yellow dashed lines with the existing bay trail alignment in green and the site of the future Richmond Wellness trail in red dashed lines. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Bay trail serves as a connection from the Richmond Ferry terminal along the coastline\, through neighborhoods down toward El Cerrito\, Albany\, and Berkeley. \nYerba Buena SX80: In addition to features mentioned in the previous slide\, there’s also a complex to the West that includes the historic Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion\, Events center and the assemble kitchen restaurant immediately adjacent to the eastern border of the site is Lucretia Edwards Park\, Benito Juarez\, elementary school\, and the future Richmond Wellness trail \nYerba Buena SX80: just for a little bit of historic background. In 1941 the Kaiser Richmond shipyards transformed the south shoreline\, including the project site into one of the West Coast\, most vital wartime industrial centers during World War Ii. The Kaiser shipyards constructed more ships for the armed forces than any other American shipyard\, and this is just an aerial. \nYerba Buena SX80: but the project site well\, you can’t see my arrow. \nYerba Buena SX80: all right. So now\, on to site conditions\, the site is about 4.9 2 acres in size\, and has remained undeveloped since the 19 eighties. It is surrounded by a chain link fence fence with overgrown fennel and other vegetation\, and there is no public access currently on the site itself. \nYerba Buena SX80: I conducted a site visit via Bike a few weeks ago and stopped to take photos\, most of which are from this visit. \nYerba Buena SX80: These photos features\, feature views from the east and west of the site along Great Bay trail frontage which runs along the southern portion of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: And now a closer look. \nYerba Buena SX80: These are photos of the southern edge of the site. The 1st photo is from a prior visit a few years back\, and the second photo shows the same area from my bike ride or from my site visit with more overgrown vegetation. You can see here again that the shoreline has subgrade seawall dike armored with large stone riprap. \nYerba Buena SX80: Marina way South runs along the eastern edge of the site. These are views as you approach the bay. This is where the previously mentioned Richmond Wellness Trail is located. \nYerba Buena SX80: This trail is a proposed 4 mile bicycle and pedestrian corridor that will run from downtown Richmond to the Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: It is not part of this development\, and is funded through a partnership with the city of Richmond\, and trust for public lands\, parks for people. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again. Here’s a closer look with a view of Brooks Island. \nYerba Buena SX80: and here’s another view west from the eastern side of Marina Bay \nYerba Buena SX80: towards the site from Vincent Park. So you can bike all the way around towards the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: All right. Now for planning context. \nYerba Buena SX80: this is the land use and planning map from Richmond’s general plan adopted in 2012. I’d like to focus in on the Marina Bay area so that we can see how the city and constituents have conceived of this site. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here you’ll see. The site is designated with deep\, with a deep red\, indicating the desire for it to be a major activity center or high intensity mixed use. \nYerba Buena SX80: The plan defines this as an area prime for mixed use and higher density development. In addition to streets with wide sidewalks and public spaces that are welcoming to pedestrians and transit riders. \nYerba Buena SX80: The general plan further emphasizes major activity. Centers should have generously landscape setbacks to enhance visual and physical connections to the waterfront\, and should include the integration of water or transit oriented development principles. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Richmond Bay specific plan was adopted in 2016. So 4 years later\, and it provides a stakeholder driven framework for development along a 320 acre portion of Richmond bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s the dashed red bit. The specific plan does not include the site itself\, but it did identify the site and water frontage as an asset in the planning process. \nYerba Buena SX80: The site is also identified as one of several potential complete neighborhoods in which local nodes of activity and amenities\, such as transit\, are located close together. \nYerba Buena SX80: Marina way south on the eastern edge of the proposed development\, is also identified as a key transit corridor and connection to the waterfront for Richmond residents and visitors. \nYerba Buena SX80: So here’s what the community vulnerability mapping tool demonstrates us about the area relative to the broader community of Richmond. The site is in a census block group that’s identified as having low social vulnerability and lower contamination vulnerability with only high percentiles for the following indicators disabled and very low income residents. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’d like to note that the surrounding the immediate census block there are areas identified as having highest social vulnerability and highest contamination vulnerability. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve included more census blocks in context\, because this is not only attraction and important waterfront site identified by Richmond planning documents\, it’s also highly used by the city’s residents for work and pleasure\, many of whom who live in more vulnerable communities. \nYerba Buena SX80: Regarding potential sea level rise. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise on top of mean\, high\, high water would look like if the site remain unchanged. \nYerba Buena SX80: using the ocean Protection council\, sea level rise guidance. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to a king tide at mid-century under the intermediate high scenario. \nYerba Buena SX80: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise on top of mean higher high water would look like at the site if it was unchanged\, which is anticipated to occur at roughly 2\,100 for the intermediate high scenario. \nYerba Buena SX80: This also corresponds to the 100 year storm condition at 27 d. \nYerba Buena SX80: In this scenario the frontage would be flooded with overtopping\, occurring at the southeastern corner of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: I want to point out the overtopping along the bay trail and public access to the east and west and potential impacts to public access\, making the site an important one for future public access in this area. \nYerba Buena SX80: I should also note that the Fema flood insurance map indicated this area zone be meaning. There are significant waves at the shoreline of the site\, and it will be exposed to that during wind events or storms. \nYerba Buena SX80: So before we introduce the project proponents\, I’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff. Report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. First\, st please consider how the project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcdc’s public access design guidelines. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then Staff has identified some specific questions. We’d like to ask the board about the design at this stage. These are\, does the project enhance. \nYerba Buena SX80: project\, design\, enhance the user’s access to and experience of the shoreline? What other opportunities are there to build connections or further improve existing public access as part of this project? \nYerba Buena SX80: 2. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does the project as designed\, provide sufficient capacity for future adaptation strategies. What can be incorporated into the design to facilitate shoreline change in the future? \nYerba Buena SX80: 3. Do the landscaping and fitness program along the eastern edge that Marina way south edge of the development. Read as a public connection to the shoreline. And what design recommendations can you provide to encourage public use for these areas? \nYerba Buena SX80: And 4. Does the Board have recommendations on the proposed plant and material palettes? \nYerba Buena SX80: All right. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now we’ll open it up to. \nYerba Buena SX80: I wanna see if there’s any clarifying questions from the board. Wait anything \nYerba Buena SX80: on on the staff presentation. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just put this across to the board here for clarifying questions\, Bob. Go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey? Thanks for that presentation. I noticed that. The applicant is\, I think they’re using 3 feet of sea level rise for their criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: How do you know how that was determined? Or was that something that is \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s not a Bcdc policy\, necessarily\, is it? Or just what they’re proposing? That might be a better question for the applicant that answers my question. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, any other questions on the staff report? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. I mean\, I I note in one of the submissions public comment submissions there is some description of the 100 foot shoreline band and guidance on that. But \nYerba Buena SX80: could one of the staff\, just for for the benefit of everyone attending the meeting? \nYerba Buena SX80: for the board and and everyone else? Could someone just summarize what the key \nYerba Buena SX80: guidances associated or definitive requirements associated with the 100 foot shoreline band. \nYerba Buena SX80: So within the 100 foot shoreline band\, probably the key thing to keep in mind is that the Commission can only deny a project application based on a finding that it doesn’t provide maximum\, feasible public access consistent with the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s maximum feasible public access to the bay and shoreline. So otherwise. You know\, the Bay plan does contain like a large selection of policies related to like what makes public access. And so those things. \nYerba Buena SX80: or or maybe what we would look at in terms of it’s it’s a little bit more discretionary. There’s not like a little bit of a hard and fast. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, what can be approved\, what can be denied in the shoreline band? \nYerba Buena SX80: So in some cases\, you know\, we do see like structures. We see parks. We see various things\, but it’s all sort of has to be consistent with \nYerba Buena SX80: the the site context. Yeah. And I mean just to \nYerba Buena SX80: add to what you’re saying. The original designation of the 100 feet was put in place so that there would be additional scrutiny on that area right because of the sensitivity\, vulnerability from an access standpoint and \nYerba Buena SX80: and other considerations visual and so on\, that we have to take into account exactly. And in addition\, I think I did leave out. So if it is in some sort of a priority use area. That is another basis on which the Commission can consider whether to approve or deny an application. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. That’s very helpful. \nYerba Buena SX80: Go ahead\, Gary. One other thing. Do you have? Can you give us a quick summary of the Permit history \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of what previous permits have been approved\, and by by who? Because I understand it’s been through the city a few times. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, so I can start with like a broader overview. And then maybe we’ll call upon my colleagues. \nYerba Buena SX80: so this this specific site itself doesn’t have like an individual permit on it. But in 1989 is the is when the original permit was issued for the overall development of Marina Bay\, so that whole like master planned area and this site wasn’t part of \nYerba Buena SX80: part of that initially. And so in that initial initial permit\, there was lots of housing and kind of redevelopment things\, and then certain public access requirements. And it’s gone through about 6 amendment iterations\, most recent of which was in 1999\, \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, just kidding 2\,008 and \nYerba Buena SX80: What we know like during that process\, that some of the things that were permitted was that bay trail frontage lots of the public access in and around that area\, including that Lucretia Edwards Park\, and that in that 2\,008 permit. \nYerba Buena SX80: There was a an office building that was permitted for this particular site. But for whatever reason\, we don’t really have all of the details\, it didn’t go through\, or nothing was developed there. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so it’s it’s remained undeveloped. But I don’t know if you want to add anything else. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, just a follow up question on that. Who is the current owner of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: You guys are the owner capital? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And was it\, was it? I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: I presume it was part of the Ford factory. \nYerba Buena SX80: Land area. Yeah\, at some point some of it was owned by the Richmond Redevelopment Agency. And then so there was a Co. Permitee on this. It was Richmond redevelopment. And then another developer who was on this site prior. And now it’s guardian capital which Glenn is part of. Yeah. But I think I read that the city is not associated with this proposal. No\, yeah\, yeah\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do any of you recall what happened with the 5 0 5 East Bayshore Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: where there were townhomes in the shoreline band. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So that was approved by the commission. This past June\, I believe. So that site was a I think it was a 2 point something 2.3 2.5 acre site in the South Bay\, \nYerba Buena SX80: Redwood City and it did provide a. \nYerba Buena SX80: It wasn’t part of the bay trail. There was a shoreline trail and some shoreline protection in behind the townhomes\, and also some other public access improvements along the roadway frontage. \nYerba Buena SX80: So yeah\, so that \nYerba Buena SX80: that end up being approved. And that was\, I’m gonna completely tax your memory if you can remember this. \nYerba Buena SX80: but we saw that in \nYerba Buena SX80: we saw that in August \nYerba Buena SX80: of 2021 is when I have. Is that the last time we saw it. I believe so. And so. The last version was the one that was approved. It may have changed slightly from the last time that it came to the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s funny I don’t know if anybody here was working on it. Maybe Yuri was. But no\, not at that point\, but\, like in the longer history of that project\, there was actually some reconfiguration of the original project in order to accommodate some more of that public access and like the drawing protection. And so that was a part of the design process that came out \nYerba Buena SX80: like discussions with\, I think\, the Drb. And Nbcdc\, okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so was this site designated as residential\, or is it? It doesn’t have any land use designation at all. \nYerba Buena SX80: You mean through the the city of Richmond general plan\, or in what? Yeah\, through the previous planning process. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it does. So the land use designations. I don’t know if you want to go back to the general plan. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So I think the the designation that they put on it was this high intensity\, mixed use activity center\, right? And but that’s not this \nYerba Buena SX80: parcel\, just this entire area. No\, no\, it’s that parcel\, or it’s the yeah. It’s that red zone \nYerba Buena SX80: like the overall. So just from like I don’t know if you actually want to respond to this. But \nYerba Buena SX80: those those red bars that we’re seeing. Yeah. So if you. If you look the deep\, the the deep\, dark red\, and I put a circle around it\, and if you look over to activity centers\, it has \nYerba Buena SX80: high intensity\, mixed use\, major activity center. And there’s quite a bit of big detail in the in the general plan about what that means and sort of design recommendations\, urban form\, that kind of thing. Yeah. And then the zone. The local zoning is consistent with this designation. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: like. So on the individual parcel basis. \nYerba Buena SX80: And is there any height limit restrictions in this area? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, yeah\, I don’t know. \nYerba Buena SX80: 25. \nYerba Buena SX80: So just to clarify. I board Member Pellegrini just said\, 125 feet is the height in the general plan defined in the general plan. Yeah\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: don’t quote me on that. Well\, let’s make that a working. We’ll make that a working assumption\, for now we can take a quick look while you’re yeah\, I think. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: yes\, Tom\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: Excuse me\, I live in Richmond\, and I recall that there was a previous single family home plan for this site \nYerba Buena SX80: which went through various processes and eventually went to a ballot measure. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I don’t know what happened after that. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is one of those questions where it will require more. Follow up. But yeah\, I did find an email exchanges of past Pcdc members that it did go to a ballot measure. And I don’t think that the project ultimately moved forward with the planning commission. But I’ll have to follow up on that. Yeah\, yeah. So yeah\, there’s interesting back and forth. I mean\, I think that was about 2016. Is that correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s about right. Yeah\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. I mean\, I recall that as well\, Tom. But \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, well\, anyway\, we can always get more precise feedback on the as needed. Yup. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. Well\, I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: concludes the clarifying question. So we’ll go to the proponent presentation. Now\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: This work. Hi\, I’m Brian Winter. I’m the land use attorney on behalf of the applicant\, and I thought before the design team talks about the details of the project. I might address a couple of the contextual legal questions that have already come up. So just just very briefly\, Staff\, and appreciate Staff’s sorry the presentation first\, st rather than because I think this might help \nYerba Buena SX80: assist the presentation contextually. But it’s up to you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s have the developer introduce the project\, and then you can speak to any context that you’ll provide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it would be helpful to have the team introduced here as well\, and Speaker introduced. Thank you. Sounds good. Hi. My name is Marcia Vallier. I’m a landscape architect with Csw. St. 2. I merged with that firm about 2 years ago. I also have been a Richmond resident since 1990\, and I’ve worked a lot on the Richmond waterfront and within Richmond proper. I’d like to introduce our developer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to say? Say hello? It’s Glenn Powells\, and this is our land use Attorney \nYerba Buena SX80: Brian Winter\, Brian Winter with Mother Star. We go. Yeah\, thank you. And I’m Mike Beeder\, the civil engineer with Csw. Stuber Stro as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, my gosh. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m David Burden\, an associate principal with Ktgy\, and we’re the architects for the project. Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what I’d like to do is\, I’ll go very quickly through our presentation. It mirrors very much what Lisa has presented. So this project? It’s a little bit of a delay. Sorry this project is an infill project proposed for the 4.9 2 acre site\, which was part of the Kaiser Richmond shipyards during World War 2. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we’re looking at putting 70 small lot \nYerba Buena SX80: single family homes\, 10% would be offered at affordable sales prices\, and we will have 30 adu units on the 1st floor. And that’s all part of the inclusionary housing land use laws. The location is in Richmond of Carson and Lisa did a great job showing you where all of that is. So. \nYerba Buena SX80: Wow! Sorry. The delay is \nYerba Buena SX80: a little crazy. So in the Marina Bay area you can see the the texture of the neighborhood. You’ve got single family residential\, detached along the Base\, Sunset Point and Bayfront over to the right. And then\, as you go to the top of the photograph\, you have \nYerba Buena SX80: condominiums all along the edge. 2 and 3 story condominiums. And as you go around there’s vacant parcels and commercial properties there. So we have the Marina Point project that is in green with the big \nYerba Buena SX80: Arrow going down to it. So this is what the neighborhood looks like\, and you can see over the bottom left hand corner. That is Sunset point\, and that’s the single family detached units\, and they’re about 10 feet apart\, and they’re single family small backyards. And then\, as you look towards San Francisco\, you can see that there is a lot of park space. And then also on that Sunset Point\, you can see how the frontage \nYerba Buena SX80: is the bay trail in Marina Bay. We call it the Esplanade\, and it’s a 12 foot wide bay trail that is lit and has different nodes along the the edge of the bay\, and it links a number of parks together\, and we’re also we also link to the Richmond Ferry. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the aesthetic that we were looking to go and to use\, for this project is kind of a mix of industrial coastal. And so\, you know\, since this was the shipyards\, we wanted to have some of the concrete\, more coastal landscape\, and really make sure that we brought home and linked into the Rosie the Riveter World War\, 2 Home \nYerba Buena SX80: Front National monument. And so we’ve been working with them. And I’ve been working with Donna Graves for a number of years on a lot of the interpretation in that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: The public art will be linked as well\, and I’ll illuminate that a little bit more. The top left hand is at the ferry. We’ve got those reeds in the ferry\, and then the entire perimeter of the esplanade has these shiphole interpretive signs that are dotted along the top one right in the middle. That’s Lucretia Edwards\, shoreline Parks. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s a park that I went to Bcdc. On about 25 years ago for that park\, and that is to tell the Bay Area’s contribution to the war effort\, and those Axial walls Point and to different shipyards\, and those are boot prints from Brockton Shoe Museum \nYerba Buena SX80: in Massachusetts. So you can stand in real boot prints that also links to the Cheryl Barton and Susan Schwarzenberg\, the Rosie\, the Riveter Monument\, and there are a number of other Shimada Park. There’s so so this whole area is really linked. And so we wanted to make sure our shoreline treatment linked to all the interpretation that exists and makes that that trail very rich. So this is the \nYerba Buena SX80: the plan itself. You can see that Lucretia Edwards is down in the bottom here\, where my little hand is\, and then the blue line is the Bcdc 100 foot line\, and then the red line is semi-private right along the faces of the homes\, but the rest is public access all along the frontage. \nYerba Buena SX80: The other connection that we’ve made is to the Richmond Wellness Trail. That is a it is \nYerba Buena SX80: It is work. Trust Republic lands is working on that. But there’s a project called Richmond Rising. They got a 30 million dollars grant to do different projects. And so this portion of the Wellness trail is being completed with those funds\, with the Trust for public lands. And so the frontage along the eastern side of the project links to that\, and it excuse me and addresses that\, and we try and and create nodes for wellness along that edge. \nYerba Buena SX80: The \nYerba Buena SX80: so. So this is the view along the esplanade looking towards the Ford building. That’s a historic Ford building\, and then over to the right\, at the end of where the housing is. That’s the National home. That’s the Rosie\, the Riveter National Park \nYerba Buena SX80: Space. And. \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s see. Sorry. And then this is a view from Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park. Out to the bay\, and to the right is the the area that we’re developing that is a fitness node along the terminus of the Wellness trail as it meets the bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: the and again along the frontage. We are trying to make sure that we have an enlarged sort of coastal shoreline landscape along the edge to buffer the homes and to create this this more open space. Feeling along the edge of the housing. If you drive down Marina way south. You see\, there’s\, you know\, a lot of stuff that’s just right\, either parking lots or not a lot of stuff along the along that frontage. So we’ve tried to bring that \nYerba Buena SX80: landscape and that that kind of buffer along that edge. This is a view from Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park\, and so you can see the context of the homes. They’re not any taller than the \nYerba Buena SX80: then the Ford building from this view. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then this is a view from Vincent Park. Now Edwards and the Vincents were very\, very instrumental in developing the shoreline access within the city of Richmond. They used to have their little handbags\, and they would go from place to place to try and make sure that there was shoreline. And so now the city of Richmond has 36 miles of shoreline because of those ladies. \nYerba Buena SX80: and this is the elevation along the front from the San Francisco Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these are the elevations to show you the sea level rise\, the esplanade or the bay trail\, which is right here\, is at Elevation 13 to 15\, and we’re putting a plaza space. I think it’s going to be at around 15 at that elevation. And we’re doing stairs that go up and creating an amphitheater type space \nYerba Buena SX80: right at the center access to the to the project. You can see there’s a kind of a paseo right down the center and a little roadway down the center\, so that the residents can funnel down that walkway or down through the paseos to the Wellness trail into the Hub. The the thing that we really wanted to do is sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m sorry about my little okay\, and and again\, this is the the view we wanted to create a plaza space\, because the when we spoke with Kaylin Berry from the National Park Service. They don’t have a lot of exterior space where they can do lectures or or different things like that. And this is an easy walk\, you know\, a couple 100 feet from the the \nYerba Buena SX80: the National Park Monument space right here. And so we’re going to be working with Donna Graves\, who has was instrumental in working on getting the Rosie the Riveter project going forward with the National Park Service\, and she’s going. She’s also written \nYerba Buena SX80: a guide with the National Park Service on Resilience and Climate change. And so this will be her 1st project using those national Park standards and doing interpretation in this particular node. \nYerba Buena SX80: The. And this is the kind of the look of all the different pieces the the project area does have remnant walls from the old Kaiser shipyards. And so that’s why we have these concrete walls here and there\, kind of creating where these old foundations were. And we’ve created this kind of carved out\, this wave of a plaza space that is going to be set in permeable pavers \nYerba Buena SX80: and have seat walls and interpretation in and around the ground plane and then on panels\, and we will be going with to the Richmond Arts and Culture Commission to go through the process of developing the public art\, and when that happens it goes all the way full to this full city of Richmond\, goes through the Design review goes to the Arts and Culture Commission\, the Public Art Advisory Committee National Park Service. So there’s a lot of involvement in the interpretation that we’re going to be doing \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: The let’s see. Go to the next slide. Then down on the end of the project area. There’s a trail as the trail goes through. You can see we’ve got sort of a gently sloped landscape area. What happens in Richmond on the 3rd of July\, because it’s less expensive than the 4th of July. The city has fireworks\, and so everybody in the city comes down and sits along the shoreline. And so \nYerba Buena SX80: these little\, these sloped areas with these grassy areas and the seat walls and these remnant walls will be wonderful places for people to watch the fireworks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park gets full of people. It’s it’s a really nice space for that. And then at the end \nYerba Buena SX80: right where the the terminus Marina way south\, at the terminus of the Wellness Trail. We’ve created a fitness hub and picnic area. We’ve taken cues from the \nYerba Buena SX80: all the site furnishings that are in the Marina Bay neighborhood as well as in Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park next door\, and use some concrete tables because they do hold up a lot more on the shoreline. And so we’re going to be using those we’ve got bike racks\, tire changers\, drinking fountains with a bottle filler. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then fitness equipment in the top corner. Here you can see the the drainage area and the bioretention spaces where we want to use those as spaces for children or people to walk through and to jump from rock to rock\, and and so you know\, creating informal play all along that that frontage along the east and the south frontage\, and then it becomes a little bit more \nYerba Buena SX80: formalized with this robinia compan product\, that and the robinia is a type of wood that holds up very well in this environment. And so that’s the the major fitness. Hub that. And \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s see\, is there anything else? There’s also some interpretation that we’d like to bring down to this edge as well. This is the the view from \nYerba Buena SX80: the axial walkways that go down into the the park and into the edge of the development. So it feels to me it feels very public. \nYerba Buena SX80: And with that I’m going to stop the share on that \nYerba Buena SX80: And Brian\, would you like to explain the land use a little bit \nYerba Buena SX80: is now an appropriate time. Okay\, okay\, thank you. Brian. Winter again\, just a couple of points. I wanted to make. That\, I would hope would help the Commission understand the legal context for for this project. \nYerba Buena SX80: with respect to the city and with respect to the Commission\, one of which is that the project is being processed pursuant to several different State Housing laws\, namely\, Senate Bill 330\, and the Housing Accountability Act. \nYerba Buena SX80: the Housing Accountability Act being\, in my view\, the most important housing production law that we have in California\, and among many\, and it describes in detail the Legislature describes in detail its concerns with respect to the housing supply shortage that we have in California\, and how it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s existed and grown for decades\, and how this statute is meant to solve that\, and among other things\, it expresses the statewide housing policy that projects should be afforded the fullest possible agencies. Processing projects should give the fullest possible weight to the interest and provision of housing. \nYerba Buena SX80: This project\, as staff accurately described\, is in the city’s high intensity. Mixed use\, land use\, designation and zoning. The land use designation is one that allows densities of of up to up to right anything less than 125 units an acre up to 125 units per acre. \nYerba Buena SX80: And as the project’s been proposed with the city\, it’s been\, it’s been deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act\, and it’s also been deemed consistent with the city’s land use regulations. All of the city’s land use regulations \nYerba Buena SX80: under the Housing Accountability Act. I can talk about that in detail if the Commission has any\, or if the Board sorry if the Board has any interest\, but it’s it’s been deemed consistent. As a matter of law with the city’s land use regulations. I don’t know about the prior project that was subject to a ballot referendum. But ballot referendums can only sorry a citizens. Referendum can only be filed on a project that is seeking a needs\, discretionary legislative \nYerba Buena SX80: land use approvals\, things like general plan amendments\, specific plans and rezonings. It doesn’t. You cannot file a referendum petition with projects that need non legislative approvals like this project. This project only requires non legislative approvals\, so there’s no possibility of a ballot referendum for this project. I don’t know about any prior project\, but this is a project that does not require\, because it’s deemed consistent. It does not require a general plan\, amendment\, a specific plan\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: or a rezoning. I’m happy to answer any other questions about any of that. But I just thought it would be helpful to understand that specific legal context. Yeah\, well\, I appreciate that. And you also submitted a letter where you detailed a lot of this. So you’ve repeated a lot of that for us. So thank you. But \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, just to be clear for the board the purpose of the board\, and all the other groups that are going to be reviewing this \nYerba Buena SX80: we don’t start by saying\, this is a slam dunk. So let’s just give it\, you know\, approval. It comes across a bit like that. But so I know what the \nYerba Buena SX80: purpose of what you’re communicating is about. But let’s make sure that the processes that are defined in\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well regarded planning processes have the opportunity to proceed absolutely. I only wanted to speak to it because it came up in the beginning\, and I just thought it would be helpful to understand that context. But that’s the. And it’s it’s a useful context. So thank you very much. You’re welcome. Good \nYerba Buena SX80: and then to end. What I wanted to say is\, there are some. There are 5 metrics that we tried to meet. One was public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: and this is\, you know\, looking at what your purview is public access. So we’ve got the 12 foot esplanade and created 22% open space within the project area for public. One thing I forgot to mention is\, there’s a parallel walkway that’s up at Elevation 17 that goes to the cul-de-sac. So during sea level rise\, or if there’s any issues \nYerba Buena SX80: that will continue to be an open pathway for access along the shoreline. So we have something\, a little higher amenities. We have provided multiple amenities. We did see the abag comments we do provide a majority. Except for an 18 foot wide path. We have everything else that was asked for resilience. Again\, we do have that upper path. \nYerba Buena SX80: longevity\, the materials and the plant materials\, and the different site furnishings that we’ve proposed. We feel have a lot of longevity\, and having worked in Richmond for 35 years\, I kind of know what’s going to work\, and I know\, Gary\, you do\, too. And then\, as far as maintenance. This project will be maintained by the developer\, the public area will be maintained by the developer\, so it will not be a burden to the city of Richmond. With that I’d like to thank you \nYerba Buena SX80: and finish my presentation. Yeah\, thank you. Thank you\, Marcia. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, at this point we’ll move to public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: All clarifying questions. Maybe we’ll go to clarifying questions first\, st just to keep this in our usual sequence. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for the Board any clarifying questions\, Bob\, we’ll start with you. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair. I’ll try to be quick\, because I know we try to be quick on these things. But did you all consider water access like they have over at Vincent Park and what I used to call the Richmond Peninsula? That sounds like it has a different. I actually worked on that project a long time ago with Rhaa. But you know there’s some fishing steps and beaches. \nYerba Buena SX80: Did you consider that \nYerba Buena SX80: we did not consider that because Lucretia Edwards shoreline parks has a huge huge that that big stairway that comes down it has use or area\, for I think it’s like 50 feet wide\, and then then right on the the corner\, that whole thing has shoreline steps down. So we have. We have 3 areas that have public access within like \nYerba Buena SX80: couple 100 feet. And so we did not \nYerba Buena SX80: look at doing an additional step. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And and so that access is \nYerba Buena SX80: just steps. It’s not like you can’t necessarily get in the water. You can. Yeah\, we used to kayak off of those stairs\, so you just ported. Thank you. That’s good. That’s that’s helpful. Why\, only 3 feet of sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I say\, only because typically we say 3 feet minimum. \nYerba Buena SX80: That kind of goes back to mid century. Of course we’re already \nYerba Buena SX80: getting close to that\, and then 6 to 7 feet towards the end of the \nYerba Buena SX80: century. So if you’re only going with 3 feet\, it’s going to be difficult to adapt \nYerba Buena SX80: another 3 to we. Yeah\, we took it from projection from Noaa and the Ipcc the intergovernmental Panel for climate change and taking their considerations for environmental changes and local impacts. So it can be something that we could look into. And \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, okay\, thank you for that. I just want to point out that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the 3 feet is is the. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, the intermediate curve. Correct. So you don’t have much safety factor there\, and you also\, as the staff pointed out\, this is a V zone \nYerba Buena SX80: which means you have a high velocity wave action which \nYerba Buena SX80: requires a special foundation. If and when the building is in that zone in the future has to be on \nYerba Buena SX80: pile supports and needs a foot of free board\, etc. So \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I’ll talk about this later. But I’m a little concerned about the future exposure here. \nYerba Buena SX80: How much settlement is anticipated after development. I see there’s some fill to be placed. \nYerba Buena SX80: I understand from one of the comment letters that the area was surcharged to consolidate underlying fill. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if you add\, fill\, you’re going to probably consolidate the prior fill and or the subgrade further. Yes\, the intent is to surcharge the site for 6 to 12 months. So then\, after this\, then\, we will remove the surcharge material and then build the building\, so there won’t be any future. So so the finished grade on your sections is your finished grade \nYerba Buena SX80: concluding any settlement? \nYerba Buena SX80: What? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, after after settlement\, that’ll be our okay great. Thank you very much. That’s important. Why encroach into the shoreline band? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not trying to be smart there\, but I’m just kind of wondering if that is necessary\, because I’m a little concerned about that where you have a shoreline that seems kind of compressed in a V zone\, and you’re only designing for 3 feet of sea level rise. Why encroach into Bcdc. Shoreline band\, where it might be an opportunity to set back? \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe. Our team was trying to maximize the number of units within the the overall development. We were trying to get 100 units within that development and to and to do that with this product type a 3 story product type. That’s that’s how it laid out with roadways and Paseo’s and parking. And okay\, I kind of thought that was the case. But. \nYerba Buena SX80: The tide levels in your present in your exhibits are a little off. I was looking at the Richmond Peninsula. You might just want to look at that. And and I’ll have more to say about that. But\, \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s it’s what you presented. Wasn’t that far off of what you can get online. \nYerba Buena SX80: But those are from the \nYerba Buena SX80: the epic 83 to 2\,001 which is going to be updated. So it’s like over 20 years old. So you can just expect that the sea levels now are actually a couple of tenths of a foot higher. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, when those new title datum \nYerba Buena SX80: are released by Noaa. You’ll see that. So you probably just want to think about that. Get a coastal engineer or somebody to help you with that? Absolutely. Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. Other clarifying questions\, Tom. \nYerba Buena SX80: Go ahead. Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m confused on on something here in the letters that we’ve received. \nYerba Buena SX80: we have a letter from sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: Miller Star regalia\, and it talks about \nYerba Buena SX80: the pro the land use application \nYerba Buena SX80: and that it’s been deemed complete under the permit. Streaming \nYerba Buena SX80: act\, etc. And that is consistent with cities. \nYerba Buena SX80: land use\, regulations\, etc. So it makes it sound like everything’s going great. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we received another letter that said that there had been no response from the city \nYerba Buena SX80: to the application\, and it probably is kind of this is ha! If it’s happened\, it’s happened by default. \nYerba Buena SX80: because there was\, there is no position \nYerba Buena SX80: from the city. So my question is\, what? What is the the actual legal status in that regard? And has there been \nYerba Buena SX80: contact with the city? Is there a level of buy-in and and discussion going on with the city. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve been in regular contact with the city we’ve met with City before filing any applications. We’ve reached out and communicated with the city at various points. The city has \nYerba Buena SX80: largely\, in my view\, gone dark on us\, but the legal status of the project with respect to the city is exactly\, as I explained briefly\, the Permit streamlining act which has been on the deck\, on the statutes for decades provides that when you file a development application. An agency has 30 days to respond to that application and to determine\, based on its checklist whether the application is complete or not. \nYerba Buena SX80: If they don’t provide such a determination. The application is deemed complete as a matter of law\, and the Housing Accountability Act under recent changes. That I was involved in several years ago has a provision. That’s a similar provision that says that a project like this\, that’s 150 units or less. \nYerba Buena SX80: Once the application is deemed complete. The agency has 30 days to determine. This is in government Code section 6\, 5\, 5\, 8 9.5 J. 2 has 30 days to determine whether the application is consistent with its land use regulations\, and if they believe the application is not consistent\, they need to provide a letter to the applicant citing the provisions that they believe that are at issue\, and explaining why they believe the application is not \nYerba Buena SX80: consistent. And if an agency does not do that. Then you’re deemed consistent as a matter of law. That also happened in Richmond. So that is why these. That’s why it came up earlier\, and that’s why I brought up those 2 significant legal factors. That’s \nYerba Buena SX80: sets the stage for for the for the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: just a follow up. What is the plan going forward with city then. And it’s done via board and all that\, because you’re doing a concurrent process right? Bcdc and city\, yeah\, we’ve also filed Ceqa documentation with the city that’s been prepared by one of the strong\, regular \nYerba Buena SX80: consultants that prepare sequel documentation. We provided that to the city as well. I believe we’ve actually just now gotten\, or the consultant has now just received comments on that documentation that we provided a number of months ago. We’re not privy to that information at this point. But environmental review\, as you know\, environmental SQL review can happen at eirs\, mitigating exemptions\, etc. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve provided environmental documentation\, and I believe the city has just provided feedback\, finally\, to the consultant. But we need to coordinate with the city and try to figure out what the process is going to be with respect to the city going forward in terms of its hearing process. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. You’re welcome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Kristen\, go ahead. So this is a this is a pud you’ve submitted\, or are you looking for? Is there any environmental clearances you need? Or do you anticipate any? This is no Pud is a form of rezoning. This project requires a subdivision map. \nYerba Buena SX80: It may require design review\, but those are the only city approvals that are needed for this project\, and even a non legislative approval cannot involve discretion as this one does. And as a result\, Ceqa is on the table for that reason. So again\, we’ve prepared our outside consultant has prepared documentation\, demonstrating that the project is eligible for the infill exemption under Ceqa\, as well as \nYerba Buena SX80: separately satisfying 2 other SQL. Streamlining provisions\, 1\, 5\, 1\, 6\, 8\, and 1\, 5\, 1\, 8\, 3 of the SQL. Guidelines\, which are for essentially for projects that are consistent with the density levels established in a \nYerba Buena SX80: a local planning document\, like a general plan for which an environmental documentation was prepared\, where the project will not have new \nYerba Buena SX80: significant impacts that weren’t already previously identified\, which which is true here. This project will not have more impacts than we’re already analyzed in the city’s sequel documents for its general planning. Ir. Thank you. Just reading between the lines on all of this. It’s my guess that folks in the area are looking for something more dense and maybe more mixed. Use \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m making the assumption that you’re planning single family homes because those are \nYerba Buena SX80: probably what’s pencilling. Well\, in this economy\, where multifamily housing is not pencilling well\, is that that’s the kind of approach here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, you have to have a project that makes financial sense\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: for better or worse. Unfortunately\, many times projects at higher densities are not financially feasible and won’t happen for decades. If ever. This is a site\, I believe other developers\, to my understanding\, have looked at this site as well. And if the obligation is to develop it. \nYerba Buena SX80: something near a hundred 25 units per acre. Nothing will happen. The site will sit vacant for decades. \nYerba Buena SX80: This\, this is what’s financially feasible. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. And then my last question is\, there was mention of the Marina way. Wellness trail is the is the way that’s being incorporated through the adjacent street\, or how is that kind of being incorporated into the what? What’s the vision for that trail? And then how is that being incorporated? \nYerba Buena SX80: Excuse me\, Mike is actually working with placeworks and the trust for public land on that\, so he can answer a little bit more in detail. But at this point it we’re looking at doing it on the road. However\, we’re kind of talking a little bit about maybe taking that off off street and and putting in a class one. Yeah\, is that what we’re doing? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, currently\, right now\, it’s just designed as a shared street at the end of Marina way\, south in front of our project\, because that’s what fits with the city and their budget. And then it connects into the bay trail as it continues down the end\, and the vision for the Marina way. Wellness trail is like a really safe multimodal path\, the ultimate vision. Correct? Yeah. All the way from nodes or something along it is that is that correct? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, there’s there’s a section of the Welles trail that has been installed. And so it has separated bikeways. And then\, as there’s a section that’s going to have that as well. But at this end they’re trying to maximize in the iron Triangle neighborhood\, the separated because the traffic numbers are really low at the end of the street. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that was yeah. It’s a limit on space as well\, because there’s existing parking at the end of the terminal marina way south. So there’s no room to put in \nYerba Buena SX80: a protected bikeway. So that’s 1 of the design modifications to make it work. Okay\, thank you. Those are all my questions. Yeah\, I just want to confirm. So all the the homes on this site are for sale. Is that correct? Okay? And then there’s an affordable component to that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I know you went through that quickly. Can you just tell us how that how that works \nYerba Buena SX80: below market rate. For sale units. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see. So we have 10% would be the low income. I’m sorry. 30%\, 30 units. Sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s 10% and 30 30 adus. Is that correct? Yeah\, it’s 10% of the housing units. \nYerba Buena SX80: And to clarify that when I read that description\, it looked like it read as if \nYerba Buena SX80: the the adus it was 10% of the adus. But how does it split out between the larger homes and the adus. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry. Yeah. My apologies. It’s currently 10% \nYerba Buena SX80: of of the proposed home. So that would be 7 of the single family homes. And that is\, I believe that is a prerequisite of the city that we followed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. And then thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s see\, also was mentioned that it would be maintained by the developer. Is that the waterfront \nYerba Buena SX80: portion\, the frontage? Or is that the whole site? Or \nYerba Buena SX80: can you give me a detail on that\, as in past projects within the city of Richmond\, the Homeowners Association would take care of the area that is part of their property\, but it would be public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: So everything\, including the the Bay trail as well. The Bay trail itself has been\, is maintained by the city of Richmond\, the esplanade\, the concrete esplanade and the lighting. That’s part of a landscape and lighting district\, Marina Bay landscape and lighting district that takes care of that. And then I have one final question\, is it possible to pull up a Site plan? \nYerba Buena SX80: I was just curious. If if let’s say\, if you took one of the Northern units in the middle. And and you could just walk us through. How does that person get to the to the water? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, no worries. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is \nYerba Buena SX80: alright. So this area. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I apologize. So what we have are the north\, South. I’m sorry. East\, west we have these Paseo’s. I’m going to just delete the you can see that all these walkways\, all these Paseo’s come down here \nYerba Buena SX80: to this area right along the Wellness trail\, and then there are sidewalks on both sides that come down\, and there’s a crosswalk\, and this is the main funneling point here\, and then there’s also sidewalks right along the inside that come out. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a little boardwalk right here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, God\, sorry I have an old \nYerba Buena SX80: copy. There’s a boardwalk here\, there’s a walkway here\, there’s you know\, so so there are multiple points \nYerba Buena SX80: that people can get through. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I was just noticing that the green areas\, the Paseo’s connect to the to the road\, not to the water\, and I’m sure you must have had some conversations about that. Maybe you could just walk us through the thought process there. Okay\, so we have them connecting to the Wellness trail as well as there’s the sidewalks that go right down along each side that go right to the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let me just delete that. There we go. Now you can see it a little bit better. \nYerba Buena SX80: First.st \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, it’s really \nYerba Buena SX80: It gets down to kind of a simple density issue of. If you’re gonna turn those sales the other way and have to get the car circulation in there and stuff like that\, it would just require a lot more roadway and therefore less green space and fewer homes. So this was a way of trying to really get maximum \nYerba Buena SX80: efficiency out of the vehicular circulation. So we need the most room for open space residences and things like that. And we thought that the and the Paseo’s filtering to either out to Marina Bay\, south\, or to that interior street\, provides a good\, efficient. \nYerba Buena SX80: clear access to the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And those sidewalks are what like bye\, 6 feet something like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: 5 feet 5 feet. Got it? Okay. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Stefan\, thanks\, Jacinta. I just have one question related to adaptation. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, if I understand\, in the staff presentation\, the 66 inch end of century condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s some expectation of overtopping onto the bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is\, has the applicant considered adaptation strategies\, if and when \nYerba Buena SX80: the bay trail frontage would not be accessible. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s where we have an additional path adjacent to the homes. That is a public access path\, and that is up at a higher elevation. 3 feet above 4 feet above the \nYerba Buena SX80: existing bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for sea level rise of the adaptation we’re is\, is that the line that’s adjacent to the red line on the plan? Yes\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so the distance between the front of the units\, and that path is \nYerba Buena SX80: so. It’s right. That path is right adjacent to the. So the front yard opens up to that path\, and that’s a public access path. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then it connects to Marina way South cul-de-sac all the way down. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I’m just going to. I just want to clarify a couple of things. If you could bring up that site plan again. \nYerba Buena SX80: It was just difficult in the package to actually see the details. \nYerba Buena SX80: Look\, I think we’ve got online people participate participating. So if you could go back to the Site plan. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. Now\, if you could just shift\, well\, I’m just gonna say\, shift up. Yeah. And then if you could zoom in on the area immediately adjacent the Rosie\, the Riveter Museum. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Are you able to enlarge that at all \nYerba Buena SX80: right? So so just to walk. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just so\, I understand there is a basically a a service. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know if you’re calling that a paseo as well. But it’s the service road between the 2 units. So that’s the garage that people go in and out of. And when you get to the end\, can you just walk me through how people actually back around and turn around and get in and out? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, the the the alleyway extends a little\, you know\, 2\, 3\, 4 feet beyond the where the garage door is\, and that’s a pretty standard thing in parking lots and things like that where somebody’s backs out\, and they have room that that \nYerba Buena SX80: between their garage door and the curb on the other side there’s at least 24 feet\, which is pretty standard dimension for aisles. Drive aisles and things like that. So somebody does have the room to back up \nYerba Buena SX80: and then drive out directly. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. And then\, as we as we move\, I’m just gonna say\, left here\, towards the bay trail and the 100 foot shoreline band. And just for the benefit of everyone. Looking at this. \nYerba Buena SX80: the 100 foot shoreline band is that purple line right there? Correct? Yeah. So \nYerba Buena SX80: so the 100 foot shoreline band actually intersects with the front side of the Rosy the\, I should say\, about halfway along the Rosy\, the Riveter Museum. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the path that I think\, Stefan\, to your question. The path that we we’re told is the \nYerba Buena SX80: the path that would\, you know\, be an adaptation public access path \nYerba Buena SX80: then extends up\, but doesn’t. It’s at the moment it just cuts back into a house? Yeah. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I did have another question. So \nYerba Buena SX80: just from a design standpoint. Perhaps the architect could could explain. Front versus back versus side. It looks on the elevations like the sides. Really a typical side on it’s very plain elevation correct. Nothing much going on there\, except. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, a couple of bathroom windows\, or something like that bathroom windows\, some some bedroom window\, some additional bedside bedroom windows look real quickly at the second level\, where the main living spaces are. I think we’ve got at least some windows into the living rooms and dining rooms and things like that. But \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s really dictated a lot by what the \nYerba Buena SX80: anticipated furniture arrangements will be\, and stuff like that inside the in the inside the houses\, trying to make some furnishable. Yeah\, I mean\, so I mean\, it really looks to me like the intention architecturally is that you know the front of the house which you would expect is is facing the great views\, and you know the amenity in the trail\, and so on. So for the owners of each of those houses they have. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can you just describe how how you would describe to them what their front yard is \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s there’s the the upper level walkway that that Michael was describing\, and then there’s a a small \nYerba Buena SX80: landscape band in between that and their front porch\, and so that would essentially be their front yard. It’s \nYerba Buena SX80: so. So that that’s what they would imagine is their private garden\, if you like\, versus the public space. I guess\, in the sense that it’s on their lot. Yeah\, it’s it’s made. You guys can correct me if I’m wrong. But that’s a landscape\, the landscape that would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. So it’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: well is the property line\, the red line \nYerba Buena SX80: it? That’s the lot\, not the property line\, but the lot line. So the existing \nYerba Buena SX80: property line. I don’t see it on this retentional. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think their lot line\, I think\, actually\, is the back of the sidewalk. Yeah\, okay\, so yeah\, right\, the lot line is the red line. But yeah\, the property line is that dashed black line in the middle of the bay trail. Okay? Just so\, just so we clear on exactly what’s going on here. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, yes\, Stefan\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: Understanding that I believe that this site has a minimum density requirement. Do you do you agree with that statement \nYerba Buena SX80: that the Cm 5 has a minimum density requirement of 40 dwelling into the acre. \nYerba Buena SX80: The the regulation here is the general plan\, which is 0 to 125\, and again the zoning\, the zoning says\, 40 to 125. But the general plan\, the general plan is a higher level document in California land use law\, and again\, it’s been deemed consistent with the city’s regulations legally. So\, the general plan allowing \nYerba Buena SX80: down to 0\, allows the minimum density requirement of 40 to not be applicable. Correct. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, that was hopeful to see that in large. So thank you for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s the only question I have\, I think. Let me just double check that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, okay\, so I think that concludes clarifying questions. We will now move to public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we have\, received a number of public comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: written comments. And then we have in person or online comments. So actually\, should we do the in person 1st and then walk through the submitted comments\, we’ll do in person\, then online. And then anybody who hasn’t \nYerba Buena SX80: readdress their comments that they submitted. I will summarize those comments. Excellent! Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. Jordan\, the stabler cool. \nYerba Buena SX80: So hit the button. Okay\, got you? Good. Good evening\, everyone. Boy\, with all these blinking lights. I feel like I’m in the house soup computer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anyway\, I’m a my name’s Jordan distabler. I’m a resident of the Point Richmond district of Richmond\, and I’ve been resident there for 10 years\, and from Berkeley originally\, and for what it’s worth. My background is masters in landscape architecture. And I served on the Berkeley City Planning Commission. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know. It’s my understanding that the current iteration of this project has evolved to this point in the planning process due in large part to the city of Richmond’s somewhat dysfunctional aspect of failing to submit a project review letter in a timely fashion. \nYerba Buena SX80: And it’s my understanding\, you know. I’m all for housing\, being built on the site. I don’t have any criticisms of this this current iteration. However\, I think it’s totally inappropriate to be building single family housing \nYerba Buena SX80: on a site that is in per the general plan of 2030 city general plan is designating that as a high intensity usage area\, and particularly a transit oriented development site in the sense that the Richmond Ferry terminal is right\, you know\, within a thousand feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it makes no sense. And I realize that maybe the the financials don’t pan out to a higher density project at this point in time. I say\, you know\, there’s a growing demand for housing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it seems a shame to delegate waterfront living to single family housing\, when I think more people should be able to live on the \nYerba Buena SX80: on the shoreline in higher density medium to high density. I’m totally fine with that and I think we can do better here. And so I’m really against this current iteration. Nothing personal\, but I think we can do better\, and I’m just disappointed in the city of Richmond. We’re not doing their their jobs\, in my opinion. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, there’s like\, I said. There’s a lot of dysfunction in that city\, but I don’t think we should suffer for that \nYerba Buena SX80: because once these houses are built. They’re going to be there for decades\, and it’s a missed opportunity as far as I’m concerned. So thank you very much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Jordan. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just want to offer anyone online. If you could raise your hand for public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. I have 2 comments. One is the 1st one is Bruce Brubaker. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m going to unmute mute. If you could state your name and affiliation\, and you’ll have 3 min. \nBruce Brubaker: Hello! Can you hear me? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, we can hear you. \nBruce Brubaker: Thank you. I am going to make a couple comments about the Richmond Wellness Trail. \nBruce Brubaker: The way the Wellness trail is being planned currently is a Class 4\, \nBruce Brubaker: protected bike lane on each side\, north of Hall Street. \nBruce Brubaker: where this project is\, is proposed to be a class 3. Sherro’s project and \nBruce Brubaker: I have 3 points to make. About that. One is to switch from the class 4 lanes down to a share. Rows is confusing for bus cyclists \nBruce Brubaker: and you know\, just isn’t clear and might be hazardous to make that switch. \nBruce Brubaker: I want to also make the point that there’s going to be additional traffic here. If this project moves forward. \nBruce Brubaker: That will be using that street where the where the share owes is \nBruce Brubaker: are not only coming into the street. But there’s additional traffic now\, because of this project. All vehicles entering the project will be going down that street Marine way south to go into the project. So there’s additional traffic there. I also want to point out that the plan shows that there’s perpendicular parking \nBruce Brubaker: that the project is planning along that stretch of Marina way south\, so that cars would actually back up into the street where there are sherrows \nBruce Brubaker: and bikes are sharing with with the vehicles. So I think I think that \nBruce Brubaker: the the project should have a better connection from the Wellness trail north of Hall to the Bay trail rather than going to Sherrow’s\, and one of the ways that that could happen \nBruce Brubaker: is to continue the Class 4 trail \nBruce Brubaker: to the bay trail\, and that would mean reducing or eliminating some parking\, some parallel parking \nBruce Brubaker: on a block\, and another way to do it would be to to make it a more slow shared street\, so in some way change the paving. \nBruce Brubaker: or make additional efforts to narrow the street in a way that makes it safe for cars and vehicles to share. So \nBruce Brubaker: that’s my comment. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you very much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next\, I have Ahmad Anderson. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to do for sex? Oh\, I thought you wanted to do that. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, okay\, to unlock them. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry about that\, Ahmad. You’ll you’re next. If you could please state your name and affiliation\, you’ll have 3 min. Thank you. \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): Good evening. My name is Aman Anderson. I am a former economic development chair of the Economic Development Commission for the City of Richmond. Also\, I’ll give you some background. My mom was the former mayor of the city of Richmond\, who led the drive to bring the ferry back to the city of Richmond. \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): with the hopes that there would be this opportunity\, not necessarily for single housing\, but knowing the need of crisis for housing\, as we begin to look at the general plan and the great\, the greatness need for a mixed use. \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): The other thought process is\, I’m concerned\, like the 1st caller\, that the city of Richmond slept on this opportunity to hear the voice of the people and the voice of the people who were concerned about not only congestion\, but also seeing that way for the use of transportation \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): between the iron triangle\, safety for bicyclists\, safety for commuters at the same time\, but most importantly\, the voice of the people have said\, single family housing is not the direction they want to go \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): from Economic Development Commissioner standpoint. I I do agree that we in the city of Richmond. We do have some dysfunctions\, but there are voices that are crying out for you to take a moment to pause. Think about the good that this can do if we take a moment to really step back and focus \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): on what the folks need in the city of Richmond from housing\, better transportation\, safety\, and environmental concerns as well. I thank you very much for your time\, and have a good night. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you very much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Next I have Bruce Bayard \nYerba Buena SX80: going to unmute you\, and you have 3 min. \nBruce Beyaert: Am I unmuted. \nYerba Buena SX80: You are unmuted. We can hear you. \nBruce Beyaert: Thank you. Chair Mccann\, members of the board. My name is Bruce Byert. I’m the chair of track. The trails for Richmond Action Committee. \nBruce Beyaert: First.st I’d like to say that we support the comments made by Lee. Ho! Of Mtc’s Bay Trail group. \nBruce Beyaert: They’re very good and include the fact that bay trail should be widened to comply with the current design guidelines\, and\, moreover\, it seems\, from the staff presentation it should be elevated to allow for sea level rise. If I could have sheet 6 of the plans\, please. I’d like to address the need \nBruce Beyaert: to provide. Move the development back. So there’s more public access. \nBruce Beyaert: If you look at sheet 6 project sections\, you will see it’s counted as public space. \nBruce Beyaert: The landscaping adjacent to the front of the house. The front door of the house is public space. If you can believe that \nBruce Beyaert: in addition\, the 5 foot wide sidewalk is deemed public space\, and that is how people and service personnel and deliveries get to the front door of the house. How is that public space? \nBruce Beyaert: In fact\, you see the cross section here. There is\, in fact\, only about 15 to 20 foot \nBruce Beyaert: of the private property \nBruce Beyaert: inland of the of the property line that is really accessible public street\, other than the \nBruce Beyaert: 11 or 12 feet that’s adjacent to the front wall of the house. \nBruce Beyaert: The city of Richmond’s shoreline overlay district zoning \nBruce Beyaert: requires that there be no non-marine non water related property. \nYerba Buena SX80: Within the 100 foot band\, but unfortunately that was legally deemed complete. So I hope you can remedy that. \nBruce Beyaert: By moving the houses back out of the 100 foot band\, as well as a sidewalk and landscaping adjacent to the house\, and providing access to the house. \nBruce Beyaert: This clearly sure provided maximum feasible public access to the shoreline. \nBruce Beyaert: It’s very strange that the only way that people can get to their front door is using a public path. \nBruce Beyaert: and the public will not feel it to be very public. Walking immediately adjacent to somebody’s front door \nBruce Beyaert: and their front yard 6 foot wide landscaping \nBruce Beyaert: site. So thank you very much for this opportunity to comment\, and I hope that the problems in this plan can be remedied by Bcdc. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Chair. That’s the end of public comments online. Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Additionally\, Staff received the following public comments that have been distributed to the board and posted to the website in the order of reception from Tom Butt\, a Richmond Resident commented that \nYerba Buena SX80: the design is a suburban development of 20 units\, an acre on a site that is supposed to be a dense transit\, oriented development. The design does not take advantage of its base setting in that most of the homes have no water view\, and look across the street at other houses\, and that the houses located within the 100 foot \nYerba Buena SX80: within 100 feet of the mean high water line conflicts with the city’s shoreline overlay district ordinance for allowable structures that States quote no non water. Related structures are permitted outright within the 100 foot tidal buffer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lee\, Wo. From Mtc. Bay trail commented that the proposed project will have a significant impact on the level of use and demand for the bay trail\, with the additional units. In addition to existing high use and demand from nearby destinations. Consider increasing the capacity of the bay trail. Currently\, it’s roughly 12 feet in width\, but per the Bay trail guidelines it should be a minimum of 18 foot corridor with additional width. Considered for areas of higher use. \nYerba Buena SX80: there is opportunity to improve the existing nearby bay trail\, since the pavement for the existing trail is in need of repaving and rebuilding. \nYerba Buena SX80: consider public access improvements that could\, that would complement or support the Rosie. The riveter programs and activities\, including an area to congregate rest and picnic. \nYerba Buena SX80: Other improvements may be interpretation materials or a themed play area. As there are a few playgrounds in the area \nYerba Buena SX80: amenities serving the bay trail like water\, fill stations and bike repair stations. \nYerba Buena SX80: Consider additional seating and viewpoint viewpoint areas to take advantage of the natural viewpoints along this frontage. \nYerba Buena SX80: improving connections to the Bay trail and the shoreline in coordination with the Richmond Wellness trail and adjacent sites\, and the current design creates a barrier between the bay trail and the public space and the development itself. He encourages more gradual and seamless transitions from private to public. In order to minimize the quote private feel of the waterfront \nYerba Buena SX80: we received a public comment from the attorney for the developer\, Brian Winter. He’s gone over his comments\, so I won’t repeat those \nYerba Buena SX80: from the Trust for public land. They’re the developers of the Richmond Wellness Trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: they commented. The proposed Marina Point development greatly diminishes sight lines to the shoreline and falls short of enhancing public access and use of the waterfront open space. The proximity of the proposed homes to the public waterfront and bay trail disrupts the visual and physical connection. \nYerba Buena SX80: The proposed housing development does not acknowledge the adjacency to the Rosie of the River National Historic Park site. It diminishes the Museum building and its visibility and does not elevate the significance of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: The small picnic area and play areas on the southeast side of the project site are not well integrated into the public interface with the Bay trail\, and should be reconsidered to adequately serve the needs of trail users and the community. \nYerba Buena SX80: The proposed pull-in parking along Marina way\, south conflicts with the trails shared Bike Lane\, creating safety hazards. There are also concerns that the vehicular traffic in and out of the development will further compromise cyclist and pedestrian safety in the area. Their recommendations include providing a larger\, buffer zone \nYerba Buena SX80: along the shoreline\, enhancing the significance of the Rosa Riveter Museum\, including providing better visual access\, provide public park access\, and incorporate the proposed park into the existing open space system as a publicly accessible space. Take bicycle safety measures\, including reevaluating the Pull-in parking along Marina way south to reduce the conflicts of the Bike lane. \nYerba Buena SX80: We received a public comment from Bruce Bayer\, who just did his own \nYerba Buena SX80: public comment. And then\, finally\, this afternoon we received a comment from Lyzel Ayon of Caltrans\, stating the agency is interested in engaging in the multi-agency and regional collaboration to find multi-benefit solutions that protect vulnerable shorelines\, communities infrastructure and the environment emphasizing that any adaptation measures should be coordinated and consistent with any potential countywide efforts for shoreline adaptation\, climate adaptation and vulnerability assessments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Those were the letters that we received. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Ashley. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I do want to thank everyone who’s provided either in person or written comments. These are extremely helpful and valuable\, because\, I would have to say\, you know\, we really are at the beginning of a process here\, even though it might seem like it’s a long way down the track. I noted that \nYerba Buena SX80: to date. There have been 3 public meetings held one with the community\, and for a project of this importance significance\, you know\, per the general plan per many of the comments here. One would have to expect that there is a realistic\, legitimate community process that will allow \nYerba Buena SX80: response from the proponent and and response in terms of you know how the development is approached. So thank you all for your comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, now\, with that we’ll move to the board discussion and summary\, and just for the proponents. This really is the opportunity for the board to share reactions\, ideas. We don’t typically engage with the proponent during this stage of the meeting. But at the end of the meeting we do. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know we do provide an opportunity for the proponent to respond. So with that\, I just want to frame this frame\, this for the for the board\, so that we are \nYerba Buena SX80: keeping ourselves on track here. At the beginning of the \nYerba Buena SX80: meeting we were given some guidance. Let me just get to the right piece of paper to make sure I stay on track. \nYerba Buena SX80: so the staff reminded us\, and and the proponent as well\, talked about the \nYerba Buena SX80: the core access\, the core. Public access objectives that we always focus on. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know the degree that public access is public and fills public\, the usability of the public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: the visual access making sure that it’s enhancing visual access to the bay and the shoreline enhancing the visual quality of the bay shoreline\, the adjacent developments. In this case there are some very significant adjacent developments providing connections to continuity along the shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: and again\, in this case it is at a very critical node. So we need to make sure we take that that particular point thoughtfully and carefully\, taking advantage of the base setting. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then making sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: the public access is compatible with the wildlife wildlife. So Staff have asked us to \nYerba Buena SX80: focus in on 4 particular questions that will help staff as they continue to engage with this project. So the 1st question is\, does the project design enhance the user’s access to\, and the experience of the shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what what other opportunities are there to build connections\, or to further improve the existing public access as part of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s really wrapping. You know\, our our dialogue should really really focus in on all related \nYerba Buena SX80: thoughts and questions in relation to access. Second question\, does the project is designed provide sufficient capacity for future adaptation strategies? \nYerba Buena SX80: And what could be done to the current design? What could be incorporated to make sure that shoreline \nYerba Buena SX80: changes in the future are able to be absorbed. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then the 3rd question\, Does does the landscaping and the fitness program along the eastern edge of the development\, read as a public connection to the shoreline. And what design recommendations would we provide to encourage public use for these areas? \nYerba Buena SX80: And then some comments on the. We didn’t hear a lot of detail in the presentation\, but any reaction to the proposed plant and material palettes which were in the package. So we should certainly comment on those. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So \nYerba Buena SX80: what I’d like to do as we usually do is just ask each member of the board to maybe focus in on particular aspects of any of these questions that you want to pick up on in in your comments. And then in our dialogue. So \nYerba Buena SX80: who would like to kick off kristen? Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think I have. Let’s see maybe 3 buckets of comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think. The 1st is about the waterfront itself\, and the design of the waterfront and \nYerba Buena SX80: the kind of de minimis dimensions of that public access along the waterfront. And I think the fact that a few board members were alluding to in our earlier questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: that these paths are very narrow. They don’t feel very public\, particularly the one that is sort of just a path to door yards and not really connecting \nYerba Buena SX80: between public paths. Public paths should connect to each other and have more permeability and accessibility\, and I think at least one of these paths should at least meet the minimum bay trail dimensions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think if we were aiming to have a great waterfront experience\, it should at least meet the minimum Bcdc requirements which are the minimum dimensions. Sea level rise\, access during sea level rise events\, and it sounds like wave run up is a big issue. And so maybe just taking a 3 foot elevation is not quite actually providing the right level of access. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s also difficult to say that this park. \nYerba Buena SX80: in this setting\, next to the Rosie\, the Riveter Museum\, next to a ferry landing next to a kind of a commercial area and waterfront parks. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s very difficult to say that this space is meeting public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: Given the encroachment of these townhomes into that 100 foot band\, and also the very kind of minimal \nYerba Buena SX80: attention to design in that band. So I think those 2 things combined. It doesn’t feel generous spatially\, and it doesn’t feel generous from a design perspective. And I think it’s really a missed opportunity. I mean \nYerba Buena SX80: this site. Actually\, you’re kind of missing the thing that’s so great about this site\, which is the waterfront. \nYerba Buena SX80: And in some ways this feels like a feasibility study turned into a master plan \nYerba Buena SX80: with some landscape around the edges. \nYerba Buena SX80: and not really a great master plan for such a fantastic waterfront site. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I really understand the feasibility issues right now with housing. It’s really\, I mean\, housing is hard to develop right now. But I do think that \nYerba Buena SX80: this site\, is it? It’s sort of undermining its own value with the current design\, particularly at the waterfront. \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess one more. One more point just on access is\, I do think that the bike lanes \nYerba Buena SX80: are not really meeting the goals of the Wellness trail\, and having safer\, more visible\, more connected bike lanes. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I know it’s challenging sometimes within a section to get those bike lanes working. So maybe\, look. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, beyond the street section itself. \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe look at the site itself for how to get bike access to the waterfront more safely\, particularly where the bike lanes are just kind of going straight through the cul-de-sac at the end. That feels \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of dangerous\, actually and then just one more point about the density. It’s my understanding that \nYerba Buena SX80: actually\, where \nYerba Buena SX80: general plan and zoning\, where there’s inconsistency between general plan and zoning\, the greater shall prevail. I believe that’s Ab. 2\, 34\, and the point of all of these State density bonuses is not to build housing at any cost. It’s to build more housing\, more dense housing\, more affordable housing. I’m not a lawyer. So obviously\, I defer to the lawyers on this. But \nYerba Buena SX80: I do. It does sound like the intention of the city is to have a more dense \nYerba Buena SX80: mixed use kind of a node here\, and so it’s hard to put that together with the kind of minimal waterfront design and say that this is meeting the intent of all of the plans. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, these are good points. And I think\, \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m just gonna sort of speak \nYerba Buena SX80: jump in. If you don’t agree with what I’m going to say\, but I think the Board would \nYerba Buena SX80: have general agreement with what you’re you’ve just said so\, I think\, and and I like the way in which you have\, you know\, been very clear about the sort of the buckets of comments here. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think what we should do is just continue to. I mean\, I I continue to build out the other \nYerba Buena SX80: issues that are of concern relative to visual access safety access\, the bay trail itself. Let’s let’s just keep moving on those important topics and others that are important\, Tom\, do you want to \nYerba Buena SX80: jump in? \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, yeah\, I think we all agree with the kind of the basic observations of \nYerba Buena SX80: how we appropriately feel that this plan is on this site. \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: I think this is probably the single\, most valuable and important parcel in the whole city of Richmond. \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of how this the future city is going to develop with respect \nYerba Buena SX80: to its number one visitor site which is rosy\, the river. That’s a number one tourist attraction \nYerba Buena SX80: to the Craneway pavilion where the public activities are supported there\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: the the position along the the waterfront\, and of course the the ferry terminal. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a new. This\, you know\, when people mention transit or in development. That’s what they’re talking about. \nYerba Buena SX80: Transportation\, too. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it would seem to indicate what the plan\, what the planning calls for\, which is high intensity\, mixed use\, etc\, etc. You know \nYerba Buena SX80: something that basically possible in this market. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, I don’t know if that’s really true. I know people’s judgment developers. Judgment in Richmond is that only single family housing can work\, and I don’t know if I understand or believe that. But that’s what comes through. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know that David Trachtenberg has done a pretty nice project called the Point. \nYerba Buena SX80: with a whole series of 3 story attached townhouses with a lot more density\, and they’ve he’s also provided space for a public cafe and some other things that are amenities for the public. \nYerba Buena SX80: I feel like the pushing into the shoreline band \nYerba Buena SX80: when we approve stuff like that is because the there’s something the public’s getting. We’re not getting any public like anything out of the units being over the line. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that it should pull back \nYerba Buena SX80: behind the line number one. It should be a major public promenade of the amenities and scale that Marcia talked about already\, but much more expanded \nYerba Buena SX80: building on this incredible history\, and the views and the experience of the public expanding down the shoreline from from Rosa River\, expanding from Cranley Pavilion \nYerba Buena SX80: to create a public amenity\, a piece of public domain \nYerba Buena SX80: that is really major and significant. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it it’s true that if if you require all these things\, then how’s project gonna pencil? Just take our ball and go home. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would offer personally that I would trade \nYerba Buena SX80: won the 1st Level facing out onto this promenade \nYerba Buena SX80: for space\, which is a public use. \nYerba Buena SX80: whether it’s public\, supporting\, commercial or retail\, or anything like that\, and then stack up \nYerba Buena SX80: on top of that to the degree possible\, and then go forward with the plan. Maybe that would pencil. Maybe this could be a negotiation that could be considered in the current market. Understanding where we are\, I’d rather see \nYerba Buena SX80: much more dense project\, but I don’t not sure it’ll ever happen\, and we are under pressure to approve \nYerba Buena SX80: housing in this state. Now\, there’s there’s a lot of legislation\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: so forth\, that is pushing hard on this\, and people that don’t get with it\, you know\, they just get pushed to the side also. So I think there’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: potential negotiation over public domain that could be productive \nYerba Buena SX80: for this site and instill pencil for your project. Maybe \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s why I have a lot of things to say. But that’s my main point. \nYerba Buena SX80: Tom\, can I build on that just and if we could get the plan up. \nYerba Buena SX80: if someone could put the plan up \nYerba Buena SX80: because\, Tom\, one of the things that I think you know\, we’re all gonna be saying in different ways\, you know\, is the. \nYerba Buena SX80: But with the same conclusion is that the fact that so much of the housing is inside the 100 foot shoreline band that we simply run out of room to do the things that are the basic provisions that need to occur within the 100 foot shoreline band. For a variety of reasons\, visual access\, public access\, environmental conditions\, adaptation\, vulnerability. The list goes on\, and so we are faced with \nYerba Buena SX80: in fact\, I can’t even really think of a project that we’ve reviewed before that has this level of compromise in \nYerba Buena SX80: a section of the Bay trail which is in such an important area. Yeah. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, one thing that occurred to me is\, you know\, in the art of compromise. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m just gonna \nYerba Buena SX80: say something here that we may. You know this is just the sort of process that I would hope \nYerba Buena SX80: that the development team is going through. So if you think about the importance of the bay trail in this segment\, and you look at \nYerba Buena SX80: the adjacent conditions to the Rosie\, the Riverdo Museum\, and it seems just \nYerba Buena SX80: impossible to me to have a single family home\, you know\, within \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know 8 feet 10 feet. Whatever the offset is from from that very important \nYerba Buena SX80: regionally\, actually\, nationally important venue. So you know\, could you pick up those 4 houses? \nYerba Buena SX80: And could you say \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re going to? I mean\, because this is for the people sitting over here. This is often the type of dialogue that we have. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re going to give you something because it’s within\, you know\, we’re going to give you something\, and you give us something. So if we took those 4 houses \nYerba Buena SX80: out \nYerba Buena SX80: on the basis that we want to create a meaningful plaza\, a meaningful transition. Widen the bay trail\, put in appropriate buffers\, landscape it appropriately. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then there are 4 houses that in the developer’s world have to be put somewhere else to make the project stack up. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well. \nYerba Buena SX80: could you get creative\, you know? Could you attach a couple of the houses. Could you rethink that park in the middle that\, you know? Really? Do they need that park when there’s all the playgrounds and all of the waterfront to enjoy\, and perhaps a really much\, you know\, a much bigger space. Now I’m just thinking aloud. But this is the sort of this is the sort of thing that I would hope a development team would be going through this\, you know. Could you? Could you attach 5 or 6 houses at the back. And okay\, let’s \nYerba Buena SX80: less money. But at the moment\, you know\, less expensive real estate. But at the moment they’re on the backside facing industrial developments\, anyway. So what’s their sale price going to be like compared to you know the front? So \nYerba Buena SX80: this is the I just think that there is such a compromise on the bay trail and the \nYerba Buena SX80: and the shoreline band. As you progress towards the you know the core of this node that’s so critical for Richmond. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m going to stop there. But I’m just\, you know\, respond\, please. Others\, you know\, to to this theoretical \nYerba Buena SX80: possibility that I’m putting out there. \nYerba Buena SX80: I like the approach. I mean\, I\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: thinking creatively about the site. Could you have more height in the back\, and you would have attached units\, but at the same time those units would have views that they don’t have now. So\, you know\, is there some way of you know\, mixing it up a little bit. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I completely understand that having similar unit types\, you know\, repeated this many times\, that there’s an economy of scale there. But you just kind of wonder if there’s if there’s some room \nYerba Buena SX80: for flexibility there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, to get the units out of at least some units out of the shoreline band. I mean\, we’re all practical people. We have \nYerba Buena SX80: lived working with projects that we need to succeed all of our careers. So you know the we’re not here to block. But but we are here to protect the public interests in the bay trail and \nYerba Buena SX80: and to protect the future in the face of sea level rise. And I just find that this current proposal is really difficult to accept the way it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: presented at the moment. So Stefan\, jump in. Yeah\, I just want to say. I mean\, I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: I would like to say out loud that \nYerba Buena SX80: you know our our focus is on the \nYerba Buena SX80: public access and the nature of public space in the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we see many projects where the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the full benefit of the public space is not compromised by what’s \nYerba Buena SX80: proposed in the private portion of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think that what we’re struggling with here is that this is this feels very much like a case where what’s being proposed in the private portion of the project is really compromising. \nYerba Buena SX80: The potential for public space? So you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s not in our nature to comment on \nYerba Buena SX80: on the buildings and the nature of the design. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I would say that maybe sort of the the assumption here that 100 \nYerba Buena SX80: identical units should be the basis for the build out of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is probably more central to a \nYerba Buena SX80: effective solution than in other locations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I would say that \nYerba Buena SX80: Even this architect has done much more innovative fee\, simple configurations \nYerba Buena SX80: within a few miles of the site \nYerba Buena SX80: that I think would bring benefit to this location. \nYerba Buena SX80: In Hercules there is the Bayside Development\, which my memory is \nYerba Buena SX80: about 335 units on 13 acres\, and it is one predominantly one and 2 units \nYerba Buena SX80: fee simple buildings\, many of which are on \nYerba Buena SX80: 26 by 45 foot parcels. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that neighborhood now is over a decade old and feels very good. \nYerba Buena SX80: and one of the key elements\, I think that makes that neighborhood special is that the the entry to the \nYerba Buena SX80: the units is actually separated\, vertically from the street space. \nYerba Buena SX80: Through a sort of a traditional stoop design \nYerba Buena SX80: which this project\, I think could benefit from \nYerba Buena SX80: and nearby the Bayside project is the promenade Development\, which is now on almost 20 years old. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where there are fee simple townhouses over live workspaces\, again on postage\, stamp parcels\, and that benefit from a situation where the alley \nYerba Buena SX80: is higher in elevation than the entry at the street\, which is similar situation that you have. \nYerba Buena SX80: And both of those scenarios could provide you with a little bit more breathing room \nYerba Buena SX80: at the edge. And I think would also benefit from \nYerba Buena SX80: creating a more public condition without you needing to revert to \nYerba Buena SX80: a mixed use or non fee\, simple configuration \nYerba Buena SX80: and so I would urge you to. I think\, if you are going to \nYerba Buena SX80: continue to think about this site as a townhouse location for townhouses or \nYerba Buena SX80: houses in a townhouse configuration. I would urge you to think more creatively about the site planning\, because I think that that would actually be instrumental in \nYerba Buena SX80: opening up the public view corridors and \nYerba Buena SX80: the public access at the shoreline that would \nYerba Buena SX80: meet many of the comments that we’ve made here today\, but also that have been recorded in the letters from others. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Stefan. Bob. Go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. See if I can \nYerba Buena SX80: look at people when I talk so. You know. So I’m a coastal engineer\, civil engineer\, and I’m really concerned about the limited amount of space \nYerba Buena SX80: for wave dissipation with sea level rise. I really the the bay trail \nYerba Buena SX80: will not be able to stay where it is with sea level rise. So there needs to be space to move it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and you haven’t\, in my view\, provided enough space for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think you need I think there’s a need for an adaptation plan that addresses sea level rise 3 feet is\, I would say\, the minimum. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it should address higher amounts of sea level rise within the forecasting period \nYerba Buena SX80: or the life of the development \nYerba Buena SX80: and being careful to note that there are implications. If Fema mounts \nYerba Buena SX80: residential properties into the flood zone in the future \nYerba Buena SX80: they have. That’s a big issue for property owners. \nYerba Buena SX80: So besides\, the fact that there’s a real risk of damage and anything they were to that those houses would not really be accessible during certain conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: It wouldn’t be safe for people or bicycles or anything. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t. I mean\, I appreciate the \nYerba Buena SX80: interest in compromising with\, you know\, 5 of the units\, but I think all the the Bayside units should be moved out of the shoreline band \nYerba Buena SX80: from my perspective as a coastal engineer\, considering sea level rise. That’s kind of my\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: strong opinion on this. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just don’t think it works \nYerba Buena SX80: plus it would. It’s a great site to have space. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. I mean\, you can see down the bay \nYerba Buena SX80: it. One of the reasons why there. There are wave issues. There is because there is a fetch down into the bay\, and when the winds blow out of the south during storms there are waves. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t see any profiles that show how deep the water is. I know\, over at the Richmond Peninsula there’s a pretty good mud flat at low tide. I’m not sure that’s the case here. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so I’m also concerned that I don’t think this topic has been given adequate attention \nYerba Buena SX80: in the in the development of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I’m a pretty strong negative \nYerba Buena SX80: vote on this on this plan. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And Bob\, just to be accurate\, you know\, I mean that \nYerba Buena SX80: throwing out\, can you? That statement? Can you shift 4 of the houses? I mean the the real \nYerba Buena SX80: purpose of saying that is just to try and open. I like where you’re going with it. I it’s just that. I I you know it doesn’t really change where I’m coming from for everyone else to consider\, and I just want to be really clear about it. I am an engineer. I’ve done a lot of coastal work. I’m not comfortable with the design. That’s this way\, I feel about it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So I think we’ve really covered the topic of access experience of the shoreline. And I would say\, the level of detail in these submissions is extremely helpful\, I think\, to Staff as well. I don’t think we need to reiterate them\, but there were a series of points made about. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, enhancing the quality of experience for the for people walking or or cycling\, adequate seating\, and so on\, some excellent comments which I would just endorse all of the comments that were made on those from those aspects. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, Bob\, you’ve been addressing? Question 2. Very clearly. \nYerba Buena SX80: can I make a comment about 2? Yes\, go ahead. Regarding the adaptation. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, Bob\, you covered that super. Well\, I just want to say that the mitigation\, if there was any in the future that would happen by the Homeowners Association. So you know\, that is a pretty big lift to do coastal engineering\, you know\, for a small group like that. And then with the 10% affordable units\, it kind of reduces the pool that I think you could draw on to get funds\, you know\, to actually do that work. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if we’re already not as high above sea level as we would like to be\, and that adaptation comes sooner than normal or sooner than we think\, and it seems like sea level rise is always accelerating\, not decreasing. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s it’s not. It’s a logarithmic curve. I think that should be taken into account. Because this is for sale housing. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And just to make a \nYerba Buena SX80: just an additional point about that\, you know\, we we frequently \nYerba Buena SX80: fairly frequently see see projects where there is some incursion into the 100 foot shoreline band. But\, you know\, when it’s a parking garage or a \nYerba Buena SX80: office building or a restaurant\, you know\, we see all sorts of different buildings in that May come into the zone some distance\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: we always take a different point of view with housing\, because housing is a 24 HA day occupied use. It’s not\, you know an office where people are there 9 to 5\, and it’s\, you know\, not there on the weekends. And so there is a level of \nYerba Buena SX80: enhanced \nYerba Buena SX80: risk going back to question 2\, you know\, in relation to future adaptation. I just think the question is much more serious when it is housing versus other land uses. So \nYerba Buena SX80: just to make that point. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, just moving to question 3. There’s the fitness program along the corner of the development. And we saw we’ve seen. We have the plan here. We saw a rendering. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. The fitness is there again\, you know. Good to have the facilities very close to. It’s very. They’re very close to the house on the corner\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess everyone would coexist there. Yeah\, if you can just go in a little further. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, I like the fact that that \nYerba Buena SX80: that I think the team’s done a nice job of putting something there. That bicycle \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, bicyclists and others can\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, use? It’s a it’s a great functional area. I I \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that along well\, just consistent with the comments we’ve made already. I think it’s it’s a fairly \nYerba Buena SX80: tight the way it’s positioned there. But \nYerba Buena SX80: any other thoughts on that to help the staff on this point\, Tom. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s working elsewhere. Put a fitness center there on the corner. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s simple. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gary\, any other thoughts on that are those private patios that are facing to the east. Well\, the side. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I\, I there could be great changes. Well\, there\, I’m not quite sure against the path\, like retaining more. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, yeah\, I I don’t know what to say. I’m I think it’s good. The residents open to that to those green spaces. It does have a little bit the effect of making it feel more private\, perhaps. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think I would say to remove that. I guess it’s just something to to factor into the whole site plan and see how to compensate. And I think we’ve made comments pretty \nYerba Buena SX80: clearly now about sort of perception of private private versus public. And you know that’s something which is again a very fundamental concern of you know how people feel when they’re \nYerba Buena SX80: using the bay trail\, biking or walking or exercising. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, they will be within very close proximity of houses. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think there’s a few things here that specifically. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, I would hope this whole area could become more generous and a little bit more \nYerba Buena SX80: thoughtful in terms of accessibility. I think a few specific things the way that this path that connects to the door fronts of each of those \nYerba Buena SX80: connects back to the sidewalk and doesn’t have any \nYerba Buena SX80: or many other cross connections between the bay trail\, and this path\, I think\, helps make it feel much more privatized. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the grade change makes it feel like a front walk for those units grade changes\, Stefan pointed out\, is a great way to differentiate between a public and private realm\, and I think even having a stoop or some other kind of social distance between the front door and the \nYerba Buena SX80: a public path helps a lot. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the fact that there is this kind of landscape moat between that path and then this other path\, which is sort of seems like the public path\, I think\, also helps define that to make it feel much more private rather than a public path there \nYerba Buena SX80: and then\, also the small scale of it. The fact that it’s\, you know\, kind of a \nYerba Buena SX80: interior sidewalk scale rather than a public path along the waterfront sort of scale. I think all of those features \nYerba Buena SX80: contribute to the fact that it feels that feels like a private frontage separated from a public path\, and then on the bay trail portion of it. In the fact that there’s \nYerba Buena SX80: very little furniture. There’s almost no seating. There’s a kind of a small little gesture to a plaza entry \nYerba Buena SX80: to the interior of the site\, but it again\, because that kind of compresses\, then\, between these 2 single family homes that doesn’t feel sort of like an inviting access either. So a lot of kind of scale factors going into the way that this is feeling very privatized just to be specific. Yes\, and I think the I mean\, I want to commend the landscape architect on \nYerba Buena SX80: trying to include a program of lots of different activities. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s just insufficient space to allow each of those activities to exist in a way that feels very comfortable in public. The plaza mid block. If we just go up a little more to where the mid block walk is or the mid \nYerba Buena SX80: development walkies. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, just yeah. Where the plaza is. And the seating steps\, you know\, if you \nYerba Buena SX80: if you think about how people the general public would feel\, you know. Let’s just say an educational group stop there. And 20 people sitting on those stairs. The relationship to the front door of the house is a matter of you know\, it’s it’s 6 or 8 feet away. And \nYerba Buena SX80: I think again\, just that perception of public and private and and uncomfortableness with that proximity or lack of sense of it being really public\, will come into play there. It’s just too tight. \nYerba Buena SX80: So just a general question about the Site plan\, I mean or not a question\, but a comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s something about those green spaces going east\, West that that kind of you know. The view corridors into the property line and the Marina Marina way south. \nYerba Buena SX80: and if they were rotated 90 degrees\, I completely understand that it compromises the density\, as as you’ve said\, and then the question is. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, could you do anything to compensate for that? If the if those green spaces were running north\, south\, or maybe there was one green space running north south. Then from from the \nYerba Buena SX80: bay trail\, you know\, you could get some visual borrowing into the site\, even though it’s private\, and I think it would still give a feeling of openness to people passing by if there were\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: one or 2 of those events. And then \nYerba Buena SX80: which brings me to another comment about just the scale \nYerba Buena SX80: of the buildings in juxtaposition to the Ford plant. Which is this magnificent behemoth. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. That’s gotten all these\, you know\, national honor awards\, and you know it’s been decorated every way you could. You know William Mcdonough and Long Logan and Berkeley. It’s just \nYerba Buena SX80: magnificent piece of architecture\, and there’s a scale juxtaposition there that I think does effect one’s \nYerba Buena SX80: ability to enjoy the site. I think it does have something to do with user. The enhancing\, the user experience is what I’m really trying to address here. And if there were you know\, attached units on the \nYerba Buena SX80: west side of the of B street. There\, for example\, that had\, you know\, it wasn’t such a jarring scale transition from the from the plant to the smaller fine grained houses. I actually think it would be better\, you know\, to have some more from the user experience on the bay trail. And yeah\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: and because I I do\, I think that that property line on the west \nYerba Buena SX80: would there be a fence there? I think there’s a good chance there might be a fence there and and it’s it just doesn’t seem like a great\, you know\, for those units that are facing west. It’s it’s not. It’s not a fantastic experience\, anyway. Maybe I don’t know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, plant materials plant palette. \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe we\, if you wouldn’t mind. If if we could bring the Plant Pallet \nYerba Buena SX80: exhibit up\, that would. That would be great interest\, right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think one thing that would help me in a subsequent review\, would be to just have a clearer \nYerba Buena SX80: designation of what is actually in the 100 Foot Shoreline Band Zone versus elsewhere. I mean? It’s a it’s a. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. There’s a nice variety of plant material \nYerba Buena SX80: but I do think the you know\, we should really favor the native plants \nYerba Buena SX80: on the alongside the bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I mean\, there’s a zone that’s gonna get a massive blast of wind off the bay. This can be a little different than any of the other streets within\, so that \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s both dryness and and massive wind\, and a lot of takes a lot of abuse needs to be \nYerba Buena SX80: respond to that. Yeah\, yeah. I haven’t studied the palette\, but I I in general\, I would \nYerba Buena SX80: tend to push it in a much more extreme way towards the durable\, you know\, and the drought tolerant. And\, you know\, address issues of climate change and assisted migration. You know\, plants that are we’re used to seeing in the \nYerba Buena SX80: South and the Southwest are very rapidly making their way into the into the bay area. And\, you know. Yeah\, it’s it’s not only the wind and the and you know there’s just the durability of having plants in a public place. And and so I think I would \nYerba Buena SX80: tend towards you know more extreme choices. I you know there are certain things here that are very nice. There are maples\, and maybe they’re in protected areas between the buildings and so on. \nYerba Buena SX80: But you know\, I’m thinking about water use and and durability. Just make it easy for everyone. Yeah\, yeah\, this is not. I mean\, there are plants in here that would certainly. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, could thrive in the you know\, along the the waterfront. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I’m not seeing the sort of \nYerba Buena SX80: enough of the really hardy plants\, or maybe\, you know\, we I it would just be helpful to see the plants \nYerba Buena SX80: separated into 2 zones. You know the public zone and the residential areas. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would just add that seeing Marsha’s work for I don’t know how 1015 years in Richmond being on the city of Richmond. Drb. \nYerba Buena SX80: This woman’s fully capable. You got the right person on the project. Got got the right team\, too. Yeah\, that’s true. So we don’t need to dig too deeply into this. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re in safe hands. Good hands. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? But we were asked that question by staff. So \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s our comments. Could I make comment on the \nYerba Buena SX80: on the planting? Yeah\, this is kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: anecdotal. Yeah\, I’m not a botanist or a landscape architect. I don’t usually do planting plans \nYerba Buena SX80: except for maybe a Restoration project \nYerba Buena SX80: but over at the Peninsula \nYerba Buena SX80: last time I walked around there. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know the Vincent Park and that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: There are a lot of lawns\, and there there are these big geese that have taken over there\, and they kind of interfere with \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the uses. And then the other thing I noticed\, which \nYerba Buena SX80: I think just probably goes along with all the Riprap\, is there all these ground squirrels \nYerba Buena SX80: in the shore rocks? And you know a lot of people think they’re cute and all that. But they’re not really a native. I don’t know that they’re they seem to be more of them than would normally exist. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I I just \nYerba Buena SX80: I didn’t see a lot of turf here. There’s a couple of little lawn pieces\, but I see you have the coastal sage \nYerba Buena SX80: or a scrub whatever\, and that seems \nYerba Buena SX80: much better than the big grassy lawns from my comment regarding the geese. It’s kind of a big deal. Actually\, last time I walked over there it was pretty intimidating\, you know\, that the kids couldn’t go into the grass lawn because the geese were not not having it. So \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, look\, I’m just going to. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just want to summarize a few points here. \nYerba Buena SX80: bearing in mind there’s a lot more that is very important. But just 3 or 4 things that I think are are \nYerba Buena SX80: major points relating to access and the \nYerba Buena SX80: the actual viability of the the bay trail in this area\, and the 100 foot zone. So I think the 1st point I’d make is echoing Tom’s point. You know this is \nYerba Buena SX80: this is the most significant waterfront site in the city of Richmond. It is. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, it’s part of a designated node. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s certainly transit oriented. It’s got a number of aspects related to it\, including the relationship to the Rosie\, the Riveter Museum. All of these things add up \nYerba Buena SX80: to something that \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we need to see further examination of from the proponent to see how the Site plan could respond to that very critical point from the public enhancement and public experience\, standpoint and access. And then I think the second critical point is that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the program that is in the that is shown on the plan in the within the bay trail is a reasonable plan. The landscape architects done as good a job as as could be done within the constraints of a much narrower area than we would typically see \nYerba Buena SX80: but it’s not sufficient to be able to have the type of user experience that. And and the practical aspects of circulation and view experience. That we need to see in a plan. So somehow. \nYerba Buena SX80: there needs to be some more space created. And I think the 3rd point is related to \nYerba Buena SX80: adaptation and resiliency. And you know\, making sure that that\, the Site Plan \nYerba Buena SX80: is going to be safe and minimize risk for the future in future. People with future homeowners who will live in this development \nYerba Buena SX80: and would expect to live there for generations. And you know I think we have to be very responsible about \nYerba Buena SX80: taking a you know\, we need to have a position \nYerba Buena SX80: in relation to how the site will adapt\, how the path. Can the bay trail can be relocated? \nYerba Buena SX80: I would add to that that the the higher level front access path\, the public path adjacent immediately adjacent the houses is just not \nYerba Buena SX80: It doesn’t convey an adequate sense of public nature\, and the width of the path is not sufficient. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that needs to be reviewed as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: and there are specific points that \nYerba Buena SX80: are elsewhere. But I mean they’re the ones that rise to the top for me. Does that capture it. Have I left something critical out? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So just to help Staff as you continue forward on this nice. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Look at\, if we’ve got\, I think we’ve covered everything at this point. So at this point we would \nYerba Buena SX80: ask Ashley\, we can ask the proponents to respond at this point just a brief response on what you’ve heard. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you for the comments. This is helpful for us. We are one of the things I did want to address is the public comments we did reach out to the Marina Bay Neighborhood Council\, the Richmond Coordinating Council. We went through the city of Richmond process\, and it’s kind of an interesting response that we got from them. Most of the people were saying. \nYerba Buena SX80: we don’t want density. We want it to look just like our our development and but then some people like a planning commissioner that was on \nYerba Buena SX80: planning commission forever and ever\, she was saying\, well\, we want it to be the dense. We want it dense. But the residents in Marina Bay we don’t want traffic. We don’t want more housing. So it was really interesting to hear that. So I wanted to share that with you. When we talked to the National Park Service they were mostly concerned about the interpretation and bringing that interpretation along\, so that that was interesting. So I appreciate your comments about more outreach \nYerba Buena SX80: related to that. We also the the Wellness trail. It’s kind of interesting. Because the commenter was the designer on the width of the trail\, and it being on street\, and there’s existing parking\, and you know it was kind of interesting. So we’ll work with them because we’re sub consultants to them for that and say\, Well. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, that let’s work on that so so we will look at. Look at the off-site impacts. And I don’t know if I necessarily have any other comments related to that. We’ll go back and \nYerba Buena SX80: look at the plans and look at all of your comments\, Mike\, do you have anything? No\, just to reiterate. We’ll we’ll take all your comments into consideration and see how and what modifications we can make \nYerba Buena SX80: too much. I think it’s just\, you know\, appreciate all the observations\, and we’ll have to circle back with our client and see \nYerba Buena SX80: how we can respond. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you very much. Good. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, we normally at this stage \nYerba Buena SX80: decide whether we need to see the project again. And I think in this case we would definitely need to see the project again. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so I think with that\, we can \nYerba Buena SX80: move to adjournment of the meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: so this concludes our project review\, and I want to entertain a motion and a seconder to adjourn our meeting could someone. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll second that Gary will second it all those in favor. Okay\, so the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Everyone. Thank you to the proponents for the hard work \nYerba Buena SX80: and scheme\, and thank you to the team\, and I just want to acknowledge\, well done. You’re the 1st time you’ve presented here to to the board. So so thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And look just actually\, just before we adjourn \nYerba Buena SX80: a completely different topic. But I had the opportunity to \nYerba Buena SX80: walk the 2 new Parks Admission Bay earlier this last week\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it would be good for us to as a group. Take a look at those 2 parks. There’s \nYerba Buena SX80: the Mission Rock Park has some very interesting\, I think\, instructive lessons that we could take from that. So and the other park. They’re both very interesting to look at. So you know\, let’s see if we could set something up in the New Year sometime and go for a walk. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thanks very much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Good night.\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/december-9-2024-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241205T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241205T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240127T065400Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250107T203447Z UID:10000111-1733403600-1733418000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 5\, 2024 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\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n\nMountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, 3rd Fl.\, City Clerks Conf. Rm.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\nNapa County District 5 Office: 4381 Broadway\, Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n575 Administration Dr.\, Rm 100A\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95403\n675 Texas St.\, Rm. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\n2379 Sheffield Dr. Livermore\, CA 94550\n890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\n11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\n176 E Blithedale\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\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/88154227927?pwd=T8pag0NtsWQEjeV7sCbF0YePOSRQap.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID881 5422 7927 \nPasscode768254 \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 November 21\, 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]\nCommission Consideration of Contract with the Exploratorium for the Shoreline Leadership AcademyThe Commission will receive a briefing\, consider a staff recommendation\, and possibly vote to authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract for up to $180\,000 with the Exploratorium to act as the Academy Manager for two Shoreline Leadership Academies. Funding for this contract is provided through an Inflation Reduction Act Non-Competitive Award granted by NOAA.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3600; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nCommission Consideration and Possible Vote on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24)The Commission will consider a staff recommendation and possibly vote on proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24 (BPA 1-24). BPA 1-24 includes a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan which\, in part\, establishes guidelines for local governments to use as they prepare rising sea level plans pursuant to Senate Bill 272 (Laird\, 2023). BPA 1-24 would also amend several San Francisco Bay Plan Climate Change Findings and Policies. A public hearing was held on BPA 1-24 on October 17\, 2024.(Jaclyn Perrin-Martinez) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.perrin-martinez@bcdc.ca.gov]Corrections to Staff Recommendation for Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24Appendix A: Resolution 2024.05Appendix B: Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan \n\nVersion 1. Spreads (best layout view)\nVersion 2. Pages (best print view and ADA accessible)\n\nAppendix C: Public comment lettersAppendix D: Response to public commentsAppendix E: Text of Senate Bill 272 Presentation // Public comment received after the public comment period\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \nGolden Gate Bridge suicide nets have been up for nearly a year. Are they effective? \nBay Area Group Reveals Worst Toxic Sites\, Refocusing Environmental Activism \nState\, local agencies remove long running Vallejo homeless encampment \nMass of bicyclists enjoy Richmond bridge ride but lane access remains at risk \nRegulators approve huge Ocean Beach seawall to avert prospect of ‘major emergency’ for S.F. \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording\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/december-5-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241127T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241127T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240130T050324Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241114T232445Z UID:10000146-1732699800-1732708800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 27\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-27-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20241122T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20241122T110000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240716T205519Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251119T180744Z UID:10000188-1732266000-1732273200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 22\, 2024 Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-22-2024-sand-studies-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241121T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241121T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240127T065214Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241122T225017Z UID:10000110-1732194000-1732208400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 21\, 2024 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. \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference location \n\nCaltrans Building District 4: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl\, Oakland\, CA 94612\nMountain View City Hall Council Chambers: 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n14265 Highway 128\, Boonville\, CA 45415\n11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\nCity Council: 440 Civic Center Plaza\, #110\, Richmond\, CA 94804\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\n890 Osos St Suite H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\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/83508664944?pwd=0VzUkbbVulYCocycT3VpluMH89i0Wz.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID835 0866 4944 \nPasscode768254 \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]Public comment // Comments received after the public comment period on Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for November 7\, 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]\nVote on Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and the Port of San Francisco’s Proposed Major Permit for the Piers 43½ – 39 Sediment Remediation Project. The Commission will hold a vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Port of San Francisco to remediate areas around Piers 39 – 43½\, remove 102\,900 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated sediment from 8.7 acres of subtidal habitat\, stabilize the dredged areas with sediment piles\, cap the dredged areas\, and place 3\,450 cy of riprap on and along the shoreline revetment area. The project is estimated to last five to seven years.(Pascale Soumoy) [415/352-3669; pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation // Fact Sheet // Response to Commissioner // Presentation\nHoward Terminal Port Priority Use Briefing BCDC staff will brief the Commission on the automatic reinstatement on January 1\, 2025\, of the Bay Plan Port Priority Use Area designation to the Howard Terminal Property at the Port of Oakland previously removed by Bay Plan Amendment No. 2-19 on June 30\, 2022\, due to automatic operation of section 8(b) of Assembly Bill 1191 (Bonta\, 2019).(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nStrategic Plan Update Senior Staff will present and update on progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan(Larry Goldzband) [415/ 352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \nFlood Relief for Marin City: Feds Address 80-Year-Old Problem \nWhen Housing & Climate Collide: Marin’s Struggle for Affordable Apartments \nStriving to Teach Climate Science & Solutions to California K-12 \nJesse Arreguín leads Jovanka Beckles for East Bay state Senate seat \nRichardson Bay ‘eelgrass protection zone’ goes into effect \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording \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/november-21-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241119T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241119T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240130T060519Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241031T162842Z UID:10000159-1732021200-1732035600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 19\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-19-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241114T140000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241114T153000 DTSTAMP:20260420T013005 CREATED:20240130T050206Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251023T174118Z UID:10000145-1731592800-1731598200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 14\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). 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 Metro Center 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\, Board 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/88564780821?pwd=JGg7580mGrhMWnLHUBa0anLUXzrejA.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID885 6478 0821 \nPasscode607971  \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.The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the August 28\, 2024\, Enforcement Committee meeting\nEnforcement Report.Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nEnforcement Hearing.The Committee will hold a hearing on the staff’s recommended enforcement decision to resolve Enforcement Case ER2023.019.00 against the Union Pacific Railroad Company for unauthorized activities occurring at its property\, consisting of fill in the San Francisco Bay and use of the shoreline for camping in the vicinity of the mouth of Rodeo Creek in Rodeo\, Contra Costa County.(Bella Castrodale) [415/352-3628; bella.castrodale@bcdc.ca.gov]Union Pacific Statement of Defense // Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision and Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty // Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording and transcript\n Video recording and transcript2024.11.14 Approved Minutes \nTranscript of items 6 and 7  \n  \n \n\nTranscript\n\nBob Bylsma: in participant mode so I and and I believe Staff could probably confirm that that encampment has been removed. \nBob Bylsma: But as soon as they’re removed\, oftentimes they come back. So how long that encampment was actually there \nBob Bylsma: we don’t know\, but that that was removed. Additionally. \nBob Bylsma: we had to explore whether or not a 4 0. 4 \nBob Bylsma: permit from the Corps of Engineers was required\, or a section 10 \nBob Bylsma: Rivers and Harbors Navigation Act permit was required by \nBob Bylsma: in order to remove this\, and so what was finally determined was that as long and \nBob Bylsma: and the need for those permits would have further delayed things\, let me digress to that. So what we determined was to actually physically have \nBob Bylsma: people go in the water to remove this\, rather than having further delays by putting in equipment to to remove the material. \nBob Bylsma: and at this point all the tires have been removed. \nBob Bylsma: I believe all the other trash has been removed. There are several shopping carts that are still in in the waterway. And the problem that we’re having removing those. \nBob Bylsma: I think I was told that it literally takes 4 people about a day to remove one and a half of those carts that’s at about the rate that they’re \nBob Bylsma: that they’re being removed. There’s definitely a safety issue doing it by having people walk into the bay\, they literally sink into the bay mud up to their waist. \nBob Bylsma: and you have that suction behind it. So we’re still struggling through that to try to find a solution to the shopping carts. \nBob Bylsma: But again\, at this\, at this point the cleanup is almost done\, and\, as I said\, this is not. This is not a situation where \nBob Bylsma: we believe we should be punished \nBob Bylsma: for inaction\, but what you would really be imposing a penalty for would be for our failure to communicate with Staff\, and I would just ask \nBob Bylsma: that commission. Take that into account in the event it determines to assess a penalty. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Hey? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much at this time. Do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for Mr. Blisma. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Gosh! I wish we could get that camera over here. So could you tell me\, Mr. Beelsma. \nBoardroom SX80: when you said that we \nBoardroom SX80: removed the encampment\, and that we can remove encampments when we can. \nBoardroom SX80: How do you do that? Do you \nBoardroom SX80: look to local law enforcement? Or do you literally send some of your staff in there to \nBoardroom SX80: move stuff and folks out. How do you do that? \nBob Bylsma: Commissioner\, our. \nBob Bylsma: we have our own police force. So we have. We have special agents. It’s sort of a unique \nBob Bylsma: situation of the railroad that we actually have \nBob Bylsma: peace officers who work for the railroads\, and they’re referred to as special agents\, and so they will go out\, and I believe they often go out with local law enforcement as well \nBob Bylsma: and physically \nBob Bylsma: clear these homeless encampments much much as a city or county would do on public land. \nBoardroom SX80: I see. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So I just have to share this. I’m having visions of the old trains in the Wild Wild West with the special agents who are trying to protect the trains from\, you know\, being robbed by outlaws. That’s kind of what \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: your words are invoking here. \nBob Bylsma: Madam Chair\, that is really essentially the origin of that practice. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, you learn something new every day. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. Let’s see. So before we start our Oh\, Commissioner Ranshaw\, is this a clarifying question? \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I believe so. It it wasn’t clear to me\, Mr. Bilsma\, from your remarks. If \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: you’re indicating that there’s any practice of of \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Union Pacific. Reviewing this\, the status of \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: properties such as this. \nBob Bylsma: I don’t. \nBob Bylsma: I’ll try to answer your question\, and if I don’t answer it\, please follow up \nBob Bylsma: the situation here\, as it relates to the material in the bay \nBob Bylsma: is the fact that \nBob Bylsma: Union Pacific owns a lot of property that is not operating right away. \nBob Bylsma: And we would not typically have \nBob Bylsma: a any of our real estate people \nBob Bylsma: looking at property that is actually in a waterway. \nBob Bylsma: So the only view that you’re that you’re having in terms of inspections of this property \nBob Bylsma: are going to be\, either from train men whose responsibility is to keep that train on the rails \nBob Bylsma: or \nBob Bylsma: track maintenance personnel again\, whose responsibility is to keep that operating corridor \nBob Bylsma: working properly to prevent derailments\, things of that nature. So people are really going to be focused in terms of anyone going through there on about 15 side 15 feet the side of either track? Maybe less than that. \nBob Bylsma: So you’re you’re simply not having people who are out looking into the bay to see what’s out there\, nor would they even know that that property was owned by Union Pacific. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: That’s helpful. \nBob Bylsma: That answer your question. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Thanks. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Any other committee questions? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any hands\, Margie. Do we have any public comment\, either in the room or online. \nBoardroom SX80: We don’t have any commenters. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. All right. So no public comment. So let’s start our discussion among the committee members. And I’m going to open the floor to the 1st hand I see. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t see your hand. Is it? Up. \nBoardroom SX80: Might as well be. Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, I definitely have some questions so sort of back to the issue that that you suggested we park until now. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: it’s a peculiar situation that Union Pacific has these lines that run alongside the edge of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and with that\, of course\, comes this obligation \nBoardroom SX80: because the edge of the bay is protected \nBoardroom SX80: and protected from fill\, among other things. So \nBoardroom SX80: I’m assuming that because this has train tracks literally within feet of the bay\, that there’s no public access issues here\, that there really is no public access to these \nBoardroom SX80: areas. \nBoardroom SX80: and so if you are going to have the permission to own land that close to the bay. Then it comes with these obligations. I know that \nBoardroom SX80: I didn’t know we were still using terms like train men. I’m I’m objecting to that \nBoardroom SX80: trained persons. But \nBoardroom SX80: I \nBoardroom SX80: it comes with an obligation to. I know it’s not typical to be looking out for whether things have happened along the edge of your property. But that’s that’s the obligation you have when you have property like that. \nBoardroom SX80: So none of that troubles me. I I don’t think we can \nBoardroom SX80: say that everybody gets off because somebody got sick when they were supposed to be tending to this\, or we would be hearing that. You know that\, or some other set of reasons. \nBoardroom SX80: ad nauseam. But \nBoardroom SX80: I’m I am concerned. I mean they have Union Pacific has\, as we just learned\, these special officers who are capable \nBoardroom SX80: of managing an encampment. But we have lots and lots of permits out there to folks who \nBoardroom SX80: find themselves with encampments on their property\, and \nBoardroom SX80: what they are supposed to do about that\, and whether that constitutes fill within \nBoardroom SX80: that very technical meaning that the Bcdc. Would apply to that. \nBoardroom SX80: Those are the issues I think we should discuss\, because \nBoardroom SX80: it’s not just a little isolated case here that could \nBoardroom SX80: possibly spill over to others \nBoardroom SX80: who have this situation\, and you know we always try to provide guidance to what people should be doing\, what \nBoardroom SX80: and what if they can’t do anything? They don’t have special officers. What is our position? Are they strictly liable for having an encampment on the edge of the \nBoardroom SX80: bay. Those are the issues that I’m concerned about. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can I just hold on a second sherry? The interesting thing about this case is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: following up on what you just said\, Commissioner Eisen\, is that in most cases where we have jurisdiction and there are encampments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it becomes an issue of public access\, and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that my recollection is that that’s most of our cases this one seems to me to be kind of the oddball where we have an encampment within our jurisdiction\, but \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: because of the nature of the business\, the railroad tracks. There is no public access\, so. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Seems to me like those 2 cases are very distinguishable. That’s just the 1st thought off the top of my head. Sherry. \nShari Posner: I was just gonna add a note\, and it’s really for the chair \nShari Posner: maybe to comment more on this. But I think the questions that Commissioner Eisen is asking are really good ones. But I’m not sure they’re for the context of this particular specific enforcement matter. \nShari Posner: It might be something\, perhaps\, that \nShari Posner: if the Enforcement Committee is interested\, Staff could prepare something on. \nShari Posner: But it the the broader \nShari Posner: those broader questions\, I’m not sure\, are within this particular agendized item. \nBoardroom SX80: And thank you\, Sherry. I I totally agree with you. But in order to decide whether there has been a violation here\, don’t we have to be satisfied \nBoardroom SX80: that having an encampment on your property constitutes fill. \nShari Posner: I think maybe I I would turn to \nShari Posner: enforcement staff to talk about what they consider fail. I mean\, I think physically\, sitting on top of \nShari Posner: What property within the jurisdiction can be considered\, Phil. But I think I I’m not the best person to ask that. But I understand your question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. You want to take that one. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you. Just looking at 6\, 6\, 6\, 3\, 2\, a of the Mikketyr Petrus act\, I believe. Fill is defined very broadly to encompass any substance or material with a value of greater than $20. And so the reference to the homeless encampment as fill doesn’t refer to the individuals\, but rather the accumulation of \nBoardroom SX80: materials within our jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: Which can take many different forms. \nBoardroom SX80: But in our view\, are encompassed by this broad term of substance or material. \nBoardroom SX80: So I I just have one. Follow up\, then\, to that which makes sense to me\, that \nBoardroom SX80: accumulation of tents\, or whatever could constitute fill. But have we had a situation a prior situation. \nBoardroom SX80: where we took the position \nBoardroom SX80: that the \nBoardroom SX80: stuff that accumulates in a homeless encampment constitutes fill? Have we taken that position in prior cases? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: John and I are shaking our head. Yes. But I would like some confirmation from staff. \nBoardroom SX80: I would say that. Yes\, we have. If you’re asking me for a specific citation that would be a little harder to draw from at the moment. \nBoardroom SX80: they’re \nBoardroom SX80: we have dealt with. For example\, you. You are very familiar with the issues of. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sorry. Sorry\, can I? Can I interrupt\, since I can’t see who’s speaking from the boardroom\, and I don’t think the other commissioners can. Can you identify yourself for the record? Please. \nBoardroom SX80: Sure. Sorry\, Matthew Trio\, let me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sorry\, Matthew\, cause I’m I’m seeing I’m seeing you on my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: There you go. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Sure. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: yes. So you’re familiar with. You’re all very familiar with issues we’ve had with \nBoardroom SX80: along the Oakland and Alameda estuary. \nBoardroom SX80: That is\, a area of the region that is rife with issues having to do with encampments as well as the detritus that results from that \nBoardroom SX80: at the staff level. \nBoardroom SX80: I. \nBoardroom SX80: I know that we’ve dealt with many cases in in those areas. \nBoardroom SX80: As for cases brought before this committee. \nBoardroom SX80: I can’t think of one that comes to mind\, and that’s only to say that \nBoardroom SX80: for the most part we we have been able to resolve these matters at the staff level. \nBoardroom SX80: I won’t speak to active cases. But there are cases currently in the pipeline that also speak to this issue \nBoardroom SX80: one moment. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, so you might have seen in the local media. I would say\, in the last year or so issues with regard to\, or issues of homeless encampments at Toll Plaza Beach\, \nBoardroom SX80: in Oakland\, at the entranceway to the Bay bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s 1 of the \nBoardroom SX80: cases that we are that we have addressed. The reason I hesitated to bring that up is because it’s still ongoing\, and it may come before you. But that’s another in terms of the homelessness matter and the trash around that. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s something that we’ve been able to address at the staff level. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore’s \nBoardroom SX80: a point. \nBoardroom SX80: Aren’t those cases public access cases where the permit is being violated\, because the public access is not what it ought to be. \nBoardroom SX80: not in every case. \nBoardroom SX80: there’s \nBoardroom SX80: it’s often an overlapping problem. \nBoardroom SX80: Oftentimes \nBoardroom SX80: encampments will be\, say. \nBoardroom SX80: on the side of a public access trail\, whereas the trash or the detritus from the encampment could easily be clogging up a public access trail in the case of Toll Plaza Beach. \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry? Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Toll Plaza Beach. There actually is no public access\, formal Bcdc. Public access. It is a matter of this beach that has \nBoardroom SX80: traditionally been a public beach being basically taken over by \nBoardroom SX80: a lot of toxic waste and other trash as well as encampments that just\, you know\, they fall within our jurisdiction\, and therefore within our purview to address. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I think this is a very worthwhile discussion. But I’m gonna cut it off for this afternoon\, and I’m going to ask staff to do some more digging. Around this issue\, the the what constitutes fill and what happens if there’s fill? But \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it’s not an issue of public access? Does that make sense \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to staff? Understand. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. And and Commissioner Eisen\, does that get to the root of of your question? \nBoardroom SX80: It does\, and I think we can decide it even without that\, only because of all of the tires and shopping carts and other things that may or may not be related to encampments. But I do think that we’re gonna if we bring this to the whole commission\, there will be. There will be questions about that\, and it would be good to have that research done so to help our fellow commissioners. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I was actually thinking about it in terms of the Enforcement Committee on cases going forward. I agree that I don’t think it’s something that that is necessarily pertinent for today’s action. Given the circumstances\, any other Commissioner comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Ranshaw. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yeah\, yeah\, I agree. It’d be helpful for purposes of consistency with respect to other \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: other matters that come before the Commission to better understand that? \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Could I ask\, Staff\, if you can elaborate on the position recommendation that with respect to the second violation\, understand violation? One. There’s there are 2 different violations\, each with a proposed penalty of $30\,000 \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: violation. One is the hill\, consisting of weights\, the tires\, shopping carts\, other trash. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and there’s a determination of the gravity of harm associated with that fill is major\, and the extent of deviation \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: to remove it is\, major\, and \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I appreciated the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: documents that were included in the materials \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: supporting the recommendation that demonstrate that include potential impacts from \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the tires on protected species\, such as coe\, salmon\, etc. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: With respect to the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the second violation\, could you\, elaborate on the\, on\, the position\, on as to the gravity of harm associated with \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: with that violation which I understand is is effectively the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: homeless encampment and failure to remove it. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you for your question. Our determination was that the gravity of harm for violation 2 was moderate\, and we made that determination\, using a 6 factor scoring system that’s provided by Appendix J. Of the regulations\, which considers the habitat value\, the durability\, the toxicity\, the size\, the nature of the violation \nBoardroom SX80: and the visibility\, and because the length of time that this violation persisted\, and the potential toxicity was much lesser than that of the dumping of tires\, the determination was made that it was a moderate rather than a major. The gravity of harm was moderate rather than Major. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: It. It does seem to me that the the gravity of harm \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: associated with the 1st violation is significantly greater. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that those materials had been there. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and we have documentary evidence that they had at least some of them had been there for many more years. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: even if \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the respondent wasn’t put on notice of these violations until more recently. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: In that it seems to me just in the equity\, as between the 2 violations that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: given that there’s no public access issue in that it’s unclear. What additional may have occurred from \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the second alleged violation \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that that there’s a. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: That the committee may wish to look at those 2 differently. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Any other comments by commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. This is this is really a knit\, but in the recommended decision it says that the respondent should be ordered 2\, and then there’s a list of 5 things. \nBoardroom SX80: But the 3rd thing is not actually something that the respondent’s supposed to do. It’s something we’re supposed to do in terms of reviewing and getting back to the respondent. So I don’t know if it should be phrased differently\, because the way it reads is the respondent is ordered to review \nBoardroom SX80: something that the Bcdc. Is reviewing. So \nBoardroom SX80: a knit as I’m \nBoardroom SX80: acknowledging. Thank you for pointing that out. I believe we could make a revision to clarify that that would only \nBoardroom SX80: implicate the timing for the response by the respondent\, but not the respondent’s action. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanted to make a comment on the failure to communicate. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just wanted to say that while in the abstract I have sympathy for you because life happened for the respondent\, because life happens\, things happen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I think\, as one of the Commissioners pointed out\, is that we hear these reasons \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all the time from respondents who who come before us\, and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you know some have better reasons than others. Some just didn’t get to it\, you know\, whatever the reason may be. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but from the point of view of the Bcdc. Staff\, it looks like we contacted you. We told you what it was that was wrong. We were willing to work with you to resolve the issue. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You drag your feet\, said you would get back to us. You didn’t get back to us for whatever reason\, because this happens all the time. And then it was only when we filed an Enforcement \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: case that you got serious about dealing with us\, and I can say\, having been on this committee for a long time\, this happens in the overwhelming majority of cases. So\, while I may have some sympathy for you \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in the abstract. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in the very practical point of view\, from staff having to deal with entities or people or corporations. This happens all the time. And I really. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: from my point of view\, it’s not a winning argument\, that’s all I wanted to say. Anybody else have any other comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Any other. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Follow up\, question sure. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: With respect to the the assessment of penalties on the second violation\, it’s tough. Ex explain how that would be different\, if at all. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: if the determination of the harm associated with. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: But the second violation was downgraded. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I know you’ve proposed that it’s a moderate \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: level of harm\, I believe. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you for your question. If the \nBoardroom SX80: second violation was downgraded from moderate to minor for gravity of harm\, but the extent of deviation from the legal requirement remained the same. The range of the per day penalty amount would be $800 a day to $1\,200 a day and staff would select a figure within that range. \nBoardroom SX80: and the reason that I didn’t propose changing the \nBoardroom SX80: factor for the extent of deviation from the legal requirement is because the legal requirement is the absence of the fill\, and so it can only be characterized as major as opposed to a case where there is a minor \nBoardroom SX80: noncompliance with a permit condition\, for instance\, where that the extent of deviation from the legal requirement could then be characterized as minor. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I see. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: No\, thank you. I would feel more comfortable. Chaired with \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that assessment of the of the nature of the harm. Because \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: to me it seems like the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: but whatever harm is occurring is \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: should be tried. We should try to assess cumulatively and sorry separately from the harm that’s occurred as a result of violation\, one which there’s a fair amount of documentary evidence for to support the the proposed \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: gravity of harm being major. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. My! My comment to staff about that one is\, even if we downgraded \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the severity I mean the I’m sorry if\, even if we downgraded\, it wouldn’t the amount of time that the harm over which the harm occurred would that necessitate a change in the amount? Because the the amount is $30\,000. But it’s calculated per day. And I think we’re calculating over a year’s period of time. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s right chair\, Gilmore\, at the lower end. If the penalties were assessed at the minimum range $800 a day\, we would have reached the $30\,000 cap for violation\, 2 in about 40 days. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So I guess what I’m saying is that even if we downgrade it the the statutory penalty doesn’t change. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Marie\, kind of along the line of your questioning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I think the representative from you\, Pacific said they had one individual working on this\, and lost that person or 1st not. I don’t remember exactly what happened\, but \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: so it kind of fell through the cracks. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and I’m just wondering. Union Pacific. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Has 31\,000 employees. You would have thought they could have found one more employee to take care of that. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So I’m not in favor of reducing anything. And \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I will make the motion that we recommend Staff’s recommendation and forward it to the entire commission. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do we have a second. \nBoardroom SX80: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That was Commissioner Eisen for the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so we have a motion and a second to approve the Executive Director’s recommended Enforcement decision. And so now we need a roll call. Vote. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you’re muted. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Sorry\, Commissioner Beeland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Hi! Here! \nBoardroom SX80: Is that a yay or a nay. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Not as ea sorry. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ranchad. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair\, Gilmar. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, yeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. All. The motion carries unanimously\, and this will be sent on to a vote of the full commission at a date to be determined. Thank you. Everyone for attending today. Respondent. Thank you for being here\, and staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we are going to adjourn this meeting. 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/november-14-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR