BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.15.19//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20220101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231206T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231206T170000
DTSTAMP:20260501T001033
CREATED:20231019T011653Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235959Z
UID:10000074-1701867600-1701882000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 6\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meetings
DESCRIPTION:he meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format\, via Zoom and in person \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84343056351?pwd=LWLyZoyLy1zVQOsCJN2gXApP8rPpJA.cORnRbl1Sun0oXV0 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID843 4305 6351 \nPasscode679717 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review\nPublic Comment Period on Items Not on the Agenda\nStaff Updates\nItem of Discussion: India Basin Shoreline Park Project (Pre- Application) The Board will review the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (Applicant) proposed India Basin Shoreline Park Project\, designed to provide improved public access to the Bay and sea level rise resilience. The Board will review the proposed design of the new South Marine Way and piers in the boat launch dock. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the stability of the structures due to anticipated loads and scenarios including seismic events\, storm waves or sea level rise. The public may comment on the Applicant’s presentation at its conclusion. (Schuyler Olsson) [415/352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/12-06-ECRB-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Can everybody hear me? \nYerba Buena SX80: We ready to go \nYerba Buena SX80: us? \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry for me being late? I guess there’s other \nYerba Buena SX80: challenges to \nYerba Buena SX80: anyway. Jen like to welcome everyone to the BC. DC\, \nYerba Buena SX80: ecrb meeting the engineering Criteria Review board \nthis meeting will be recorded. So everybody knows that. \nYerba Buena SX80: I. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: of the engineering Criteria Review Board\, EC. Rb. Of the BCDC. \nYerba Buena SX80: My name is Jim French. I’m the acting chair to day of the DE. Crb\, because our regular chair rod has been recused for this particular project. \nI’d like to announce that we also have a new \nYerba Buena SX80: board member\, New ECEC. Rb. Member Patrick Ryan\, Structural Engineer\, and a principal of Ryan Joyce\, structural design. And Ryan’s not here right? \nYerba Buena SX80: He’s recused\, I know\, but he didn’t show up anyway. So \nYerba Buena SX80: so we look forward to working with Patrick in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: also recused today is a board member board\, alternate delete travidi \nYerba Buena SX80: our first oh\, and and our \nYerba Buena SX80: chair is recused\, wrought iwash Iwashta. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our first order business is to call the role Board members. Please please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m gonna call off everybody’s name\, you know. They’re not here today\, so I’ll start with roddy washed chair of the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know he’s not here today since he was recuse. Jim French vice chair of the board today’s chair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob\, tell you present \nYerba Buena SX80: so Holmes present \nYerba Buena SX80: Jima Kasalli present \nYerba Buena SX80: Chris\, may \nYerba Buena SX80: I know Chris wanted to be here\, but she was sick. \nYerba Buena SX80: Rameen Golzorkey present \nYerba Buena SX80: Nick Sotard here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gail Johnson\, present \nYerba Buena SX80: Talia Trevasaru. She was not going to show up today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Dylan Trevetti we mentioned. He was recused. \nYerba Buena SX80: Justin Vannevar present. \nYerba Buena SX80: and Patrick Ryan. \nYerba Buena SX80: He’s recused. \nYerba Buena SX80: we have \nYerba Buena SX80: 8 board members present. Jim. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s correct. The quorum is 5 \nYerba Buena SX80: This will be louder than sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll keep going. Then a second. If you’re attending on Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand \nYerba Buena SX80: in zoom if you’re new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting using the zoom application\, click the hand at the bottom of your screen and the hand should turn blue\, I think maybe different color on different platforms. \nYerba Buena SX80: Third\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone press star 9 \nYerba Buena SX80: on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment\, we will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period for each project. Well\, one project today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Every now and then I might refer to the meeting host Grace\, who is working behind the scenes to ensure the technology\, moves forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us as needed. Next ex parte communications as set forth in BCD. C’s regulations\, a member of the Ecr shall not have any oral or written communications regarding a proposed project \nYerba Buena SX80: or other matter \nYerba Buena SX80: that has been noticed to be considered at the Ecrb meeting with the project proponent \nYerba Buena SX80: permit applicant prospective applicant or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with a notice on any written or oral ex parte. Communications invite members who have engaged in any such communications \nYerba Buena SX80: to report on him at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself \nYerba Buena SX80: for the record. No hands have been raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Second agenda. Item\, public comment period on items not on the agenda. We have set a time \nYerba Buena SX80: set set aside time now for hearing public comment on items related to BC DC policies\, or permits that are not explicitly on the agenda. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you have anyone present or online who would like to make a comment not related to the planned project for the India Basin Shore Basin Shoreline Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: No hands online or no hands in person here\, either. Okay\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Agenda. Item\, 3 staff updates. Now we’ll have a staff update from Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair French. I would like to provide an update to the board on a few items Ecrb meeting dates have been set for 2\,024 and are posted on the Bcbc website. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve started to send out meeting invitations to board members\, so you can reserve that time on your calendar. \nYerba Buena SX80: Regarding upcoming Ecrb meetings. There are currently no projects \nYerba Buena SX80: right now scheduled for the meetings in 2024. But please keep these dates open on your calendar. Since there there are some applicants we know\, we’ll need to return to the Ecrb. Particular Cargill salt. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also San Francisco International Airport are gonna schedule second meetings. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, it a follow up meeting in the New year. Lastly\, I wanted to let the Board members know that Bcd\, C has updated the policy regarding the role that Ecrb members can play as consultants to permit applicants. \nYerba Buena SX80: Board members are no longer allowed to represent permit applicants before the Ecrb board. Members who have been \nYerba Buena SX80: recused for assisting permit. Applicants are not allowed to speak to the Board in a presentation\, or answer questions while being paid by the applicant. \nYerba Buena SX80: Recused board members may attend meetings in person or remotely\, as a member of the public. \nYerba Buena SX80: If they do want to speak as a member of the public\, they may\, as long as they are not being compensated by the applicant. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do board members have any questions about this? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Great that’s all I have to for announcements. \nThen \nYerba Buena SX80: let me do that over again. She’s sorry about that. Okay\, with a microphone on this time before we move on to the presentation proper. Are there any announcements from board members? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, no hands raised. So we will move on to the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: the India Basin Shoreline Park. The discussion and presentation will follow. The meeting will proceed according to the following agenda\, first\, Jen Hyman\, senior engineer from BCDC. Will make a short presentation on the project\, followed by the presentation by the application team. \nYerba Buena SX80: By the applicant team during the presentation. It’s fine for board members to ask short\, clarifying questions or have limited discussion\, but the primary discussion will follow later \nat the end of the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Excuse me\, we’ll open the meeting for public comments related to engineering issues in the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: After hearing any comments from the public. The Ecrb will resume the discussion with their questions and comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: and at the end of the discussion I’ll ask for final comments and any emotions\, and then close our consideration of the project. This time I would like to ask board members and other participate. Our other participants. \nYerba Buena SX80: To please turn on your cameras. You’re speaking or actively engaged with the discussion. When you’re not actively engaged with the discussion. Please turn off your cameras so that we minimize distractions on screen and possibly bandwidth issues as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: I now ask Jen to provide the introduction to the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Good afternoon\, chair. French and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: My name is Jen Hyman\, and I’m the senior engineer at Bcd. C. And Secretary of the Ecrb. \nYerba Buena SX80: This will be the Board’s first review of the India Basin Trolley Park Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have some background information on the project to share with you first. \nYerba Buena SX80: There we go. \nYerba Buena SX80: We already went over. The meeting agenda \nYerba Buena SX80: and \nYerba Buena SX80: let me share with you a little bit about India Basin Trolling Park. \nYerba Buena SX80: India Basin\, Shoreline Park is located just north of Hunters Point and Candlestick Park\, and just south of Mission Bay and Herons Head Park\, in the southeast corner of San Francisco. \nYerba Buena SX80: There is an existing park there that is being completely renovated. \nYerba Buena SX80: San Francisco Department of Recreation\, parks has submitted pre application materials to BC. DC. And has had a meeting with the Design Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: The adjacent 900 Innis Avenue project is a separate concurrent project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Also with extensive new public access features. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lenia Bison Shoreline Park Project is designed to renovate the entire park\, based on extensive community input \nYerba Buena SX80: includes 2 new full sized basket ball courts and a cook out terrace. \nYerba Buena SX80: It also includes new water oriented activities\, including boating and waiting\, which are the focus of this meeting\, and also provides sea level rise. Resiliency to the park. \nYerba Buena SX80: Today’s meeting of Ecrb is focused on the engineering design of 2 structures that are in the Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: The first is the boathouse pier and intermediate landing \nYerba Buena SX80: of the new boating dock. \nYerba Buena SX80: These 2 piling supported structures are connected by gangways and lead to a floating dock for launching kayaks. \nYerba Buena SX80: The second item of discussion is the South marine ray wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a hundred 65 foot long concrete walkway. It’s about 12 foot 10 to 12 feet wide on top. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it holds up the new gently slipped beach. and is also designed to allow the public to walk on top of it. Down to the end of the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: The design issues\, which will be explained shortly in the presentation by the applicant’s team include challenging geology. \nYerba Buena SX80: including undocumented\, fill and highly compressible clays below the fill. \nYerba Buena SX80: seismically active region leading to strong ground shaking and liquefaction of soil layers. \nYerba Buena SX80: wind and wave loads. \nYerba Buena SX80: potential impacts from construction of a flat concrete wall in the bay and sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: So questions I put together for the board to consider as they hear the presentation today are one. \nYerba Buena SX80: are the scenarios and design criteria in the stability analyses for the piers and the South Marine Way wall appropriate for the site hazards\, site conditions and site criticality \nYerba Buena SX80: to our potential hydrodynamic impacts from the South Green Way wall a concern \nYerba Buena SX80: 3. Our future coastal flooding concerns from sea level rise\, addressed adequately in the park. Design \nYerba Buena SX80: 4. Is there any data monitoring you recommend? Bcdc. Require the applicant to enhance the future safety of the project in light of its projected 40 year\, estimated design life. \nYerba Buena SX80: and lastly\, 5. Are there any design and physical concerns that have not been addressed? \nYerba Buena SX80: Now we will hear the presentation from the applicant team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Hello. I’m Catherine lists from Ggn. We’re the landscape architect and design lead on this project. India based in Shoreline Park. \nI just wanna thank you all for taking the time to review this on behalf of our design team and project partners. \nYerba Buena SX80: So just quickly. These are the project partners and the team that will be speaking today. So as I noted\, I’m from Ggn\, and then Sean Hart from often Nicole and Cameron from Ags will also be speaking. \nYerba Buena SX80: I will provide a brief overview very similar to what Jen just went through\, and then I’ll hand it over to Shawn and Cameron to go through the technical and engineering elements \nYerba Buena SX80: so\, as noted\, we are located on the southeast corner of San Francisco\, right on the bay\, zooming in on the image on the right. We’re also located along the bay trail. That’s that purple line that’s winding its way through\, connecting basically Pg and E directly to the north with the future 900 Dennis project\, once it’s constructed to the south. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then this is a view of the existing site. It is an existing park\, India\, based in Sherline Park\, outlined in the dashed black line that you see there. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a park that really is underutilized and needs some renovation. And specifically focusing along the shoreline\, you can see an image number 3 in the bottom right hand corner. We do have a rip wrap protection there right now\, but it is in disrepair\, and is still showing signs of erosion\, even with that protection there. \nYerba Buena SX80: so as noted. I will now hand it over to Cameron and Sean to go through these 3 key elements of our design on the from the engineering standpoint. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you so much\, Katherine. This I’m Cameron Gelson with a GS. A. Gs has done Joe technical investigation in 2 phases for this project \nYerba Buena SX80: on phase one\, we focus on 900 inner sight and on phase 2\, we \nYerba Buena SX80: supplement our work in 900 in s. And also did the India basic \nYerba Buena SX80: in phase one\, we performed 10 test speeds for soar boring and 7 Cpt’s. and on phase 2. We did 14 additional onshore\, boring \nYerba Buena SX80: to depth\, ranging between a to 100 feet. 5 offshore boarding \nto also depth of the homework. you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, yes. \nyeah\, you’re not \nYerba Buena SX80: cool. \nYerba Buena SX80: I apologize. For the delay. We lost our wi-fi here in the meeting room we’re in\, and it just came back so we’ll be restarting the presentation. \nyou know. \nBill Holmes: I think anybody \nBill Holmes: that’s oh\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yes\, so we perform geotechnical investigation in 2 phases and phase one\, we focus on 900 in a side with 10 test speed for sole boring and 7 Cpt’s \nYerba Buena SX80: on A and on the phase 2. We combine the India Basin project\, as well as the 900 in. As. \nand we perform additional 14 boardings \nYerba Buena SX80: 9 Cpt’s \nYerba Buena SX80: also there’s 8 of them was onshore\, and 5 of them was offshore on one of the boardings. We also perform Ps suspension downhole logging for the Joe physical to determine the sheer velocity of it. \nYerba Buena SX80: as in total we did 29 boardings. \nYerba Buena SX80: which 24 of them was offshore\, and 5 of them offshore\, 9\, Cpt’s 1010 test pits there. \nYerba Buena SX80: 8 of the boarding was focused on this area that we have these 2 structures which are concerned with the Bcd C. And which 4 of them was offshore\, and 4 of them was onshore. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also we did 3 CP. Ts in there \nYerba Buena SX80: as a summary. We had a very \nYerba Buena SX80: no previous one. Yeah\, very\, very complex subsurface conditions. We had some area we had undocumented feel. The feel was very heterogeneous. \nthe depth\, thickness of it it was ranging between nothing from 0 to 41 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: in some area underneath of it\, typically\, we had young Bay mode. which\, with the thickness of the between 0 to 77 feet. \nBelow young Baymont we encounter interbedded sand and clay \nYerba Buena SX80: sometimes\, and the thickness of it ranges between 0 to 30 feet. and below that is old bait clay with the thickness of the 0 to 20 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then collovium or residual soil between 0 to 20 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the bedrock with. We encounter most of our \nYerba Buena SX80: our borings in offshore and near the shoreline reached the bedrock. There \ngroundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: ranges from 9 to 22 feet below ground surface the ground surface at those locations. The elevation of it was plus 5 2 plus 13 feet\, with \nYerba Buena SX80: NAVD. 88. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nSole parameters were developed \nYerba Buena SX80: by the information from the field and the lab. Most of it was developed by either published relationship or guidelines from the public agencies there \nYerba Buena SX80: residual under shear strain parameter for Lico. Fibrous soul was determined from correlation with the N. 1 60 \nsuggested originally by seed\, and then later by other researchers like Kramer and Wang in 2\,015\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and for the bedrock \nYerba Buena SX80: we estimated the module of the elasticity by a relationship between that with unconfined\, compressive strength of the rock\, and conservatively\, we use a hundred for the ratio there\, Cameron. I have a quick question\, I guess. Pretty obvious\, maybe\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: effective unit weights. I assume that’s when it’s below the ground water table\, right? But above the ground water table your effective unit weights will be \nYerba Buena SX80: much higher\, 50 pounds heavier\, 60 pounds heavier. Correct. You didn’t use 62\, for that is correct. There. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: This plate shows the distribution of our boring and Cpt’s and test speeds\, as you can see that we try to characterize the site by going along the proposed structures as well as the other places that we are play planning to place\, feel. \nYerba Buena SX80: to determine settlements and other Joe technical considerations. There also we perform \nYerba Buena SX80: slope stability analysis along 9 cross sections. Those cross sections are shown by green \nYerba Buena SX80: arrows there. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also we develop 7 generalized subsurface profile which are showing with the dark blue \nlines in there \nYerba Buena SX80: next\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is one of the cross-sections near the proposed 2 structures that it is concerned for the PC. DC. As you can see them is already generalized\, but the the materials are relatively heterogeneous. They pinch out in some area. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the artificial feel is actually pretty thick. In some in the onshore portion of that \nYerba Buena SX80: next one. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is the generalized geologic cross section along the profile\, EE. Prime. and you can see that in this one. We don’t have some of some of the subsurface material\, or missing like interbedded sand and clay is missing\, and or old baked clay is missing in some area\, and the artificial field was directly on top of the bedrock. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the thickness of the bay mode was also very significantly there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nexus. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is also another one along this more or less the same area. That’s also you can see that some of the thicknesses are variable. \nYerba Buena SX80: and some layers are missing in that section according to our boring locks \nYerba Buena SX80: and the next one. So we determines some major geotechnical considerations that affecting the project because of the placing the beach one item would be static settlement \nand a \nYerba Buena SX80: and also due to the this settlement also can be due to the undocumented field and highly compressible clay below the field. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also have a seismically induced deformation due to the potential liquor\, fibrous soil\, and lose unsaturated soil \nYerba Buena SX80: above and below the groundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: both for the field and also the Sam lenses below the young Bay mode. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also have a strong ground shaking\, like everywhere else in the area. and we also have some ground movement due to earthquake. Induce slope failure \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: Following the procedure in sc. 7\, 16\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and also A. C. 41\, 17. We developed seismic criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: For the 900 in s. We have some structure which they remain in place. So that’s why we use the sc. 7\, 41 17. But for the other project\, other part of the project and the new\, the structures we use. We follow the sc. 7\, 16 there. \nYerba Buena SX80: next one\, please. Oh\, I’m yeah. \nSo \nYerba Buena SX80: based on the site. Information that we had\, we develop. We classified the sub surface condition to 2 site classification \nYerba Buena SX80: D. One of them was D\, with the shareware velocity\, average shareware velocity of the about a thousand feet per second. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then one of them\, of course\, would be F because of the presence of the liquefiable soil and collapsible solar. \nYerba Buena SX80: We cider specific acceleration was developed\, following\, sc. 7\, 16\, for 50 years\, return period. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then Pg. A. M. Of the point 7 8 and point 6 5 was the term or calculated for onshore and offshore. \nYerba Buena SX80: Harder \nYerba Buena SX80: a maximum moment\, Max. We use the San maximum moment. Magnitude of the 8.0 5 for San Andros fault\, which is the governing fault for this site. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we also use the design seismic criteria by multiplying it by 2\, 3 of the Mca level there \nfor the legal faction analysis. Also\, we use a magnet moment magnitude of the 8.0 5\, \nYerba Buena SX80: with the Pgm. Of the point 7 8 G \nYerba Buena SX80: no depth limit was applied. Thin layer transition\, you know\, was applied for the Cpt logs. There \nYerba Buena SX80: we also use the clay like\, and sand like method as a proposed by Bowlinger and Idris\, and then ground water level was as the highest point of plus 8 feet for the onshore and 0 for the offshore developer. \nYerba Buena SX80: for the assumptions that we did for local faction induced lateral deformation. We were looking at the continuity of the layers\, making sure that because this the cofaction that we calculate was very localized in some areas because of the this field was very heterogeneous in some areas that a lot of the gravels\, rocky materials. \nYerba Buena SX80: and in some area they had young Bay mode\, and this that it was mixed with the field and some area was just a sand and clay there. So we were looking at the continuity of that layer to determine if the lateral deformation can occur. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the free phase\, we apply the free face condition for it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we use the lateral displacement index method to calculate the\, you know\, liquor faction in these lateral deformations \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide \noff \nYerba Buena SX80: for the Marine Walk project. There is gonna be some beach level and some raising the grade there. so to \nYerba Buena SX80: provide a support for this field \nYerba Buena SX80: originally retaining wall was considered. \nYerba Buena SX80: but that it was very difficult to come up with the design due to liquefi soil and the young and thickness of the young bay mart there. therefore\, instead\, we are so we decided to use a \nYerba Buena SX80: Msc. \nYerba Buena SX80: Embankment for supporting that engineered field\, and that Mse. \nYerba Buena SX80: By itself is going to be supported by the Dsm. \nBecause of the \nYerba Buena SX80: Bay MoD. That we have in there is a very highly compressible. We estimate that the settlement could be on order of the several feats over many years. \nYerba Buena SX80: and therefore we wanted to improve that soil by \nYerba Buena SX80: constructing the deep soil mixing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we we develop some plans for it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we try to keep that as a performance based. Approach \nYerba Buena SX80: that the specified maximum design bearing capacity of the treated young Bay mode of the 20 psi psi for a debt plus livelo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a cross section along the peer\, and you will see that. \nWe have. \nYerba Buena SX80: and young Bay mode which is gonna be treated. \nYerba Buena SX80: and underneath of it we have bedrock\, the sensual leader. \nYerba Buena SX80: So all the Dsm are gonna be extending to the entire length of the young. Baymot goes to the bedrock. and we are using\, maybe hopefully\, the line to to improve that funder. \nYerba Buena SX80: and above that above the Dsm. Will be Msc. Wall\, that we are. Gonna place it there \nYerba Buena SX80: next one\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Msc wall is also what’s considered to be the most cost effective solution for that. So to pro\, to provide the support for the marine way\, beach or field and walkway slab. There \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, performance-based approach was selected to a specified minimum safety factor against sliding \nYerba Buena SX80: Crip and constructions. Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these are showing several sections of the Msc. And then Ds involved \nYerba Buena SX80: to have a face set for the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: We try to stay\, provide a gap between the Msc. And the face of face of all there \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the Msc. Has in one side has up to 70 degree \nYerba Buena SX80: angle\, and the other side has about 45 handholders. It’s gonna be all wrapped in filth in the \nYerba Buena SX80: Joe Grid\, and also with the filter fabric in\, lay inside of it\, there to make sure that we have appropriate drainage \nYerba Buena SX80: as well as the supporter \nYerba Buena SX80: next one. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some by that I’m gonna pass it to Shawn. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: What? \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright moving on. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nI guess this \nYerba Buena SX80: slide shows the \nYerba Buena SX80: items that we’re considering during this meeting. So you can see the pier and the intermediate landing on the left that are pile supported\, and then on the right that red line\, that kind of curls around. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s the marine way \nYerba Buena SX80: walkway that has a \nYerba Buena SX80: like Cameron just said has a Msc \nYerba Buena SX80: structure that’s retaining and a \nYerba Buena SX80: cast in place. Concrete facial wall in front for corrosion concerns more than anything else. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve listed \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: design criteria items here on the table. \nYerba Buena SX80: to the right. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think most of those are fairly self-explanatory. \nYerba Buena SX80: they. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess we’re concentrating on the peers in the pile supporting structures first. But dead live. There’s no\, we’re not considering our \nYerba Buena SX80: wave and current loads aren’t going to govern on these structures. \nYerba Buena SX80: No birthing loads would have to be a very \nYerba Buena SX80: shallow ship. Wind loads\, not gonna govern seismic loads \nYerba Buena SX80: we are designing this per category is low and based on low importance. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we’re using a two-thirds. Mcr. Like Cameron spoke before\, and all those that spectrum was developed by ags. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think an important \nYerba Buena SX80: wow\, no\, keep going. Go next. Yep. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright so this is just kind of the method\, a method that we use. \nYerba Buena SX80: we used a \nYerba Buena SX80: pushover analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: And 16 different directions with\, you know\, the 100% plus 30% to account for \nYerba Buena SX80: torsional items. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we calculate the displacement demand for the design\, earthquake. \nYerba Buena SX80: for each brochure curve. So. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and then we’re using \nYerba Buena SX80: life safety as the limit state for the hinges. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is another important criteria\, and we have in the table over here on the bottom right? We have the strain limits. \nYerba Buena SX80: That apply for the life safety criteria\, both for \nYerba Buena SX80: above ground hinges in the piles and below ground hinges. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. No requirements for deepened ground for the life safety protection. Item. \nYerba Buena SX80: criteria so \nYerba Buena SX80: form joint share. I think we could go to the next slide. It’s basically A/C 61. \nYerba Buena SX80: so this is kind of a snapshot of what the sap. \nYerba Buena SX80: finite element model looks like. We developed Pmem hinges\, which I think I’ve talked about briefly on the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: The soil springs that are along. The piles were developed with the help of A. GS. And \nYerba Buena SX80: the tables that are on this slide kind of tell you the layering that was assumed for the location of these 2 structures. So we have the \nYerba Buena SX80: intermediate landing that’s in the darker green. And then the pier that’s in yellow. \nYerba Buena SX80: A note to be made is that we just we I assumed that \nYerba Buena SX80: The \nYerba Buena SX80: what was liquefiable was liquefied during the allows. So it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: you know it. It’s it’s already in the liquefied state\, right? So the fill that could liquefy. We just assumed it was liquified. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can go\, Shawn. I have a quick question\, I think. Let me see if I can get my \nYerba Buena SX80: video going again. \nYerba Buena SX80: How are you imposing these springs\, or do you have deformation from the geotech that pushes against the back of the springs. And that’s what’s pushing against. No we are. We are calculating\, and displacement demand with a substitute structure method. And so. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, so we get a displacement requirement. And then we’re checking. So we’re forcing it and then getting and how are you comparing what? The what’s actually going to push on that from the soil? \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s gonna push? Well\, we are getting What’s going to push on it from the soil. There’s no loads from the soil. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we determined that there was no lateral spread loading from it. If that’s what you meant by that. Yeah\, because of the discontinuity that exists between the Lico fiber layers. There. There. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Gotcha. \nyeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is just a basic extract analysis to get plastic moments. we’re using expected values for the materials to \nYerba Buena SX80: via tinge capacities. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure. And that little box on the left. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can go to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is one of the cases case. A one shows the hinges in the pile\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: above ground hinges. There you can see them as green dots \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the below ground hinge in \nYerba Buena SX80: low ground at the maximum moment. Location? \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you could go to the next slide \nYerba Buena SX80: this is an elevation view of the different structures. I think it kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: gives you a good idea of what’s going on otherwise. So you have the boathouse pier that’s on the top. \nYerba Buena SX80: You arrive from the boathouse\, and there’s like a walkway. I believe\, is also cloud supported. But it’s not part of this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then you transition onto the Votehouse pier. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 gangways that connect the boathouse pier to the intermediate landing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the intermediate landing to a float system is another gambling. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can go to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: These are some basic structural details\, for those 2 pile supported elements. concrete. There’s gonna be a \nYerba Buena SX80: wood deck on top. I don’t think that makes much difference to us \nYerba Buena SX80: today. \nYerba Buena SX80: and go next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Basic detail for a reinforced concrete pile. go to next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So now we are over to the marine way. Wall\, \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, as Cameron discussed \nYerba Buena SX80: previously. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know the text. Sorry. The text is a little small on the detail on the top left\, but you can see the trapezoid of Msc. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s there. And then below that is Dsm\, the cross hatch. and then we have some engineered fill in the back of all that. \nYerba Buena SX80: and there’s the gravel beach\, which is a fill and back that are on top of that\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: concrete fascia panel is sitting in the front of all of those items with a void between it and the \nYerba Buena SX80: MSE. And the purpose of the void is we’re trying to disconnect \nYerba Buena SX80: from the Msc. So any lateral translation of Msc. Won’t \nYerba Buena SX80: load the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: the what else? \nYerba Buena SX80: We were asked to talk about the so that the concrete wall will have a textured surface. it’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: so e concrete\, I guess\, is what they’re the proprietary brand is\, but it’s a textured surface that promotes \nYerba Buena SX80: marine growth. The picture below is a picture I took last week out at \nYerba Buena SX80: Peer. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s 45 over by Fisherman’s Wharf\, where they have a the port has these test panels that they hung. So the comparison is on the top. There’s the sheet pile wall\, and that’s the amount of growth that \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re getting in the bottom is a concrete panel which \nYerba Buena SX80: looks to have more growth. So I\, you know\, qualitative. \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, my. \nYerba Buena SX80: there you go. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So II want. I wanted to know a little bit more about the scar protection apron that you’re talking about. I mean\, what’s the extent of that? \nYerba Buena SX80: And then as well \ncan do that for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s a cross-section as the \nYerba Buena SX80: Why \nstate \nto call the limits of it. \nOkay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is this supported on the DSM. System. \nplease. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe that within \ndown. \nessentially the extent stand them up \nYerba Buena SX80: on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, can you review it? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, he said\, that this. The scar. Put that. Dsm is going to extend 4 to 5 feet in front of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: What about the sparrow protection? It’s 8 feet wide. Right \nYerba Buena SX80: size. \nThe \nYerba Buena SX80: is our. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, can I follow up and just \nYerba Buena SX80: what size way is being \nYerba Buena SX80: assumed for that? Because that sounds very small\, I can point to \nYerba Buena SX80: real problems with the \nYerba Buena SX80: because you have a\, you have a solid wall\, and the wave impact is goes going straight down\, and it will every 5 5 to 8 inch cargo right out. That that’s not. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s not rock of any significance. Actually\, when it comes to wave action. So II would strongly suggest that somebody look at the size of the waves and make sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: this is\, in fact\, adequate\, but just \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of looking at it. It doesn’t look adequate. And since we are added\, there is the other issue. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure why \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re so worried about separating the wall from the mechanically stabilized embankment behind. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: We have plenty of examples. City of Pacifica specifically. Where the waves coming\, go right behind the wall and rip the panels out from behind the point being that you really have to have. If if there is going to be gap\, it has to be really carefully sealed \nYerba Buena SX80: or protected from direct water entry. And the other thing is that \nYerba Buena SX80: since you’re talking\, my understanding is geography\, and the wrap \nYerba Buena SX80: that there’d be again erosion protection\, basically a fabric around the wrap. So there is no opportunity for basically erosion. If\, should the Ms. You all get saturated \nYerba Buena SX80: by. You know\, things happen so extra protection. And that’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: a very difficult thing to do that would \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s try and keep these comments. For now. \nYerba Buena SX80: One. \nOkay\, so very. \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, okay\, mine’s working. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. awesome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. is this possible to have mads? And \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, II was trying to get mad to kind of take over for the next slide. But \nMads Jorgensen M&N: yes\, I apologize. I had a sequence just before we got to this point where I lost audio. I could see the slides moving on. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: and but I could speak to the size of the \nMads Jorgensen M&N: stone or the rock for the scour apron. We did look at that. and we sized that to be appropriate \nMads Jorgensen M&N: so the condition in the bay there is that it’s it’s really a mud flat at at low tide. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: A large extent of the bay is dry\, and it’s mud flat\, so very\, very flat. shallow pan coming up to these structures. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: so in many cases \nMads Jorgensen M&N: of intermediate tight conditions\, the waves coming in are going to be depth limited. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: So there’s certain size they can get to\, and they start breaking \nMads Jorgensen M&N: and then for a more severe \nMads Jorgensen M&N: case of storm surge and waves coming in. There’s considerably deeper water along these wall structures. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: but we have sort of considered the envelope of these exposures as resized the \nMads Jorgensen M&N: the stone for the scour apron. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. Should we continue on with the slides. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: mads! Can you speak to the sea level? Rise analysis? And \nMads Jorgensen M&N: yeah. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: So I don’t know if this slice been \nMads Jorgensen M&N: been presented earlier\, but the table on the left summarizes all the different \nMads Jorgensen M&N: title datum plates that exist at the site. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: That’s the upper part of the table. and the lower portion has the storm water \nMads Jorgensen M&N: levels with tide up to the 100 year \nMads Jorgensen M&N: return period water level at the bottom row. and \nMads Jorgensen M&N: the table below that\, then\, has the tidal plains projected with a future civil rise\, and this is assuming the \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Opc. A medium tool. Low risk aversion\, sorry medium to high risk aversion. Projection. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: which is a pretty conservative solarized projection \nMads Jorgensen M&N: to to apply to this kind of project\, it puts us on the safe side of things. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: And site. Features are generally \nMads Jorgensen M&N: at innovation\, plus 15 enabled. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: So we’ve evaluated the risk of exposures to seal arise for future projected conditions \nMads Jorgensen M&N: and finding that the site is basically resilient to solar rice \nMads Jorgensen M&N: through mid-century and going towards end of century. King tides would not be \nMads Jorgensen M&N: a concern until around the time 2070 or thereafter. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: so\, in terms of public access her features\, the site is \nMads Jorgensen M&N: resilient through 2050\, and beyond. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a question. \nYerba Buena SX80: But chair. Can I ask you a quick question. What’s the \nYerba Buena SX80: sorry I got that turned on? But wrong one. \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s the design life of the project? I\, Jen said in her introduction\, that it was 40 years \nYerba Buena SX80: 40 years plus now is 2065\, which I don’t see down here. \nYerba Buena SX80: You have a bunch of other things. What is it? That’s our actual target? \nYerba Buena SX80: 2\,070. II had the same question\, where did the 40 years come from? It’s a funny number \nYerba Buena SX80: that I read in one of the reports. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what is the design life of the project? \nYerba Buena SX80: 40 to 50 years? I mean\, design. Life is \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, 40 to 50 years. So 2\,075 ish\, or something like that? 2\,070. \nYerba Buena SX80: How was that established? Does that come from the from the owner or the \nYerba Buena SX80: the city. \nYerba Buena SX80: Don’t. I don’t actually know that. But \nYerba Buena SX80: no\, I don’t. I don’t. I mean\, we decided on how \nYerba Buena SX80: long was reasonable. I mean. I think that’s some of it is\, you know\, some of the these elements obviously will last longer than that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think that was a reasonable projection. \nYerba Buena SX80: I thought it was for the peers. It was reasonable. Yeah\, so that’s different. Yeah. For the peers. I thought that was the reasonable projection from like you you’re talking about when they have to move. I’m just talking about for the design life of the structure\, I mean\, that’s reasonable last longer. But I mean\, there’s plenty of peers in San Francisco that are over 100. So \nYerba Buena SX80: well\, well\, I mean Mo. In fact\, most structures are are assumed to be\, have a design life longer than 40 years. That’s why I’m wondering where it came from. The funny number. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a very short number. \nYerba Buena SX80: It should be based on the the lifespan of the materials used to construct a project. Well\, it should be\, it should be based upon what whoever’s paying for this wants it to be. I mean\, that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s not usually made up by the design team. In my experience\, someone says\, I want this to be. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, so so long \nYerba Buena SX80: we can double check on that. I’m David Frolick from Wrecking Park City of San Francisco\, and it may have been established as a as a departmental number 40 to 50 years based on material life. And and \nYerba Buena SX80: then we reevaluate and we’ll see if it needs to be renovated. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so what have you been you? You have been working as if it is 40 to 50. \nYerba Buena SX80: without quite knowing exactly how that was established. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so everything you’ve done so far\, everything you’re presenting here is based on a 40 to 50 years. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, go ahead. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was looking at the coastal engineering report. I think it was\, and it showed\, I think\, figure 5 and or 6 \nYerba Buena SX80: showed that the pier at the India Basin Shoreline Park to the float\, the the lower pier. \nYerba Buena SX80: the lower peer deck. There’s a first pier\, then a ramp\, and then a lower pier\, and then a ramp to the flow\, so that lower peer is \nYerba Buena SX80: under water at 2050\, II guess\, during the 100 year event\, or the 1% annual chance. Is that correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Oh. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is getting very complicated. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks for reminding me. yeah. So III just wanted to clarify that. I guess we can have discussion later. And I think that’s because of access. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think I understand that. But I just wanted to get that out there and then I have a question which may or may not be in your presentation. But since I’m talking\, and may also be to Jen \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m really interested in the motions of the floats and what the programming is\, or for the multiple floats \nYerba Buena SX80: and the public safety associated with that. And I don’t know that that was in our \nYerba Buena SX80: requested review. But I would like to hear about it. If that’s okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, basically\, what kind of motions do you expect on the public access flows. And what what’s their programming are? Are you gonna have commuter ferries\, or just\, you know\, small boats\, or what you know\, what’s what’s happening. So II just. \nYerba Buena SX80: however\, you want to finish your presentation\, but if if somebody could address that\, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: refinance presentation first\, or do you want to? Well\, I think we can just address that if you wanted. Talk about the wave component of it. And then I well\, I can start with the program. \nYerba Buena SX80: So in terms of the program\, the main feature is the the reason why it has to go out this far is again\, because it’s such a shallow bay. And so we need that distance to get basically to make the stock as usable as possible. I think we’re again. We’re trying to get it to about 95% usable. So like 5% of the time at like very extreme tides\, it wouldn’t be. It would be kind of grounded. But at that 95% \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re getting enough water underneath so that it can be usable. And it’s for very shallow water craft or human powered craft water craft. I guess. So like kayaks or small boats. That you can kind of paddle up to. And there’s a portion of the dock. That’s actually a lower free board dock than the rest of it. \nYerba Buena SX80: which you can kind of see on this top image here. So there’s actually the very end of it is about a 20 by 20 area. That is just 2 picnic tables. And that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: how high I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re going for something like 4 or 5 inches. so the rest is higher\, like 14 or 16. I forget the number portion that 20 by 20 would be \nYerba Buena SX80: that upper\, higher \nYerba Buena SX80: distance away from the water\, and that’s just\, you know\, meant to be for everyone to kind of come and enjoy the kind of the end of the floating dock. You know. Gather there. You could have kind of lunch spot. And then again\, that other. Actually\, yeah. So that other portion is that lower portion that has the kayaks\, and then also on the other side\, there’s an accessible component. It’s like an accessible access \nYerba Buena SX80: for Kayak\, so you can kind of get on and off excessively. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. And that makes sense to me. It’s consistent with what I was looking at. But on the access or the programming there is another peer\, and I think this is still under our review\, and I thought I read in a report that something about ferries could dock on either side. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that the 700 or the 900 in us? Well\, okay\, thank you. And III did read it so II might have been in an older. I think it was the older report off the nickel report on coastal I’ll look again while we’re on. Maybe it was my mistake\, but I wouldn’t have \nYerba Buena SX80: said that unless I thought I read alright. Thank you. My mistake. \nYerba Buena SX80: my my specific concern which we can discuss later. and I’d like to hear your take on. It is the structural loading. Look at a 2.7 foot wave at a 50 year. Recurrence\, wind\, wave. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m just interested in how the float will risk the floats that are publicly accessible with\, you know picnic cables. Whoever will respond to that wave action\, what kind of float motion is anticipated. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then \nYerba Buena SX80: which raises\, you know\, maybe a question about safety\, for you know the general public\, and maybe some management of access to that \nYerba Buena SX80: and that \nYerba Buena SX80: the tech at the intermediate level\, the lower level power supported structure. Landing would be underwater during a hundred year. Event within the project life \nYerba Buena SX80: also indicate some need to manage access\, although it might be obvious that \nYerba Buena SX80: they shouldn’t go\, but you never know. So those are the reason why I’m asking the question\, so I don’t know if you can address that now or later\, or we can just discuss it along the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I can just clearly quickly. Sorry. Explain the the kind of rationale between that intermediate here. It basically is for access. So we wanted to kind of create a series. You know\, because this route is quite a distance out in the water\, we had to have more than one gangway. So we wanted to\, and needed to actually create an intermediate point at which there could be\, you know\, kind of a \nYerba Buena SX80: initial peer\, and then there’s a a slope down to the intermediate pier. And then that intermediate peer is really what starts that second gangway which allows for the flexibility of floating dock to go up and down. So we really need that intermediate peer in order to essentially not have a very long gang way that has\, you know\, a very extreme slope when the dock is grounded\, and\, you know\, could have other kind of slope issues. So it kind of allows that piece to happen. And actually\, we \nYerba Buena SX80: have. I think I have it in here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, we had this strategy where you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: In the future\, you know\, as sea levels rise\, and maybe that intermediate peer isn’t needed. Sorry the entr orientation changed a little bit here\, but when this intermediate appear isn’t needed in the future. The idea is that the floating Doc and that gangway that fluctuates can just be reattached to the more fixed peer up further upland. Yeah\, that makes sense to me that all makes sense. I\, with the access. I just wanted to clarify it\, and perhaps the board or the staff might be interested in in that detail about how \nYerba Buena SX80: within the project life at a hundred year water level. \nYerba Buena SX80: That would not be accessible without getting your feet wet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then also there may be waves of over 2 feet\, maybe 2.7\, I think at a 50 year event which would probably cause the floats to move. which may add questions to whether what kind of public access. So that’s really where I’m I’m okay with the ramps and everything that makes total sense to me\, and I thank you for clarifying that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But my other question still not answered. Yeah\, I think if you could show a design drawing of the float to see how many corners it’s attached to the pilings. If it’s just on one side or both sides \nYerba Buena SX80: then\, and sort of what the clearances where the pilings go through the float. I think that could probably reassure Bob that it’s not gonna till \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re all on one edge. Any ideas that you’re trying to provide\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: a lot of \nYerba Buena SX80: places where kayaks can birth\, I guess\, is the word\, even as kayak \nYerba Buena SX80: right\, most more importantly on the on the end than \nYerba Buena SX80: But we are not currently showing them on both sides. I kiss \nYerba Buena SX80: on the approach section. There’s not really any reason why we couldn’t swipe. Swap\, you know\, back and forth\, and it would provide a more stable \nYerba Buena SX80: platform. Okay\, thank. I think that answers my question\, and we’ll have some discussion on this topic. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Couple of questions\, cause I’m quick clarification questions still\, are these longer discussion kind of questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. If it’s longer it needs to be now\, because we’ll we’ll lose our place. That’s fine. If we’re just. I think I’d like to try and finish the present\, and then we’ll come back. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the rest of it could be pretty quick. I don’t think. Do you want. Do you want to go for it? \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. So this slide just shows \nYerba Buena SX80: the elevations of the different items. Design items on here. \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: intermediate landing\, as Bob brought up is at plus 10\, and then the \nYerba Buena SX80: finish floor elevation of the boat house is at 16\, which is over. I think it was 15\, the flood elevation and then on the \nYerba Buena SX80: marine way. Wall\, we’re at \nYerba Buena SX80: basically mean high water there at the plus 6 at the bottom of the marine level. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we can go to the next slide. \nI think the \nYerba Buena SX80: sequence of the last 3 or 4 slides here just projected sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: And where that puts the water within a planned view. \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s not really right. So \nYerba Buena SX80: it creeps up\, I guess as the \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t really have any more discussion on that than yeah\, I can\, I can speak to this. So \nYerba Buena SX80: now\, jeez. okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: so yeah\, I mean\, I’m just. You know\, they’re a series of slides\, and and the purpose of them is to really show in the 3 levels of blue how those 3 different title. \nYerba Buena SX80: Datums are \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of tracing the topography on the site. So the mean high water that came tied in the base flood elevation at each of the sea level rise projections. So kind of skip to 2050. Just so you could see that \nYerba Buena SX80: and then I’ll move through. Okay\, so then 2070. Again\, the main takeaway here is that our design \nYerba Buena SX80: elements that are structures and the bay trail\, and even the space City ferry deck\, which is basically a gathering deck\, are all well above the bfe at 2070 we do see inundation into the gravel shore and upland into this area. That’s a grass transition zone. But this is designed to have that flexibility with these higher tides\, to be able to have that inundation come in and then recede \nYerba Buena SX80: and then\, at this time\, you know\, Recon Park could also determine to add more gravel shore. If that was desirable from a programming standpoint. They could just add more gravel at this point\, and to kind of replace the grass area. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then in 2\,100 again\, you can see those 3 title datums. So the lightest color is the one at Bf\, the second darkest is the king tide. At 14.7. Again\, you can see it’s coming into these areas at that point. Over the \nYerba Buena SX80: the fixed pier\, the upper fixed pier. But it’s still below the top finished floor of the boathouse. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the bay trail is set above that 14.7 as well. So really\, in 2\,100 the bfe will \nYerba Buena SX80: flood over the bay trail\, but just in one portion\, and the bay trail is exposed area concrete. So this should be a fairly\, you know\, when this event happens\, there’s just going to need to kind of be some potential minor repair \nYerba Buena SX80: of that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then this is just again a summary of those elements. So the key elements boat house\, the base city ferry deck and the trails and the bay trail \nYerba Buena SX80: dashed\, and magenta here\, looking at 2050 on how they’re all above those levels. And then\, just looking back at our site\, \nYerba Buena SX80: just seeing that main lawn unfold down the center with that gravel shore at the very end\, and then the marine way wall on the left side\, and then the floating dock coming forward towards us on the right side. This is a rendering. Yes\, sorry. Thank you. That’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm\, everyone can turn it. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: so board members\, if you’re \nYerba Buena SX80: getting ready to present something actually\, right now\, we’re not doing board member stuff\, right? We have public comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe. Right? So so thanks. Project team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, public comments at this point like to receive public comments\, if any on the project. specific to the presentation\, please raise your hand digital hand. If you’re online or \nYerba Buena SX80: nobody’s in the audience. One person in the audience. If you’re in the audience and want to talk\, raise your hand physically. \nYerba Buena SX80: please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of remarks. Remember\, you have a 3 min \nYerba Buena SX80: time limit. \nYerba Buena SX80: as in any meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. We’re here to listen to every one who wishes to address the meeting. but\, as always\, we ask every one act in a civil manner. \nYerba Buena SX80: hate\, speech\, threats\, threats made public\, directly or indirectly\, and abusive. Language will not be tolerated\, and anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nYerba Buena SX80: or who exceeds the established 3 min limit without permission will be muted. \nGrace\, we let us know if there’s any one who has their hands raised\, and call their names and state \nYerba Buena SX80: when no more hands are raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: there are no hands raised for public comments. Oh\, there is one hand raised behind you\, a physical hand. Wow! Physical hand! That’s a exciting thing. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hello\, everyone! My name is Jade Carter. I’m an undergrad student at University of San Francisco\, and I’ve been involved with the Equitable Development Plan port portion of this project through rec parks. I just have a question for you all about kind of how you’re drilling into the bay for this construction. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m aware that one of the remediation techniques in the clean up process at 900 was to place sand and soil caps offshore to prevent the re exposure of soil contaminants. I’m curious how this offshore construction aims to prevent the re-exposure or uncovering of these contaminants back into the bay. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: You can stay there for a minute if you want\, while they respond. I can provide a quick answer. The remediated area was at 900\, Dennis. Not at India\, based in Shoreline Park. So we’re actually not penetrating any caps at this portion of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to? \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to bring up a map and kind of show generally\, where those remediation there are compared to the project site. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the 900 in a site is if you can see the mouse kind of moving around. That’s the site \nYerba Buena SX80: right there and then the basin\, which is \nYerba Buena SX80: looks like a lighter brown area was the area that was remediated\, and we didn’t remediate all the way out to where that color changes in the water tide. But maybe about midway through is where we removed about 2 to 5 feet of sediment\, both upland and in the water off hauled it\, and then imported new sediment or new fill to \nYerba Buena SX80: cap\, that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does that address? Your question? Excellent. Yeah. And Grace\, are there any other hands raised online. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hello\, Caller\, please for the record. Please state your name and affiliation. You have 3 min. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Hi! My! My name is Katherine Langsteiff. \nAutopoiesis LLC: and I’m with the wild oyster project. \nAutopoiesis LLC: and I’ve been interested in using living shorelines here at the site to help buffer wave action\, but also \nAutopoiesis LLC: to increase biodiversity. And I’ve had the pleasure of talking with some of the design team\, but I wanted BCDC. To understand that there’s an opportunity here that I think would be a really great one. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can you share a little bit more about your ideas? \nAutopoiesis LLC: Yeah\, I mean. I’m sorry. Do you have an echo? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is is that better. \nAutopoiesis LLC: So if you go to. If you go to the slides with the inundation. \nAutopoiesis LLC: you can see\, and also with a discussion around the fascia panel\, there’s an opportunity there where you were talking about. I think you call that scouring\, that we could use oyster reefs as a way to buffer the wall\, but also to help \nAutopoiesis LLC: sort of seed the wall with native oysters\, and we’ve had success with the port of San Francisco right across India\, based in at Herons Head park. \nAutopoiesis LLC: and I think it’s a great opportunity for us to continue \nAutopoiesis LLC: using nature-based solutions \nAutopoiesis LLC: in this area. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Another idea would be to line the shore line\, as you see\, when you get to the \nAutopoiesis LLC: 2\,100 by that point you have a lot of \nAutopoiesis LLC: flooding which which would allow oyster habitat \nAutopoiesis LLC: to have the the to move inland. \nAutopoiesis LLC: which becomes water right at. As this hole over this 60 year period or longer. You can see how the oyster habitat could keep buffering the shoreline as it moves inward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do we respond to the public comment\, Would the team like to respond to the public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll have our time\, our chance\, sure we can. So we we recently met with Katherine from the wild oyster project to look at our site and and and try to see if there were any opportunities or possible opportunities for \nYerba Buena SX80: oyster reef balls. It. It looks like due to elevations that \nit may be difficult at our site within our project limits to achieve\, but we’re still looking into it. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and I don’t remember the numbers off the top of my head\, but I think they have to be submerged for a certain amount of time. \nYerba Buena SX80: do you remember? Yeah. So in \nYerba Buena SX80: trying to find a good image. \nYerba Buena SX80: So basically\, our extent of kind of grading work into the shoreline ends at about elevation one\, and from my understanding the oysters do best when they’re set at about an elevation of 0 at their at their kind of base\, because of the tide fluctuations that we have here that allows them. It would still be visible because we go out to a negative one or negative 2 tides sometimes. \nYerba Buena SX80: but it gives them enough water most of the time that they’re mostly covered at that 0. So there are certain areas where we might explore having them. The if you can see my mouse kind of this area\, upper left \nYerba Buena SX80: corner is a potential site where we’re the existing topography brings us pretty close to the 0 contour \nYerba Buena SX80: but in these other areas\, further upshore\, or I don’t know what the right term is. But basically we’re up at elevations 1\, 2 or 3\, even though it is showing inundated right? Because our high waters at around 5 right? But at those hires elevations \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s just a mud flat\, and so the it may just not be the best place for the oysters\, but we are exploring them on or along the the marine way. Wall. So I think the Catherine is asking specifically about\, although elevation elevations change effectively. Due to sea level rise. So in 30 years\, elevation 0 is what I mean\, it will look like 0 \nYerba Buena SX80: where it’s right now\, elevation 3 or whatever\, and that if you do it now\, the oysters can kind of walk their way up the slope as sea level rise occurs. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that how does that fit with what you just said? What you just described? \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, well again. We’re\, you know\, we recently met with her\, and and we’re looking at opportunities to \nYerba Buena SX80: try to incorporate them if possible. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Grace\, any more hands. Thank you. \nI do have one more. It might be the same caller\, but I’m not sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hello! For the record. Please state your name and affiliation. You have 3 min. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Yes\, thank you so much. This is Katherine Langstein. I appreciate the team and meeting with me\, and I just wanted to say that we’re exploring\, not reef balls. \nAutopoiesis LLC: but oyster reefs that are created through bag shell. \nAutopoiesis LLC: And I think that that’s something that \nAutopoiesis LLC: that might change the elevation in our favour. So thank you for her listening. Appreciate it. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Catherine lists our \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you guys have other \nYerba Buena SX80: respond to what you just said? Is that still part of your discussion\, same as what you’re doing. Yeah\, I would say that we’re still\, you know\, trying to evaluate. If if it’s a possibility at our our project site\, you know\, I just wanna comment on this if I can. I was thinking the same thing. I mean most of the oyster work in the bay is with these \nYerba Buena SX80: cast structures where the reef falls\, or castles\, or whatever but you know\, in other parts of the world. \nYerba Buena SX80: and maybe historically\, in the bay there were reefs\, or\, or\, you know\, just benthic type coverings of of oysters\, and maybe the rocks that are part of the design could be \nYerba Buena SX80: a substrate. I don’t know. I’m not a biologist\, but you know what she said sounded like it. It might be a little more feasible \nYerba Buena SX80: than if you’re placing a refall\, which is\, you know\, has some high to it. The one thing I would say is\, you probably don’t want the oysters where people are gonna walk like at the bottom of the \nYerba Buena SX80: gravel beach. I mean assuming somebody might walk out there. I mean\, it’s not too bad if if if you know they’re there. But you really don’t want to step on oysters\, I don’t think that would. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it’s it’s gonna be a balance between public use and and kayaks are entering\, and it could be potentially entering from the floating dock and the gravel beach\, so we don’t want them to \nYerba Buena SX80: impede on on \nYerba Buena SX80: fe potential future future oyster habitat. Yeah\, we are also looking at possibly incorporating oyster shells into the marine way. Walls to kind of try to increase the habitat on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thanks\, Grace. Any more now. Okay\, no more hands in the audience here and no more hands online. \nSo then we will move on to board. Discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: to start\, please raise your hand\, turn on your mic. Make sure your camera is on while you’re speaking. And Bob stuck his hand up first and Remine is \nYerba Buena SX80: right behind him. Okay\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I just would like a \nYerba Buena SX80: I have an echo. or do. I thought I had an echo. Now I don’t \nBill Holmes: alright. \nYerba Buena SX80: You do. I do. Somebody does. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. How was that somebody else has a microphone \nYerba Buena SX80: or somebody. How’s their \nYerba Buena SX80: your computer? \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s unmuted. \nYerba Buena SX80: The volunteers is not safe. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not using my computer audio. So it’s not me. So now it sounds okay. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: well. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I just. I’m \nYerba Buena SX80: I would like. So I think\, just to cut to the chase. Probably I will suggest that recommend that \nYerba Buena SX80: supervision and adaptive management of operational restrictions to occur\, due to wave action that induces float motions and the high water levels that inundate the lower peer deck and flows. So that’s kind of not worded that. Well\, but basically I \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I guess we could ask for some sort of analysis of the float motions during certain wave conditions\, and have a better understanding of \nYerba Buena SX80: what level of wave action 10\, year 20 year 50 year type wave action would induce float motions that aren’t really \nYerba Buena SX80: appropriate for public access. If that’s the case\, in in which case. \nYerba Buena SX80: perhaps the public shouldn’t have free access to the \nYerba Buena SX80: floats and and or if it’s flooded\, and and then and then so what would you do about it? And that would be some sort of management of the operational conditions. But I think\, in lieu of asking for a whole study and stuff\, and and realizing that the designs not complete yet. \nYerba Buena SX80: an alternative would be to \nYerba Buena SX80: expect that that would be addressed in the design \nYerba Buena SX80: and or in the operational management\, or the management of operational conditions\, which would be some sort of closure or other \nYerba Buena SX80: approach which could be adaptively managed. which might be more practical\, I don’t know\, so I just throw that out there\, but I think I do have a concern about having a float that far out \nYerba Buena SX80: where the waves could be. Get to the point where somebody might fall off. \nYerba Buena SX80: or you know something like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Would the team like to respond to that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I’ll just. I can note that we will have a just a a kind of chain at the very top here\, next to the boat house before you start the entering the first kind of fixed pier which can be managed. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know when. Yeah\, we can. We? We’ve discussed with our operations and maintenance that. \nYerba Buena SX80: we will need to adaptive or do some sort of adaptive management depending on on how this is \nYerba Buena SX80: how the how you know what happens after it’s built? But we are currently having a chain\, a chain put in so that we could close it off. We went back and forth with having a chain or a gate\, and you know\, if someone wants to jump over\, they’re gonna jump over\, no matter what it is so we thought that we would put a chain in for now\, and and sign it if needed. \nYerba Buena SX80: depending on the situation. So\, Bob\, is that sufficient? Or do you need something more than that? No\, I think it’s I mean\, the risk is on the city \nYerba Buena SX80: and others\, and you know so \nYerba Buena SX80: I feel like they’re aware of it and motivated to deal with it. So I don’t have any. So I think we’re on record. Now. \nYerba Buena SX80: be being aware of the concerns and having a a response. So I think maybe that’s out. Thank you \nYerba Buena SX80: for me \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you all for for your presentation the. I heard some words that I needed clarification in my mind. \nYerba Buena SX80: I heard performance base. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then I heard response. I heard pushover analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anytime history type\, any response history analysis. So it’s basically a spectral type analysis. So I don’t know if that \nYerba Buena SX80: qualifies as performance based type approach or not. But so that that’s one thing. \nand the other thing is in my mind. I’m I’m very surprised. \nYerba Buena SX80: considering the soft conditions out there\, that such high pgas were used for the compaction. Evaluation mean your grand response analyses computes almost half of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I’m I’m I’m kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: little unclear on that. You can use a code value. I guess it’s really high. But since you have done all the site specific evaluations\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: it begs the question\, what is the impact? And does it need this level of of perhaps ground notification that you’re considering the other \nYerba Buena SX80: So in other words\, they may be over conservative attenuation of the ground motions. Not only that\, also\, considering that this interbedded sand and clay\, the the lower below the fill\, \nYerba Buena SX80: doesn’t seem to me based on the results from your boring logs. \nYerba Buena SX80: that is \nYerba Buena SX80: as potentially liquifiable as as you have \nYerba Buena SX80: considered it\, especially with very low. It seems to me residual strength that you’re assigning? \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think \nYerba Buena SX80: you should take a look at that and see if if that’s really justified. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what is the basis really more than anything. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure\, thanks. So I think actually\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: we have some layers of the lico fiber layers. It’s very thin in that interbedded sand below the young bay mode. \nYerba Buena SX80: The below counts. I think it was in high teens \nYerba Buena SX80: even though in most cases was in on the top twenties or thirties. That portion was not Nico fibro. \nYerba Buena SX80: but for the those areas which was high teens\, it turns out to be liquor fiber by by procedures that we followed there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure. Then the next follow up question would be like\, for example\, in your \nYerba Buena SX80: ideologic section DD plate 5 d. In your report. I think it’s part of the presentation. Yeah\, right there. Yeah\, that’s what. So so that layer is about \nYerba Buena SX80: 20 feet or so thick \nYerba Buena SX80: and at least based on \nYerba Buena SX80: based on table you provided you’re assigning a residual strength of 400 Psf. To that layer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that what was used in your evaluations? \nYerba Buena SX80: Let me see what was the I have the porting logs for the right. \nYerba Buena SX80: so you can see that we have \nYerba Buena SX80: some below counts in the order of like 20\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s all been potentially liquefy with the upper portion of it is very \nYerba Buena SX80: dance. I mean\, it’s not even dense. It’s medium dance\, because that’s their moth\, Cal. So we have to multiply it by point 6 to get the Sbt values. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s that’s about high twenties. But as it goes down it’s it is turning all everything to potentially lico fibro. And I think it gets clear\, too. \nSo \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it\, it begs the question whether or not it’s the look of action issues\, especially in that deeper layer\, is as \nYerba Buena SX80: severe. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if so\, there’s some sense in which us as representing public agency that’s looking out for the health and safety of of the public. They’re they’ve got health and safety. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe beyond what is. you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, they got some conservatism that’s not perhaps even needed. \nYerba Buena SX80: But we’re not objecting to it being unsafe. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not objecting to being unsafe. I’m just saying \nYerba Buena SX80: what is the basis? This is an engineering review board. So you’re reviewing engineering criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we are just following the procedures by Oringer and Itris for triggering the licoaction. And for that particular layer. It seems to be trigger. It may not be \nYerba Buena SX80: everywhere. \nYerba Buena SX80: but when we are designing for the pies we are\, we are kind of designing it based on that particular wonder. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what\, when one way to look at it\, pre perhaps\, is \nYerba Buena SX80: blow count sampling doesn’t account for thin layer correction. Very well. You can get one low blow\, count and it looks like it’s 5 feet thick on your the way you want applies it\, whereas if you look at that back as a \nYerba Buena SX80: Cpt\, you might see that it’ll look okay. There are some sequential \nYerba Buena SX80: thin zones that are\, you know\, 12 inches thick\, but but they’re inner\, interlayered\, interfingered\, and so on\, and so \nYerba Buena SX80: some of that can go away frequently with \nYerba Buena SX80: others. Seelick\, you can. You can get rid of that off and get rid of much of that. I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: oops it has. There’s some some other newer methods as well. yeah. Actually\, if you look at the boring B 9. Also\, you will see that \nYerba Buena SX80: we have some layers with the teens. I mean\, not even low teens a blow counting there. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I looked at B 9 to my so even better in d 9. Now\, one thing I would like you to comment on. \nYerba Buena SX80: because it does say\, this has gravels in it. Hmm. If \nYerba Buena SX80: you are from your judgment\, considering that your blow counts in a small sampler\, is\, is elevated artificially because of presence of gravel. That’s one thing. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I didn’t see any statement to that effect in in the\, in the report that qualifies or the the particular blow counts in that sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: And again\, I go back to also\, like faction evaluation based on PGA values which I don’t think are reasonable for the conditions you have\, and your own analysis is showing it too. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? So if you look at the blow counts in B 9 30 feet. We have \nYerba Buena SX80: 21\, \nYerba Buena SX80: at 35\, we have 10\, \nYerba Buena SX80: at 40\, we have 15. There’s a very low blow down for that. That depth. \nYerba Buena SX80: Get into this type. Right? Those are pretty clean sounds. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s about 15 feet of I mean \nYerba Buena SX80: it\, says Clay. Lens in in. \nYerba Buena SX80: So should based on your own boring bonds. It has a lot of \nYerba Buena SX80: perhaps finer material and plays and sils that reduces the blowcast and potentially is not as severe in terms of look of action\, behavior\, and all of that just suggesting that it seems to me to be overly conservative\, assigning \nYerba Buena SX80: these very low values to to this \nYerba Buena SX80: fairly thick layer \nYerba Buena SX80: have to? Very good. I ran out of battery. So I have to plug in. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So when they go with their setting a performance criteria for the ground treatment for the Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, is this conservative assumption mean that they’ll they will over treat they over treat the soil \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s probably not related to whether needs to be treated or not\, because the treatment is\, I think\, primarily for bay mud\, which is not a liquid faction issue. It’s a softness\, weakness\, compressibility\, issue. \nYerba Buena SX80: we are not doing sole improvement for the co-faction purposes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: so I think the suggestion from remine is that you take this under consideration\, and go back and take a look. And that seems like a reasonable thing to me is to take it back and take it under consideration and \nYerba Buena SX80: and and re-look at it and \nYerba Buena SX80: as a as a role of in our role of protecting the public\, I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: if you leave it where it is. \nYerba Buena SX80: With respect to this comment\, at least\, you’re on the conservative safe. Public is protected side of things\, and so we wouldn’t object necessarily. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s maybe more conservatives necessary. Maybe it’s gonna cost more money than necessary. Maybe it doesn’t make that much difference\, after all. But \nYerba Buena SX80: but I think if you consider it again. \nYerba Buena SX80: city and county of San Francisco is a public entity as well. So that’s public funds as well. So \nYerba Buena SX80: not representing them. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see. \nYerba Buena SX80: See\, Bob\, I think your hand is still residually left up. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I’ll lower my hand. II was mistaken. Thank you? And I think Gail is up next. \nOkay\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Could you go to? I think it’s slide 25 that has the elevation of the pier with all the structures. \nYerba Buena SX80: Elevation one. That \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, that that one right there. Few questions for me on this. \nYerba Buena SX80: the gangways that connect the peers. \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s the what’s the \nYerba Buena SX80: intent for? How those are attached \nto the pure structures? \nYerba Buena SX80: Will they be attached on one side with the Slider roller on the other end? \nYerba Buena SX80: I can’t turn my camera on\, because it’s it. But yeah. So they’re basically pinned on the top. And then for the first 2 gangways\, so that for segment. They are on like Uhw pads\, because they’re not expecting much movement. And then the next ones are on rollers. Okay? So each one of them is attached\, one roll in the other. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: So in the. in the basis of design. when they talk about the the design as a the design of the pure and and intermediate landings. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a mention of one of the steps is to develop actual deck displacements at the 4 corners of the deck \nYerba Buena SX80: corresponding to displacement\, demand to verify that the seismic gap is adequate. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I didn’t understand what was being checked when they said seismic gap. \nYerba Buena SX80: because I think what needs to be checked is to make sure that if you get \nYerba Buena SX80: differential movement where the 2 piers are or 2 structures are going different directions. you wanna make sure you just have a large enough seat that you’re not \nYerba Buena SX80: dropping your gangway into the water. So that’s agreed. Yes\, and this is actually well\, there’s the gangways\, but then there’s also the land side\, right there’s a gap. There’s a small gap. Well\, there’s like 12 inches there. Gap right there where the arrow is that that’s allowed to move well\, between the pier and the. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s to avoid pounding. And then there’s also a plate. Then I assume. That’s over. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So I just think for all of these interfaces. I think you need to consider \nYerba Buena SX80: moving apart from each other and just make sure that you’re not going to lose. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So that I think that just needs to be added as a specific criteria because it wasn’t clear \nYerba Buena SX80: on a related issue you mentioned about these things \nYerba Buena SX80: actually being underwater at some point further down. Is that right? The last gangway\, maybe underwater. So I think\, then\, is\, is anyone looked at. \nYerba Buena SX80: these actually become buant and potentially uplift and come off. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have not looked at that\, but I think I think you just need to look at an uplift condition from buoyancy. and you can just probably detail it with stops of some kind of passive restraints. But anything that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: going underwater that’s not designed for it. You gotta look at the buoyancy uplift. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then the last comment I had was that \nYerba Buena SX80: Jen\, one of your one of the questions had to do with instrumentation. And I think there’s a requirement for \nYerba Buena SX80: seismic instrumentation on a new project. And \nYerba Buena SX80: you guys are aware of that. I assume II know that they did that at Treasure Island. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And you need to interface with Cgs on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And they’ve they’ve had a lot of personnel changes there. \nYerba Buena SX80: so I think Jen can \nYerba Buena SX80: make sure you have the right person to talk to. I don’t. I don’t know if if I don’t\, I don’t know that there’s any special features on this that require \nYerba Buena SX80: any any fancy monitoring of multiple instruments. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would think just some free field. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s free field. \nHmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: Accelerometers would be good enough. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any anybody else have any opinions on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jim\, or no \nYerba Buena SX80: anything special that you see\, II don’t think the peer needs anything. I think \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s anything with the Dsm. That needs any special. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, okay. So just \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll trust Staff to take your making sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s done. Then \nYerba Buena SX80: just that they need to interface with Cgs for for monitoring seismic instrumentation. And it should be fairly minimal here. \nYerba Buena SX80: No special things that we think are. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, need need to be addressed. There’s nothing unique about this site. Well\, I mean\, that’s one of the things that Jen\, you had reiterated in your \nYerba Buena SX80: staff summary. I think there’s some questions about \nYerba Buena SX80: one of the criteria. The Bcd see is to provide seismic instrumentation for any significant projects. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that’s what you’re yeah and \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I’m I’m sure if Roger were here he would say\, you got to put in lots of instrumentation. This is \nYerba Buena SX80: I \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m a little bit on the fence on this project. It’s relatively modest project. There’s \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean like life. Safety is life\, safety that matters. But but as far as any structures there’s nothing very big\, it seems to me. And \nYerba Buena SX80: so yeah\, and C. And Cgs may say we have free field instruments nearby\, and there’s really no value in it. I mean\, I think that’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: discussion with them. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So I’m not quite sure how that how we should attack this ability. No\, I think I think these instruments are \nYerba Buena SX80: part of a system. So if there are nearby\, then that that would say you may not need one. But if there isn’t one nearby\, then that site may\, you know\, fill in the system somehow\, so there should be some interaction. But \nYerba Buena SX80: the last time I checked in with Cgs and the engineer they’re in charge of their seismic monitoring program. They said they wanted to hear recommendations from from the Board on where the devices should go\, and that they weren’t \nYerba Buena SX80: the going to be making decisions on where it should go. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it would be beneficial to at least put one \nYerba Buena SX80: on the structures \nYerba Buena SX80: to see the peer behavior. And also where you have the \nYerba Buena SX80: fill in the bay mud. That that you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: more data is always better. So \nYerba Buena SX80: that will be my recommendation. Safer. \nYerba Buena SX80: A big time. \nYerba Buena SX80: would you say? Towards the end of the Dsm. I would assume. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. right\, cause it’s pretty long. \nYerba Buena SX80: My interest would be on the soft ground\, not on the improved ground. Okay? Because \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s an area that data is lacking. \nYerba Buena SX80: See\, I can see 3 points of interest. One would be out on the pier \nYerba Buena SX80: one would be on top of the Msc. To see how how the ground improvement \nYerba Buena SX80: strengthens and stiffens things\, changes\, periods and and amplifications. and so on\, and one would be on the soft ground. So you know what the Msc slash? Dsm. Has changed it from. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe what we do is we send this off to whoever’s handling this now with Cgs and let Jen and the team interact with with Cgs about what would be appropriate. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I’m happy to do that. \nPerfect \nYerba Buena SX80: and yes\, Skylar wants to. continue my phone. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. \ncancels. \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah\, she actually does. But it’s not working. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gayle is still on the floor. \nSomething \nYerba Buena SX80: you guys know. So \nYerba Buena SX80: i can read it. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, no it’s not the way\, it was\, yet \nYerba Buena SX80: you are. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry we interrupted our discussion because there’s someone from the public who also wants to make a statement named Art. And if you can hear \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: We have promoted you to Speaker\, and so you can go ahead and unmute yourself and talk \nYerba Buena SX80: he’s on. He’s just\, I know. \nHmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: Awesome \nYerba Buena SX80: a chance of your opportunity. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I’m I’m my comments are done. Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. Are you able to get your microphone working? \nYerba Buena SX80: You see that you’ve joined the meeting \nhome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Why don’t we? Oh\, Art. can you go ahead and speak? It looks like you might be unmuted. \nHmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll just read the comment from art. He says\, I was watching the presentation\, and was interrupted on my end. \nYerba Buena SX80: I may have missed it\, but wanted to mention that it appears that the bfe calculations and corresponding elevation benchmarks do not include free board\, a factor of safety which typically ranges from \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 feet to 4 feet and will likely be required for final fema certification. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Is fema certification a part of this project? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, but we will confirm that we don’t think so. \nYerba Buena SX80: So. This is not a flood protection slash fema regulated \nYerba Buena SX80: project. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s not. No we there. There may be requirements in the coastal floodplain management \nYerba Buena SX80: of for the project\, which perhaps\, is what the commenter \nYerba Buena SX80: is commenting on. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that would be. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. City County\, San Francisco Blood plane manager judgment \nYerba Buena SX80: on the criteria. And II don’t have it. I can’t think exactly what. Usually it’s a foot above the total water level. But there\, perhaps there’s a another one for peers. I’m not. I’m not aware of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: We can look into it and get back to you. Yeah\, okay\, thanks. Jim’s hand doesn’t show up on Zoom\, but he had his hand up. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, Cameron\, I have a few questions for you. \nYerba Buena SX80: where you describe the the materials as heterogeneous. So \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s a lot of variability\, especially in the film. But I see that you just have a single \nYerba Buena SX80: value for the strength of these materials which are really \nYerba Buena SX80: variable. \nYerba Buena SX80: how did you decide on just a single valley for \nYerba Buena SX80: potentially variable properties for these layers? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, so essentially\, the values that you are looking at is mostly for the peers. So it’s a closest poring\, using the closest boring\, and then we use the closest poring for the you know that we encounter feeling there \nYerba Buena SX80: off offshore boarding. Of course we didn’t have feel. \nYerba Buena SX80: but for the onshore we use a conservative value for that field material that we had in there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, my camera is not. Unfortunately\, I’m not appearing. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, so\, but you have the fell for the slope stability analysis that you did also\, right where you interface for the Msc wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: you did some slopes. That’s an engineer field that we are. Gonna place it. Oh\, it’s engineered. Yes\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright. So what kind of material are you looking to specify for \nYerba Buena SX80: that? Engineered Phil. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m sorry I couldn’t hear. What material are you looking to specify for the engineered Phil. Well\, I mean\, typically\, we are just going to. I think they are going to put maybe more granular granular material there \nYerba Buena SX80: and compact it to minimum 90%. That’s what they are planning to do\, I think. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So when you talk about the contiguousness of the liquefibles\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: were you talking? Is that the \nYerba Buena SX80: which layer is that referring to this is the existing field\, the existing fill. Okay? And I think you’ve concluded that \nYerba Buena SX80: they are not contiguous. Correct. The Leco fibrill layers are not necessary. \nYerba Buena SX80: continues. They are localized mostly. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also we have a revet revett man next to the road that also prevent the movement there also. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. You are thinking of using line treatment to for your Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is this a dry or where? No\, it’s a wet okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright wet\, quick climber. hydrated lyme hydrated lime\, I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. alright and I think you mentioned that you wanted tangential. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, because this is essentially providing a bearing for the material on the top. Then we wanted to have tangential with a Geo grid \nYerba Buena SX80: on on top of it there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I mean\, why not see cats? Because. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I mean\, you have this stiff material \nYerba Buena SX80: that you want to act together. You want them to act together. Right? Are you opposed to using a see? Can? I’m not opposed to using? Okay? Yeah. Because the way I see it is that the whole system. \nYerba Buena SX80: Your Msc wall. then this. Dsm. it’s kind of like a stress magnet. you know\, within the matrix of\, you know. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: failure\, loose material\, soft material\, and so it would tend to attract forces to it. Understand? So as as best as you can\, you want it to interlock them. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: listen. So I’m curious\, Jimo. If it was \nYerba Buena SX80: If they’re doing Dsm cells or Dsm wall\, then seek an overlapping is is critical because but they’re filling in the entire mass. I think right\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s there’s all the circles are bumped into all the circles. \nYerba Buena SX80: so there’s not really wide open spaces\, so so is\, seek it quite as important when they’re when they have a mass bill rather than just a you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: filling in\, you know\, creating Dsm cells. Well\, I mean the the what is good to happen is that \nYerba Buena SX80: you know these are going to be install at different times. Right? So by the time you \nYerba Buena SX80: do the next one\, you know\, one is already queued\, and so\, I think getting everything to add together \nYerba Buena SX80: because it’s acting as a stress magnet is is beneficial to the overall response of the system. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, let’s see what else I have here. \nYerba Buena SX80: so II mean\, I know. Jen mentioned. You know whether there’s a need for data or \nYerba Buena SX80: Gadarin or not. But the way that then\, that I see might be useful \nYerba Buena SX80: is actually to monitor displacement\, especially. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, near the interface of the fell. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and this what I call the system\, the Msc. Wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the Dsm. Wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: So something like an in kilometer\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: at that location would kind of give you an idea of what is happening. you know\, between \nYerba Buena SX80: the stress magnet and the material\, you know\, on offshore to the onshore side \nYerba Buena SX80: of the system. \nYerba Buena SX80: doing about for earthquake displacements\, or for during construction displacements. Well\, earthquake\, earthquake displacement\, especially \nYerba Buena SX80: So you want an interanometer between the Msc and the infield in the walkway. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So because you will see what is happening. Any kind of displacement is going to be happening \nYerba Buena SX80: more on the onshore side of that of that system. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s that’s it for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hi\, Nick. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, thank you. If you would be kind enough with slide 20 \nYerba Buena SX80: on there. \nYerba Buena SX80: And really my comment follows the the discussion on the clean on how to instrument this. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would submit that if you look at this you have a outline of a basic ferry remains. You have bunch of different structures here. \nYerba Buena SX80: I do not see a place that \nYerba Buena SX80: one could place a seismic instrument that one could then actually interpret the results with any kind of useful \nYerba Buena SX80: way. However\, as Jima mentioned\, and inclinometer. \nYerba Buena SX80: or possibly a fiber optic \nYerba Buena SX80: in there\, because that gives you continuous response and can even manage size. Me. \nYerba Buena SX80: would be a really good implementation and call Francis working on it\, and I know Cgs is working some. Some displacement measurement would be better. And these days \nYerba Buena SX80: why.is cheap. \nYerba Buena SX80: Light out before\, and afterwards we’ll give you the \nYerba Buena SX80: ground displacement very nicely as well. So there! There are alternatives. I just \nYerba Buena SX80: from the We. We started with question of instrumentation\, and we promptly went up to possibly 3 instruments\, and I am racking my head. Where would I put a useful instrument in here that one could actually interpret the results based on the complexity of the different structures \nYerba Buena SX80: and the ground conditions. So my recommendation would be to be cautious on putting a lot of effort into instrumentation \nYerba Buena SX80: but displacement measurements would be incredibly valuable. But we we lack those in general along the day margins. \nYerba Buena SX80: That that’s that’s my comment. Otherwise\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: any thoughts. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we will look into putting displacement\, measuring devices right? That makes sense \nYerba Buena SX80: where? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, it’s too much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Or if it’s something that that happens \nYerba Buena SX80: that the monitoring could happen manually in different locations and doesn’t necessarily need to happen continuously with instrumentation. That’s something that we’ve also manual. And Nick’s fiber optic can be remotely monitor. \nYerba Buena SX80: So there’s \nYerba Buena SX80: but there are digital and phenomena still. I mean\, where you have senses till tilt senses\, and you can actually monitor them remotely. Use this solar kind of system. And can \nYerba Buena SX80: we did in that time. \nYerba Buena SX80: So no power required just this whole thing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and busy after earthquakes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Justin. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Jim. Yeah\, thank you all for your work on this project. I look forward to visiting the park when when it’s completed. My questions will be coastal\, related. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just first one quick follow up. On Bob’s comment about the floating deck. I mean\, in addition to the motions of that deck you mentioned. It’s a low\, free board \nYerba Buena SX80: decks\, so there’s also a potential for waves splashing up on it\, which could also be a safety hazard. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then on the comment about free board and fema accreditation\, I think\, as Jim noted. The fema accreditation is not applicable\, probably cause this is not a flood protection structure. \nYerba Buena SX80: not to say that consideration of free board is not\, you know\, bad idea. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think the place to look would be the city’s flip plan\, management ordinance \nYerba Buena SX80: although that probably relates more to buildings than these kind of public access features. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some \nYerba Buena SX80: but kind of on that topic of free board. A lot of the the design flood elevations \nYerba Buena SX80: primarily represent\, like a still water elevation without the effective wave run up and so I just wanted to note that \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the discussion of like the timing of inundation and impacts due to sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know that. You know\, if there are wave events\, those could impact those elevations sooner than is kind of laid out here. And so for some of those lower elevation areas\, you could have events that would splash up\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: so that you know those surfaces should be able to accommodate that kind of overtopping and scour of any pathways and things like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then \nYerba Buena SX80: on the \nYerba Buena SX80: the marine way\, wall\, II guess I’m just still kinda struck me as like\, what’s the the primary purpose of that? Is it to contain that gravel beach fill? Because it\, you know\, it’s a big\, substantial structure. And I was like\, wait is the only purpose of this to sort of prop this beach up is that the \nYerba Buena SX80: primary function? \nYerba Buena SX80: So it it’s not just the gravel shore. Sorry I’m looking for a plan so essentially our \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, there’s there’s a design intent here that we didn’t go through because we wanted to focus on the engineering components. But overall the Marine Way lawn is a major design feature of this park that continues all the way down to the gravel shore and the water. And this was really this came out of our earlier concept design that we shared with the community\, and it really resonated with the community because of \nYerba Buena SX80: the fact that this provided that generous space and view down to the water. And really and it’s kind of gesture and \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of openness really emphasize that connection down to the water and that welcoming down to the water. So it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s that whole kind of design move all the way down with the pathways\, which are also actually a reference and a little bit of an abstraction to the boatyard history of 900\, and with. You know the marine rails that pulled up\, you know. You pull up boats on those like marine rails right? Which are much smaller than this. \nBut that’s the idea behind it. And so \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s where this came from in terms of its geometry and design. And but yes\, it does hold the gravel shore and that portion of the lawn\, allowing it to be that continuous \nYerba Buena SX80: welcome\, Matt\, down to the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: It also does serve other purposes\, though\, because if we you know\, if the Bay City Ferry directly kind of to the east of that\, there’s a an artifact in the water that we can’t kind of fill over or penetrate through. And so that kind of limited us on that edge of you know\, what could we do? Kind of outboard of that? \nYerba Buena SX80: We also obviously wanted to minimize fill. So this is basically the solution we determined that would kind of meet all those program and community goals while minimizing fill and \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of\, you know\, maintaining that the basic artifact where it was obviously so thank you. That makes sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: The reason I was asking is just \nYerba Buena SX80: for Pcdc’s question about the potential hydrodynamic impacts of the wall. You talked a little bit about wave reflection. \nYerba Buena SX80: And this is also sort of like a \nYerba Buena SX80: a jetty sticking out into the water\, and with \nYerba Buena SX80: tattle currents\, you know\, it could cause some interesting dynamics there. So I think I don’t know if there’s been any \nYerba Buena SX80: assessment of sort of how that \nYerba Buena SX80: structure could affect the circulation and that area. And you mentioned that \nYerba Buena SX80: this remnant ship\, and it sounds like that portion of the shoreline is not armored. So at the end of the combination of \nYerba Buena SX80: the tidal circulation and waves reflecting off the wall that could be like a vulnerable spot in the shoreline that could be exposed to erosion. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the drawings as they are now. \nYerba Buena SX80: my understanding is we couldn’t do anything on where the ship is. But actually it turns out that we can regrade. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the plan is to fix the armoring. That is there. So there will be shoreline protection. Whether this the \nYerba Buena SX80: ship artifacts. because we yeah\, we did see that as a \nYerba Buena SX80: and I just want to \nYerba Buena SX80: rip\, wrap\, slope that’s currently there will effectively maintain grading and re establish the rock. But we still are not filling or placing anything over the part that’s in the water. Because there’s it’s kind of a big boat. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And then just one last question\, there was mention of a 50 Year design wave\, looking at the loading on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: It just looking at the wind and kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: knowing the wave dynamics it. It feels like going up to like a hundred year design wave probably would not be that much bigger\, but might give you a little bit additional factor of safety\, or just wondering \nYerba Buena SX80: why a 50 year Wave condition was selected as opposed to a hundred year. Design condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey\, Mads\, are you still on the call? \nYerba Buena SX80: I am. Yes. Can you answer that question? I think you’re the best suited for it? \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Er yes. I think that is correct. Yeah\, that a current year wave exposure would not be significant. Higher in the 50 year \nMads Jorgensen M&N: they tend to sort of taper off \nMads Jorgensen M&N: but I think the 50 year is a consideration of maybe 100 year \nMads Jorgensen M&N: in the perspective of that is\, and maybe too conservative. even the life of these types of structures. And there’s maintenance\, too. So I think\, putting in these dark state \nMads Jorgensen M&N: probably wouldn’t \nMads Jorgensen M&N: last\, for I’m not a talk expert\, but they probably wouldn’t last for 4 years or longer without some \nMads Jorgensen M&N: significant amount of maintenance of replacement along the way. and \nMads Jorgensen M&N: I think that’s the idea behind that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But in in addition to the docks\, I think the 50 year wave was used for the wave loading \nMads Jorgensen M&N: on the wall\, which presumably could last longer than 40 years. Yeah\, but\, Shawn\, correct me if I’m wrong\, but I don’t believe wave loading \nMads Jorgensen M&N: on the war would govern. It’s pushing in that material behind it. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, it it would govern\, that was. That’s one of the main loads that we’re using. On the wall. Matt is the waylock\, because it’s not really retaining any soil. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the the wave load is one of the main. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. \nYerba Buena SX80: out of that it probably would make sense to look at a little bit longer. Design or design wave. Yeah\, at least check it. See what the sensitivity of the design is to the 100 year. That’s fair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it may not. Okay. Thank you. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Yeah. II would just comment\, too\, that I think for the case with \nMads Jorgensen M&N: there would be substantial or significant. A wave loading on the wall would be high \nMads Jorgensen M&N: water level condition\, right so\, but then for the exposed portion that would be. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: there’d be water behind the wall\, too. Is that right\, Shawn? So \nMads Jorgensen M&N: you have a high study pressure on the back side of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s true. But there’s still the impact load from the wave. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Yeah\, but that would then be \nMads Jorgensen M&N: discontinuous along the wall right so where you would have a \nMads Jorgensen M&N: a wave splashing up er in other portions of the wall there would be a wave trough\, or \nMads Jorgensen M&N: on the change in water labels\, so \nI don’t know how we applied the load\, but if we applied. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: or the 50 year wave load as a continuous line\, load along the wall. That would likely be pretty conservative. \nYerba Buena SX80: That is what we did. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, we can look at sensitivity\, at least\, to see what \nYerba Buena SX80: how much of a fix. \nYerba Buena SX80: So my hand is up\, so I’ll call on myself. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a few comments\, base\, basically nice looking presentation and overall. Well done. I think I have a few comments. Slide 10. Maybe you can cost slide 10 up. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll I’ll justify this as engineering criteria as in. We ought to follow good geological principles in in geomorphology \nYerba Buena SX80: and if you look in the the middle of those explorations at Cpt\, I guess it shows that actually the the left one to B 3 shows \nYerba Buena SX80: bay mud being at elevation 3 or 4\, it looks like\, which is probably not correct in this case. My guess is there’s some soft undocumented existing fill \nYerba Buena SX80: it won’t make any difference in analysis other than it sort of looks \nYerba Buena SX80: funny to me. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you go to the next slide slide 11\, there’s bay mud that’s above \nYerba Buena SX80: above \nYerba Buena SX80: elevation 0 also. But I think that one I can defend as as being. There’s probably a mud wave it looks like\, because bay mud is lower on the left. \nYerba Buena SX80: and when Phil was placed it may have pushed the bay mud up \nYerba Buena SX80: in that spot where it’s too high. So that seems reason why I wouldn’t change that. But anyway. \nYerba Buena SX80: nitpicky stuff just to prove that we read the materials. \nYerba Buena SX80: more substantive\, perhaps. Qc\, testing on the Dsm\, I think I read some place. There’s a pilot program planned. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so that’s all good. I think I didn’t see anything\, at least about a Qc. Program for the Dsm seems like\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, 20 psi is \nYerba Buena SX80: probably pretty achievable. but it’s\, you know\, if it’s what your assumptions are\, you need to document somehow\, that not just in the pilot program\, but that you have some sort of a Qc. I think it needs to be emphasized somewhere in \nYerba Buena SX80: the reports that Qc. On the Dsms. Is important. \nYerba Buena SX80: Along the same lines. I guess I in the drawings it looks like Dsm\, kind of is sitting on top of what’s the bottom? That’s rock\, I think right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And it seems like there should be some discussions at least you probably wanna tow a foot into it or 2 feet into it. I’m not sure how you know that you’re on top of bedrock unless you push hard enough to grind into it a little bit. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so probably some discussion about how you know that you’re in bedrock\, when how you know you’ve reached the maximum depth required for the Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just document that it’s required that you you feel the rock and add a foot or 2 or something like that doesn’t need to be a lot\, I think. But \nYerba Buena SX80: settlement\, I think. Cameron\, you said that you might get a couple of feet of settlement under the Msc. Which is why you’re putting the Dsm. In. \nYerba Buena SX80: but the fill behind the Mse is almost as high\, so presumably the settlement of the fill behind the Mse would still be something like 2 or 3 feet\, and I didn’t see that discussed any place \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s gonna affect \nYerba Buena SX80: may affect drainage may affect \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean the grading it. I mean it more than a few inches. You’re gonna start to affect the way sidewalks cross it or way drainage happens the way things pond behind the Msc. Wall. If it rains heavily. Something \nYerba Buena SX80: curious. \nYerba Buena SX80: How if that’s how that\, how that has been addressed since I was one of the 5 critical geote Geo technical issues. I didn’t really see that addressed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, thank you. So definitely\, we will do the pilot program for Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: During the pilot program. We will develop some sort of the Qc. Also that to go with it there \nYerba Buena SX80: the athletes to fit into the bedrock. We were thinking that maybe have one foot\, but then we during the pilot program\, we will develop some sort of the pressure that they have to place it there\, or the dragging\, and everything’s there. \nWe do\, of course\, getting some course \nYerba Buena SX80: during for that and test it\, and and during the courting we can figure out that if they are penetrating into the bedrock or not. That so all that sounds good. I’m just saying that should be documented. I didn’t see it. Maybe I didn’t read everything word for word through all your large presentation\, it will all gonna be into the project specifications there for the Dsl. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So anyway. So I think what your plan is sounds good\, but just documented in in the geotech report\, or in the drawings\, or someplace. Jim\, could I follow up on something you said? Were you saying that you’re concerned about the settlement where the gravel is being placed between the \nYerba Buena SX80: in the kind of marine railway. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the gravel beach\, or the \nYerba Buena SX80: whatever is behind the Msc. Which is not just gravel\, is\, it’s oh\, there’s some engineered filling behind. Yeah\, you know. I was wondering a little bit about that\, too\, in terms of placing the engineer. So down in the lower parts where you it’s kind of low or inner title. \nYerba Buena SX80: and as I guess there’d have to be some sort of coffee damning or something. But \nYerba Buena SX80: There was a project just recently across the way at Haron’s Head\, where gravel was placed on\, on mud and fill. and on the on the mud. There were places where it it\, you know\, sank immediately\, and there are little mud waves and mud boils and interesting things. So that is something to be aware of. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if that if you’re placing a lot of Phil\, is it? Is it going? It must be going directly over bay mud\, in some places at least\, right\, and so the whole bay\, the whole mud wave criteria should be addressed and talked about pretty carefully. And you know\, research that because there’s \nYerba Buena SX80: lots of old experience about \nYerba Buena SX80: placing thick fills on top of bay mud and developing mud waves where\, you know\, you can get multiple feet of settlement at the beginning of the fill. And then multiple feet of heave in front of where the fill is being placed\, and then you place it in it. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: Much of the time it may not matter\, but it may have impact on stability analysis\, if the mud wave is happening under the toe bubbles upright. Yeah\, but it. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, obviously. to some extent\, once that happens\, you have something that continues to move as you place more fill. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I’m not a Geo. Technical expert\, soft and bay mud strength instead of sensitive strengths which are weak but but not softened. \nYerba Buena SX80: What? He said\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So so probably should be some discussion about mud wave prevention\, you know. Start with some thin levels of layers of fill to try and get it all held down. And \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe you even need to. Hmm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe you can potentially put geote textiles that may not prevent ways from happening\, or I mean\, for the first few lifts at least\, the geotext. I won’t help it would help after you get the \nYerba Buena SX80: the first couple of lifts\, and if you put the geotextile under the first couple of lists. it’ll help for the subsequent lists. \nYerba Buena SX80: But so there should be probably some discussion about how to prevent mud ways from happening. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure\, yes\, we will. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s what I had for new stuff\, Jen\, did you want to talk about combined that email you sent me just before the meeting. Did you want us to talk about it? \nThanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: the app can ask me\, we are unclear as to which scenarios\, with both earthquake and flooding\, should be analyzed\, and what analysis should be. Request is being requested to the ecrb. Please expand on this. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh. \nthat’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, take that back. Strike that from the record. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: any other new topics. And we’ll talk about what needs to be required. If we’re gonna have any requirements to add to what you said about the \nYerba Buena SX80: mud wave\, I mean\, you can also consider the use of lightweight material right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Reduce the thickness of the pill \nfor lightweight. My techno\, we have to just make sure it doesn’t coming up. But yeah\, like\, maybe lightweight aggregate or something like that. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: or what’s been used most reliably in the bay mud. Marginsville is municipal waste. \nYerba Buena SX80: The one thing about the lightweight. That was an engineering joke. \nYerba Buena SX80: One thing I like but about the the lightweight aggregate. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s not gonna be as stable under way. So the upper layers probably have to be a denser gravel\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: the aggregate is going to have to be sized so appropriately for the way of exposure given if if it has a lower density. But I think your coastal folks can sort that out. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t see any other comments from the Ecr\, go ahead\, Katherine. Yeah\, I just had a clarifying question. From our team here related to the monitoring. We just wanna understand. Is the monitoring a requirement \nYerba Buena SX80: for the project because it may influence our design? Or is it monitoring for \nYerba Buena SX80: another kind of purpose? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, the seismic monitoring which is within the purview of the Ecrb \nYerba Buena SX80: is for the benefit of the future. Science and \nYerba Buena SX80: ongoing profession. \nYerba Buena SX80: monitoring of displacement \nYerba Buena SX80: is you know\, it’s not as not an explicitly \nYerba Buena SX80: mandated direction or not a directive that we have as the ecrb and it probably won’t change your design because you won’t find out about the displacements till after the fact. \nYerba Buena SX80: I \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure. And you know\, II \nYerba Buena SX80: we we can discuss it amongst the board here. Somebody wants to chime in\, whether we have the authority to require that sort of a thing\, because it won’t change the design\, and it won’t protect things right now. There’s some good ideas. There’s some interest\, there’s some\, you know\, potentially\, if we think there’s really gonna be some hazard and life safety types of things \nYerba Buena SX80: that are gonna be moving. We wanna know about it early in the deformation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey\, Joe? If I if I understood the question. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re asking whether. if I understood the question you were asking whether it’s something that’s gonna meant to influence a structural designer. If it’s just something you’re required to do for other purposes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that really what \nYerba Buena SX80: cause? I mean? I think you\, I think you and and was it\, Jim? Sorry? Yeah. Understood the question correctly. It’s just basically\, yeah\, yeah\, it’s trying to. It’s it’s really not. \nYerba Buena SX80: Every project has to has to. It’s like an opportunity for the state to increase our seismic network. So really\, that’s why you’re being \nYerba Buena SX80: required to do it. It’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: to change what you’re doing on your project. But it does affect your project. Obviously\, because \nYerba Buena SX80: you have to accommodate it. And there are issues\, especially with power and things like that. So it’s it\, can’t. It can be a \nYerba Buena SX80: you. You wanna be careful in how you how you do it. You know you don’t want it to become a \ntoo huge of a burden that it \nYerba Buena SX80: drives everyone nuts\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: in in general\, I don’t have in front of me the language that gives us the directive to implement ground monitoring. But my recollection is on the way. We’ve always done it in my. \nYerba Buena SX80: however\, many years as I’ve been on the the ecrb. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s been to put in accelerometers. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, site response\, type of instrumentation. And I don’t know that we’ve ever \nYerba Buena SX80: required \nYerba Buena SX80: inclinometers physical or or \nYerba Buena SX80: fiber \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’m not sure if \nYerba Buena SX80: where that fits. \nSee? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, thank you. I was gonna mention there\, we do have a safety of sales policy number 3. It says\, to provide bodily needed information on the effects of earthquakes on all kinds of soils. \nYerba Buena SX80: Insulation of strong motion seismographs should be required on all future \nYerba Buena SX80: major landfills. In addition\, the Commission encourages insulation of strong motion seismographs and other developments on problem soils and in other areas recommended by the \nYerba Buena SX80: Us. Geological Survey for purposes of data\, comparison and evaluation \nYerba Buena SX80: displacement in there. And it was worse. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: still. So I think\, monitor. yeah. I mean\, I think the way we need to look at it\, though\, is. you know\, they are simplifying assumptions that yeah. we are making \nYerba Buena SX80: with respect to something which is is really a system. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, we break it down to make it easy to analyze. And it’s it’s food\, and to verify that the assumptions\, the way you expect this system to behave is the way it’s behaving. \nYerba Buena SX80: Because if there should be failure\, the impact is significant. Right? So you have an opportunity to react. If you see that something is happening. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think that falls on the\, you know\, kind of you can interpret that to mean that we don’t want failure. We don’t want the failure placed into fail. \nYerba Buena SX80: You don’t want to jeopardize life\, you know\, and so\, monitoring what you have put in\, based on your analysis\, I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s important \nYerba Buena SX80: it could just like remain. And then your next. I reread this sentence that includes seismographs. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think both sentences included seismographs. But I guess I’ll just read it again. So to provide vitally needed information on the effects of earthquakes on all kinds of soils. Insulation of strong motion seismographs \nYerba Buena SX80: should be required on all future major landfills. \nYerba Buena SX80: In addition\, the Commission encourages installation of strong motion seismographs in other developments on problem soils and in other areas recommended by the US. Geological Survey for purposes of data comparison. \nYerba Buena SX80: an evaluation. And I’ll put it in the chat as well. if \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I’ll do that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So let’s see what what is your inclination? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry that was Nick. Nick. Sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t have an objection to your \nYerba Buena SX80: proposal\, if you will\, but I think \nYerba Buena SX80: the directive is really about \nYerba Buena SX80: recording earthquakes rather than \nYerba Buena SX80: than ground deformations. Yeah\, yeah\, that’s right. And and and the other thing about \nYerba Buena SX80: your point about failure. If we’re talking about static movements of the ground being an issue\, that’s a completely different. I mean\, we we cannot have that. That’s their design should be robust enough that \nYerba Buena SX80: that issue is not \nYerba Buena SX80: even part of the discussion that should issue should be \nYerba Buena SX80: address as part of their design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I think I would just add to that\, maybe by saying\, if you agree with your design criteria. and I’m not sure additional monitoring. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m I’m not sure that that \nYerba Buena SX80: can be an additional requirement. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think there may be cases where it might be but \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure that’s the case right now. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nick. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, okay\, yeah. \nTrying to understand this. First. First of all\, I don’t see this as a major fail. \nYerba Buena SX80: It is a film. It’s not a Major. okay\, I don’t see this as a major structure. This is actually a relatively minor structure. It has impact on the shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: As we discussed. You know\, there are elements of we want it to perform as designed. Because it is in a challenging environment. You got way by action. You got title action. You got currents and all of that\, and that affects the Short Line\, and we already discussed the shoreline protection. So from the standpoint you know the question is\, do we insist on instrumentation just because we can put instruments in there? Or are we trying to get something useful \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of displacements. I was worried about seismic displacement. We have very little data on seismic displacement. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a lot of acceleration records. Of course\, you can get displacements out of acceleration records no question about it. But then II as I said\, I pointed out\, you show me where you want to put those instruments and get information that actually can be interpreted in any useful way. And that’s my concern. I know lot of lot of instrumentation in California \nYerba Buena SX80: in places that is being used that actually serves no useful purpose. When you actually look at the location of the instrument. \nYerba Buena SX80: I can name any number of dams \nYerba Buena SX80: where we have a lot of instruments that only confuse\, but don’t improve. So my concern here is\, if we’re going to put instrumentation there\, somebody should look very carefully \nYerba Buena SX80: where it’s located. so that the information obtained \nYerba Buena SX80: actually serves the purpose that it’s supposed to\, which is inform about size week \nYerba Buena SX80: response. So that that would be my comment\, and frankly\, from my perspective\, II am challenged to suggest where we would put it. You can certainly put it on the breakwater and see how the breakwater behaves. But \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s a very unique situation\, anyway. And you you’re saying that about seismographs specifically commenting on strong motion instruments. You know the the thing is \nYerba Buena SX80: how to put it. You can publish it in the journal of your producable results. \nYerba Buena SX80: If that’s what we get\, then that’s not helpful. And so all I’m saying is that then very careful attention should be to put the instrument someplace where the results will actually \nYerba Buena SX80: serve to enhance the database in in a useful way. So that’s all. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what we talked about earlier was potentially having them talk with Usgs and negotiate what to put in. \nYerba Buena SX80: Would you say they don’t need to do that even\, or encourage them that they they would talk to us Usgs or Cgs\, whoever? It’s gonna yeah. Cgs\, whoever’s gonna be monitoring things. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. Brief. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anybody. Wanna speak differently than what Nick just said. It sounds reasonable to me. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we’re we we love data. \nYerba Buena SX80: And this is II mean\, so the the language that they just provided says major projects. And it says\, or other projects on problem soils\, and I think we might fall under. Not necessarily\, major fills\, although this is one of the biggest fills I’ve seen in a dozen years on the board recently\, and we don’t put any very massive fills in the bay anymore. \nYerba Buena SX80: in part because of BC. DC. Is blockade\, I suppose\, but and concern\, for you know there’s plenty of base \nYerba Buena SX80: 100 years old. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve filled in what? A third already. So I think I think it makes sense that we go on record as recommending that they talk with Cgs. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we would support whatever the Cgs \nYerba Buena SX80: would would request \nYerba Buena SX80: on this anything new. I think maybe we’re done with new topics that we can go on to figure out. What do we need to summarize for requests. And or do we want to see the project again? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll summarize what I’ve got\, I think\, so far. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, from Remine’s early comments. We wanna advise the team to re-look at some of the \nYerba Buena SX80: what? What accelerations you’re putting in to the liquid analysis and relook at \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the blow counts and susceptibility\, and you’ve already talked about discontinuity. Maybe thin layer correction would be a part of that discussion\, maybe presence or absence of gravels would be a question. \nYerba Buena SX80: No. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe the you know\, influence of of plast plastic materials on driving blow counts down\, which make the blow counts go down\, but the plasticity itself makes them not liquifiable. So \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: summarize your concern more or less with that collection of of concerns at least\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I need for us to see it again. \nYerba Buena SX80: Or I mean\, there’s there’s 2 options I get\, I mean 3 options. We can say. \nYerba Buena SX80: do it and and resubmit it in your materials. But we don’t need to see it again. We can say\, Do it and submit it to Jen\, and she’ll distribute\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: you know one of us will take a look at it and say\, Yeah\, looks looks good\, or we can say no. The we\, as the Board want to see the project again. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, in my view\, is. if the conclusions and recommendations are gonna be changed because of these particularly valuations\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: for sure it has at least document has to come to us. Sure. Well. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that part of it would be then that we would like to have the results resubmitted whether or not it comes as before\, a regular board meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that could be potentially evaluated by staff\, I guess\, in particular\, potentially and \nYerba Buena SX80: consultation with the chair or somebody. \nYerba Buena SX80: That was point 1 \nYerba Buena SX80: art\, suggested that free board be looked at. So I think we’re gonna recommend that you look at freeboard. fema is probably rolled out. But what do you say\, Bob? Coastal Commission \nYerba Buena SX80: may have some input on free board requirements. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll I’ll let Justin respond to that. But I was thinking that the City county\, San Francisco is because of their participation in national flow insurance program would \nYerba Buena SX80: be the ones that would identify and articulate any coastal floodplain management requirements \nYerba Buena SX80: for development in the floodplain. Yeah\, it may just be a matter sort of looking at the design elevations and and the projected timing of impacts with sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: with the run up component and and just sort of \nYerba Buena SX80: discussing how your sort of sea level rise. Lifespan of the project might change with consideration of \nYerba Buena SX80: wave run up as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Could if I could just make a comment on that clarifying. I use the term total water level before and total water level in the sense of fema is the \nYerba Buena SX80: the bay water level plus the wave run-up \nYerba Buena SX80: or the wave crest above the water level. Total water level in the Bcd Sea adapting to rising tides is a slightly different definition. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I’m referring. And I think Justin is referring to. \nYerba Buena SX80: although it’s your fault that \nYerba Buena SX80: art doesn’t include waves. Right? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, that’s an another engineering joke. Sorry. But \nYerba Buena SX80: so we’re talking about the wave run up over and above the still water\, even though the waves are supposedly small. Your documents indicate a 3.7 or something foot wave in a 50 or one wave event. So that’s not. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. Nothing. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry\, Jim. I was just trying some notes for myself. That was good. Thanks\, Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: a. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we had talked about inclinometers. I think we kind of established that we don’t have that’s not within our purview to require. But I think we wanna just go ahead and be documented as saying\, we think that some sort of defamation \nYerba Buena SX80: instrumentation is a cool idea. \nYerba Buena SX80: The potentially could be useful. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it is within our purview to request you at least talk with Cgs about a strong motion instrumentation\, and we have suggested 3 potential locations. One would be the \nYerba Buena SX80: the peer. \nYerba Buena SX80: One would be on top of Msc. Slash\, Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: And want to be somewhere on soft ground. \nYerba Buena SX80: And\, Jim\, I just wanted to make sure we didn’t forget the the I think the Board recommends \nYerba Buena SX80: that city county\, San Francisco\, and perhaps are consultants. \nYerba Buena SX80: Consider the operational constraints on public access to the \nYerba Buena SX80: floats and along the gangways\, due to wave-induced float motions and wave and water level induced flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: So they had said that they’re gonna put a gate up there which is kind of keeping people out \nYerba Buena SX80: by suggestion. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess I mean said already that people can jump over gates if they want to\, or over over chains if they want to\, and I thought you had said more or less. That was a a good enough response. Well\, I’m not sure II don’t. I don’t want to be on the record\, supporting or not supporting that response. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would just say that the city county\, San Francisco is responsible for it\, as their design consultants are\, and in my view\, and that \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m okay with not understanding what the operational criteria are and how that’s managed. As long as it’s clear that \nYerba Buena SX80: they have to take care of it\, whether it’s a chain or maybe something else. I think it’s the issue of the operational control rather than what the devices? Yeah\, yeah\, that’s kind of where I was going. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s a. It’s an important issue that I think should be on the record. And II know that you heard it\, but I just feel like we should write it down specifically different than I understood previously. I just didn’t catch it is that I think our recommendation is that they go to City county and \nYerba Buena SX80: work it out well. I think the reason why I say City can in San Francisco is because reckon Park is the app the owner applicant. Is that correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s why I said that. But I think also their consultants are professionally responsible for for that without having analyzed those motions. I mean it could. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you found that it would be frequently unusable. Maybe there’s a design change that could be made \nYerba Buena SX80: to make it safer. \nYerba Buena SX80: so it might be worth looking at in the design phase as opposed to just waiting to see how it does\, and closing it when it’s dangerous. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, II agree. That would be perhaps a more detailed response. And I don’t know why I’m being so easy on everyone today\, but that would be the typical action would be actually address. Like\, if you’re designing a ferry berth\, there are operational limits on the motions based on the waves\, and then the ferry operators shut down the facility\, if not the ferries themselves. In that condition \nthis is a little different. \nYerba Buena SX80: but I would recognize that. Not only do you have people that might come on from land\, you have people that may approach from the water\, so maybe some signage is\, or some sort of notice to mariners\, or there may be a number of items that make sense that may evolve. Actually\, as you figure out how people are. Gonna use this \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, in the Design Review Board meeting I mentioned having a docent or somebody that’s kind of close to a harbor master that might just be aware of what’s going on and at least have an emergency response capability. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think the operational limits are important for the general public on the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: II think if I if I may your point your point\, that operational limits\, if\, in fact\, the facility has to be shut down more than 50% of the time because of wave action\, then it doesn’t serve the purpose that it was intended for. And I think that’s the that’s the direction from which it should be looked at. What percentage of time would the conditions be so adverse that you would have to limit access \nYerba Buena SX80: to the public to to protect their safety. And\, as I said\, if it exceeds 50 of the time. \nYerba Buena SX80: it becomes a red herring as opposed to a useful facility. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think that’s that’s a good point. Yeah\, thank you. That that’s a better way of saying it appreciate that. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, you guys are\, gonna look into the basis of the 40 to 50 year design life. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s actually based on the life of the or what we expect\, the life of the floats would be \nYerba Buena SX80: float\, float the \nYerba Buena SX80: right because they’re aluminum\, and they move around maximum. \nYerba Buena SX80: I should be. It just should be documented somehow. I mean formally. It’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: not that I don’t trust your judgment\, but it shouldn’t be your judgment. I mean\, the owner should know. What’s what do you think the life is? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I think there’s 2 things we’re talking about. There’s the talk\, the the lifespan of the actual material. The flow which he just mentioned is 40 years. And then there’s the anticipated lifespan of the the park features\, and and that’s something that we can look into as a department\, and what Rec. Park \nYerba Buena SX80: usually uses as our our criteria for design longevity and and get back to you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And you were\, gonna look into 100 year versus 50 year Wave. \nYerba Buena SX80: You gotta include a document documentation somewhere of the Qc. Program for the \nYerba Buena SX80: the The Dsm \nYerba Buena SX80: and include documentation about the tow embedded. How that’s going to be determined and controlled in the field \nYerba Buena SX80: and discussion of settlement behind the MSE. \nYerba Buena SX80: Wall of the engineered film. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it seems to me that what we’re looking for is to have it be resubmitted. Some of this stuff\, Doc. Redoc the new documentation and discussions. You missed a couple for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry I had 2 other recommendations. One was \nYerba Buena SX80: the seating of the gangways to verify the seating on the gangways. They need to add that to their design criteria\, and the other was to include buoyancy. \nYerba Buena SX80: uplift\, uplift. to look at the uplift that needs to be \nYerba Buena SX80: put into the criteria. Okay. thanks. Anything else I missed. \nYerba Buena SX80: seems to me that what makes sense is that we that it be resubmitted to the to staff. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we don’t de facto\, we we’re not determined that we need to see it again. But we may depending on how the impact of some of these relooks goes\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: that can be determined by staff. And or\, you know\, staff potentially discussion with \nYerba Buena SX80: one or more of us on the board\, although they’re limited to how many people they can talk to because of Bagley keen act. So\, Mr. Chairman\, may I move that once the report is finished that you resubmit a quick \nYerba Buena SX80: summary of the major \nYerba Buena SX80: changes so responses to the questions that were raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that the staff evaluate \nYerba Buena SX80: the need to consult the whole board \nYerba Buena SX80: based on \nYerba Buena SX80: substance of the changes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Second\, that \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, it’s been moved and seconded. Do I need to restate the motion that that when they just said that\, Bill\, you’ll resubmit in re with responses to what we just summarized here \nYerba Buena SX80: to this to staff and staff will evaluate whether how whether you see our me needs to look at it further. \nStatic. \nYerba Buena SX80: present school? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that clear enough to you\, Jen. Yes\, okay\, it’s been moved and seconded \nYerba Buena SX80: any further discussion on the motion. \nYerba Buena SX80: hearing none. All those in favor say\, aye\, aye. \nYerba Buena SX80: a post the motion carries \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s been moved to June. Is there a second second? It’s been a second and third and fourth\, and a fifth we have a motion before us to adjourn all those in favor all opposed. \nYerba Buena SX80: We are adjourned. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, all nice present to you. \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-6-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meetings/
LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230927T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230927T170000
DTSTAMP:20260501T001033
CREATED:20230928T005030Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231019T011109Z
UID:10000071-1695819600-1695834000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 27\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board
DESCRIPTION:The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format\, in person and virtually. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85411509355?pwd=QzFVWkNlenZvdU5tNTZ3QUYyYTVRZz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID854 1150 9355 \nPasscode580200 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review\nPublic Comment Period (10 minutes) \nStaff Updates\nAppointment of New Alternate Member (10 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Shoreline Protection Project (Pre- Application). (100 minutes) (PDF).The Board will review the SFO (Applicant) proposed Shoreline Protection Project\, designed to address coastal flooding and sea level rise out to 2085. The Board will review the proposed design of the new sea wall and additional minor project components. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the sea wall stability due to a seismic event\, flooding or sea level rise.(Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nItem of Discussion: Oakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project\, (Consistency Determination). (100 minutes)The Board will review the US Army Corps of Engineers (Applicant) and Port of Oakland proposed Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project\, designed to enhance the safety for large ships that need to turn around in two places along the Port of Oakland. The Board will review the design criteria and conceptual design for the new bulkhead walls and additional minor project components. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the bulkhead wall stability due to a seismic event\, flooding or sea level rise.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/09-27-ECRB-audio-recording.mp3 \nMeeting Transcript \nCrestron: I believe all the Board members have been promoted. \nBCDC HOST: I think the recording is on now. \nCrestron: Thank you\, Grace. \nCrestron: I’ll turn my microphone off. \nso that Rod can start the meeting. \nCrestron: Okay? So good afternoon. And welcome to this virtual Bcdc \nengineering criteria review board meeting my name is Rod Iwashta. I’m chair of Bcd’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. Our first order of business is to call the role \nBoard members. Please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen\, please call the roll. \nCrestron: Roddy. Watchdog chair. Here. \nJim French vice chair. Here Bob Battalio is here\, but he’s recused from both meetings. Since he’ll be presenting for Sfo today. \nCrestron: Bill Holmes \nis absent. He is on vacation today. Jima Kasalli \nnot present. Chris May. \nCrestron: I know Chris May is here\, but is recused also from the first agenda. Item. \nSfo. \nCrestron: Ramen Gosarky \npresent \nCrestron: Nick Satar. \nyeah. \nCrestron: Gail Johnson \npresent \nCrestron: Malia Travisaru. \nShe’s not here. \nCrestron: Phillip Trevetti. \nyeah. \nCrestron: And Justin Van Buren \nhere. \nOkay. thank you. Jen\, we have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nCrestron: Okay. \nwe’ve got a half page text read here. So thank you. Everyone. I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nCrestron: First\, everyone make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nfor board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it is on so that everyone can see you. For members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period. \nThat is part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 2 ways. \nCrestron: First\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform. Please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nIf you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised \nCrestron: the second way. If you are joining the meeting via phone. \nyou must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make comment. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period for each project. \nCrestron: and finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host. \nGrace\, Bcds host\, who is acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us if it’s needed. \nCrestron: Okay\, this part is for board members \nex parte communications in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with a notice of on any written or oral ex parte communications. \nI invite members who have engaged in any such comic communications to report on on them at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. Jen. Has any board member raised his or her hand. \nCrestron: I do not see any. Raise hands. \nOkay. so now we’re on to agenda. Item number 2 staff updates. \nCrestron: Right now\, we are going to switch the order of a couple of items on the agenda. \nFirst\, we are going to do staff updates. which was number 3 on the published agenda. also agenda. Item 4. Appointment of new alternate member \nwas put on the agenda by mistake\, since it is the Commission who confirms the recommended Board appointments. we have time set aside for hearing public comment on items not on the agenda for each of the 2 projects being heard today. \nSan Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project and the Oakland Harbor turning basins widening project. \nCrestron: But we are going to have this occur in conjunction with each of the presentations. \nCrestron: so the order of \neach presentation will be to hear the presentation from the applicant. Have board discussion. \nCrestron: hear any comments from the public \nrelated to the presentation\, and then at the end. we will hear public comments not related to the presentation or engineering issues on the project following staff updates. \nthe first presentation will be for the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project. The second present presentation will be the Oakland Harbor interturbing reasons. Widening project \nwhich could begin around 3 Pm. Jen\, please provide any staff Updates that you have. \nCrestron: Thank you. Chair Washeda. I would like to provide an update on a few items \nregarding upcoming engineering criteria Review board meetings. Next month’s October meeting is canceled. since there was nothing on the agenda. There are currently no items on the agenda for the November meeting. \nbut something may still come up. So board members\, please keep that time open for now. and on December sixth we will. We will be meeting to discuss the permit application for the India Basin \nShoreline Park Project. \nCrestron: The applicant for that is the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Yeah. Ecrb meeting dates have been set for next year for 2024 and are posted on the Vcvc website. \nCrestron: Lastly\, an update on the recruitment for our open alternate board member seats. The position was posted for several months. \nI did outreach to colleagues as well as numerous local universities and engineering societies\, including the Society of Women Engineers. the National Society of Black Engineers\, and the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers. \nWe received 2 applications after interviewing the 2 qualified candidates\, the nominating committee that consisted of the chair and the vice chair has recommended for appointment\, Patrick Ryan. \nStructural Engineer and principal of the firm\, Ryan Royce. Structural Design. \nCrestron: We will be giving the recommendation to the chair of the Commission for concurrence at an upcoming meeting\, and the new appointee should begin their term \nat the next Ecrb meetings. \nOkay\, thank you\, Jen. Are there any announcements from the Board? \nCrestron: Okay. \nseeing none. \nCrestron: Let’s move on to agenda. Item 3\, \nand I have to recuse myself since I’m a city of San Francisco employee. \nCrestron: so I will step aside into the audience\, and Jim French will take over. \nCrestron: Thank you\, Rob. \nCrestron: I will chair this portion of the meeting while Rod joins the public \nsection of the Zoom Meeting room. I guess the virtual Zoom Meeting is over there\, too. \nvirtually. \nCrestron: just let everyone know any board member with a potential conflict of interest on any given project must be refused from participating in the Ecrb review \nof that project\, but they may join the public section of the meeting. and they may make comments as members of the public\, if they so desire. I will apologize for my mask\, so you can’t see mics. \nimpressions. \nCrestron: and my! My voice comes out muffled. I had a potential covid exposure 5 days ago. I’ve been testing negative every time\, including this morning\, and I’m symptom free. But \nremaining math just to be be cautious. This portion \nCrestron: of the meeting will proceed according to the following agenda\, first up\, Jen Hyman. \nsenior engineer from Bcd. C. Will make a short presentation on the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project\, followed by the presentation by the airport team \nCrestron: during the presentation. It’s fine for board members \nto ask short questions and have limited discussions. At the end of the present presentation we’ll open the meeting for public comments initially just related to the engineering issues in the presentation. \nafter hearing comments from the public. Ecrb will resume our discussion with questions and comments. At the end of the discussion. I will ask \nCrestron: for final comments and motions\, and then close our con. Our consideration of this project. Following all that we will make\, we will take public comments on aspects of the project\, not under consideration by the BC. By the Ecrb. In other words\, not \nspecifically related to engineering criteria. \nCrestron: I’d like to remind the Board members and other participants to please. Please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. When you’re not actively engaged with the discussion. Please turn off your video \nso that we minimize the distract distractions on the screen. I’ll now ask Jen Hyman to provide an introduction to the project. \nCrestron: So do you wanna ask Re\, retake that part of the role\, and just get Jima to \nacknowledge that he’s present in participating. \nCrestron: So\, Jimmy\, you are present and not recused from this meeting. I think. Right. \nCrestron: Hello\, Grace\, can you \npromote Jima once his name comes up. Thank you. \nBCDC HOST: I don’t see them yet. \nBCDC HOST: Jen board Member Cassali zon out \nI’ll add to our role. Jima Kasali if you’re here. Turn the microphone on and say\, yes. yes. \nCrestron: that’s great. Thank you. \nAlright. Good afternoon\, chair. French and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. My name is Jen Hyman. I am the senior engineer at Bcd. C. And Secretary of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. This will be the Board’s first review of the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project. \nI have some background information on the project to share with you. \nCrestron: Hmm. \nCrestron: San Francisco International Airport. \nAlso referred to in this meeting as Sfo has will be applying for a permit for their shoreline protection project. \nCrestron: I’ll tell you in a lot more detail about that in their presentation. \nBut overview of it is that their shoreline protection project is a seawall to surround the airport designed to comply with fema requirements for a hundred year flood protection \nand eliminate the probability of substantial inundation. At the airport from coastal flooding through the year 2\,085\, \nCrestron: the Sri Lankan Protection Project has been divided into 15 reaches. \nCrestron: and each reach has its own unique design. \nCrestron: San Francisco Airport International Airport has submitted pre-application materials and will submit a permit application to BC. DC\, possibly later this year. Now\, I will turn it over to the airport team who will present the project to you today. \nCrestron: Good afternoon board members. My name is David Kim. I’m the senior environmental planner for Sfo. \nWe’re gonna be talking to you about today about our shoreline protection program slide. \nCrestron: This is this is the agenda for our presentation. Today \nI’m going to be starting out with the introduction and the project purpose. And then I’m going to be followed by our technical experts. On the technical analyses\, and then we’ll be followed by questions \nCrestron: I will be representing as a foe today\, joined by Environmental Science Associates. \nCoe Tera engineers\, and Geosynch. \nso put it succinctly the airports here to develop a shoreline protection program under a hundred year flood events pretty much. Most of the airfield and airport property will be inundated as shown on this photo. \nThis image next slide. \nCrestron: So what we’re gonna do is plan. On developing a seawall around the perimeter\, the sea shoreline perimeter of the airport. As you’ll see on your hard copy handouts\, it’s divided into 15 individual reaches starting from reach\, one at the north side to reach 15 on the southern end. And these are just a little \nexamples of what that construction would look like of the wall. And we can go into more detail into that. In our technical analysis \nCrestron: we have a number of project objectives that we want to accomplish with our shoreline protection program. First and foremost is to protect travelers and workers\, airport operations and city assets. \nSecondly\, we want to remove the airport from the 100 year fema floodplain via the clomer process. Third\, we want to make sure our protection system is adaptable to future projections of sea level rise. \nWe don’t know exactly where sea level rise is gonna hit in the future. But we wanna make sure it’s adaptable. \nCrestron: Fourth\, we want to create a protection system that poses no safety hazards to airport operations\, maintains runway capacity and satisfies Faa design standards as a public use airport. There are a number of requirements\, rules that we have to comply with under the Faa to keep operating safely \nnumber 5. We want to enhance emergency vehicle access near our fuel tank Farm. This is around reach 2 6. We want to make sure we minimize hazardous wildlife attractants to prevent bird strikes. \nThis is a constant hazard that we have to deal with. We wanna make sure that whatever protection system we develop helps minimize that that hazard. \nCrestron: And lastly\, we want to create a protection system as expeditiously as possible for the safe and continuous airport operations and and minimize disruption to aircraft operations during the construction of this project \nCrestron: just going to go over briefly what our project description is. \nWe’re going to be removing our existing shoreline protection\, and that consists mainly of some concrete walls\, vinyl\, sheepaw walls\, concrete debris\, and some other associated elements. \nand also remove the existing infrastructure in areas where it conflicts with the shoreline protection program. \nCrestron: We’re gonna be constructing the new shoreline protection system. And this is gonna be largely\, mostly steel sheet pile walls with some reinforced concrete walls at reach one and reach 15 with some armor rock revent and open water. Fill \nthe shoreline. Protection is gonna be approximately 7.6 miles long. It’s going to be about 3.9 to 13 feet high above \nabove existing and newly graded ground surfaces. and the sheet piles will go down to a maximum depth of 50 feet \nCrestron: we’ll be creating a new perimeter dike around reaches 7 and 8. \nThese are off our runway 19 ends to extend the shoreline protection an additional 100 to 215 feet beyond the existing shoreline into the bay. This is to maintain our existing runway. Capacity. \nCrestron: Armor\, rock revetment will be used in tandem with the walls to dissipate wave energy and prevent sediment. Scour. \nThere will be some open water fill\, intended to stabilize the shoreline and create a necessary slope for the support of the shoreline protection system. And we do propose filling in the wetlands and reach sub subreach to be. This is near our fuel Tank Farm. \nand our reach 14 areas to push out our vehicle Service Road slide. \nCrestron: Speaking of our vehicle Service road as part of our associated improvements that go along with this project. \nwe’ll be relocating our vehicle service road\, approximately 12 to 140 feet towards the bay. This is to make sure that we are in line with Faa design standards \nfor distance from our taxiways for safe operation \nCrestron: existing infrastructure will be retrofitted and rerouted. This is\, namely\, our storm drain pump station outfalls. Make sure that they go up and over our new seawalls. \nA lighting stress at the end of Runway 19 left at reach 7 will be demolished to accommodate the construction of the new perimeter dike in that area\, and then that new lighting trestle will be reconstructed in the same area. \nAnd finally\, there’ll be some floodgates and other access control gates that will be installed associated with the program. \nCrestron: So I’m going to hand this over to James Connolly at Coe\, and he’s going to go over the structural analysis. \nThank you\, David. Hopefully\, everyone can hear me. Okay. next slide\, please. \nCrestron: As David and mentioned\, we’ve broken the project into 15 reaches this is partly just given the different topography different elements along the shoreline\, and and to make it a little bit more manageable from a design and design perspective. \nNext week our next slide. So in the bottom left there you’ll see again the the alignment of the reaches with some color coding. The orange is reaches one and 15. These are concrete type T walls is the current design for those areas. \nThe green is a sheet pile wall be installed right at the edge of the existing shoreline. This will be replacing existing flood protection elements. There’s \ncertain reaches with existing vinyl sheets\, others with Burns. Essentially\, it will be a cantilevered sheet pile wall along those reaches \nCrestron: the blue area is at the end of Reach 7 and 8 again\, as David mentioned. Is that a a that push out \nat the end of the runway in order to accommodate the height of the wall and still have safe aviation off that runway. Essentially\, the construction at the completion of that will look like all the other sort of green segments. It’ll be a sheet pile wall at the edge of the shoreline. \nNext slide. \nCrestron: From a design basis standpoint we looked at the flood wall looking at 2 sort of major \ndesign considerations flooding which we use. The army corps em 111-02-2502\, or the design criteria \nfor the seismic performance. We looked at Fema 5\, 4\, 3\, which is a performance based design methodology. Looking at the risk and the performance next slide. \nI won’t go into all the various load combinations. We can come back to this if there’s particular questions. But we did look at a variety of different cases\, both from a flooding and from a seismic standpoint to \nCrestron: prior to the preliminary design. \nNext slide \nCrestron: from a seismic perspective. We looked at the 72 year and 475 year seismic events \nand then establish performance criteria based on the fema guidance \nCrestron: for the 72 year event. Essentially\, we’re looking for mild \nwhich represents essentially no structural damage for the 475 year. We’re looking at a moderate\, basically repairable damage\, essentially \nglobally\, sort of minimal sort of moderate damage. There could be some localized bit more severe damage\, but it would all be repairable after the sizing event. like slide \nCrestron: from the wave perspective. Again we looked at the 10 year 100 year\, which is the Fema flood standard. But we also looked at a 750 year resiliency check \nfor the floodwall next slide. \nCrestron: Again. I won’t go into detail here\, but this is all the various loads that we looked at and the diagrams for the cheap power wall and the concrete wall next slide \nCrestron: from an analysis approach for the steel sheet piles. We use a variety of different analysis methods. \nWe use py wall\, and including corroded properties. Again\, we’re looking at a wall to last to 2\,085. So for the non-seismic load cases. \nessentially the flood cases. We use Pywall for the seismic cases. We use the mix of inertial plexus\, 2D. And we also considered liquid faction\, Bob and his presentation later will go into much more detail in these analysis \nCrestron: on the T wall. The concrete wall \nCrestron: lost the screen up there. \nCrestron: Thank you. \nFor the concrete\, we again designing to the army core standards\, essentially mostly sort of hand\, counts mathcat calculations\, looking at a variety of limit states and evaluating factors of safety against sliding. \nbearing capacities\, rotation\, and so on. Next slide \nCrestron: as far as the actual results. \nSorry little bit of coverage there. for the steel sheet piles again representing reaches 2 through 14 currently. And again\, this is the preliminary design. This will eventually be a design build project. So final design details we determined by that team. But we’ve sized the wall as an AV. 19700 or a Nz 19 \nwith grade grade\, 60 steel we have a minimum of 10 feet of embedded into the bay mud\, which approximately is minus 35. Again\, Bob\, we’ll go into that in more detail \nas far as the T. Wall. Again\, it’s a conventional T. Wall\, reinforced concrete construction. Next slide \nCrestron: as far as our checks at this stage again\, these are based on for the steel sheet pile\, considering the \nsort of final service life. So it does include corrosion. We are maximum DC range we are aiming for was point 9 at this stage in the project for the T. Wall. Again\, we’re looking at variety of factors to safety. And again\, the solution that we presented here meet all of the design criteria that we’ve established essentially for the flooding case. \nThere is no damage for any of the low cases for the seismic for the inertial. There’s no damage. Again\, when we bring in soil structure interaction\, and Bob will present that there is some localized damage that’s expected during the liquifiable case. But again\, it’s within the performance criteria that we’ve established \nnext slide. \nCrestron: I’ll touch on now our coastal. How we develop the the wave loads and the essentially the flood load cases. \nThis project was built off of the female club maps. Again\, David have pointed out the pro er I suppose\, within the flood zone for Fema. And so we use that as part of our basis to look at the 100 year flood case building off of the baker Ecom study. That was the basis of Fema’s maps. \nNext slide. \nCrestron: Essentially\, we took the the storm events transformed them to from offshore to near shore\, converted those considerations\, for for wave run up and perform the extreme. \nStatistics! Analysis! Looking at a sort of a 31 year time history to generate what is a hundred year\, storm event\, and essentially and converted that to design load next slide. \nThrough this analysis we also established the height of the wall. Again\, the total water height. To get off of a fema flood map you need to exceed the one still water elevation for the total water elevation. It’s \nwith a set free board. You need 2 feet above still water elevation or one foot above total water elevation that’s at our base. And then we building in that resiliency and sort of long-term\, with sea level rise. \nprojecting out 42 inches of additional height. Into the walls. We established the wall height along Sfo shoreline. The table on the right is real small to read\, but that those are the design heights along the perimeter \nnext slide. \nCrestron: David mentioned. We also have riprap along the majority of the shoreline. Currently there is riprap out there. There is a few reaches with none. Currently with the new shoreline and new seawall. We are placing riprap \ntoll to prevent future erosion\, and also to knock down the ways again\, helping reduce the height of the wall\, and sort of overtopping that you would get with reflection of the waves smashing into a vertical surface versus one with riffraff and some run-up \nnext slide. \nCrestron: So with that I’ll turn it to Bob. \nCrestron: Thank you\, James. \nAnd I’m joined today by John Lim\, who’s with Tara and his help. A lot on liquid action analysis. \nTurn my camera on. Thank you. Sorry. \nCrestron: Great. \nYeah. And I’m joined today by John Lim. Who so with Tara and his help\, quite a bit with the liquid faction analysis\, and in particular by one Pascana. who’s with us in Tech\, and has been working with with Tara and Koe for quite some time \non on the project. next slide\, please. \nCrestron: So just for some highlights\, I’ll be covering the subsurface conditions at the site site seismicity and the site response analysis. the seismic performance of this of the sheep. How walls at the Shoreline Protection Project. \nAnd then I’ll talk briefly about the geotechnical design associated with the infill area or the the field area where the service roads are being pushed out into the bay at reach number 7 \nnext slide. \nCrestron: of course. The the airport footprint that we’ve you’ve seen now already was created by placing fill within within the bay and the marshlands. \nNext slide\, please. This bill is shown here on a generalized cross section that reaches from it goes from reach 5 to to reach 7. We have nominally\, you know\, 15 or 20 feet of pill that overlies young bay mud. \nThat young bay mud extends to elevation minus 50 elevation\, minus 75\, depending on the location. We have Franciscan bedrock at great depth\, 225 feet or so. \nand the bedrock\, and the problem solves\, you might say\, from the fill and the and young bay mode is separated by some very competent older sediments next slide. \nThere’s been a lot of really a wealth of geotechnical investigations that have been completed at the airport. Many of these done\, and around the year 2\,000 by a big study by \nthe airport Development engineering consortium. Looking at here the location of previous explorations\, the orange dots are boring. \nThe green squares are cone panentrometer test locations. \nCrestron: next slide\, please. \nCrestron: This is a zoom in to reach Number 6\, \nand what we’ve done when we looked at the soil conditions. As for the various you have other borings or phone kind of trauma pros. You’ve flagged key elevations. This happens to be the elevation of the top of the young bay mud. \ntypically at about elevation\, minus 15. The next slide is the same base map\, but it’s showing how we tag the elevation of the the bottom of the young bay mud\, and that does vary from elevation minus 50. On the left portion of the slide\, reach 5 and \nhalf half of 6\, and then it goes down to elevation minus 75 on reach 6 and 7\, and it turns out to reach 6 is really the the critical section in terms of the greatest thickness \nof the of the young Baymont at the project next slide. \nCrestron: With regard with regard to site seismicity. As James mentioned\, the 475 year return period has been selected \nas the design earthquake based on fema guidance. We’ve we’ve developed a hazard curve for that design earthquake using a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. The controlling earthquake is the San Andreas event. In and 19 6\, \nthe 7 time. Hist were developed from our dynamic analysis chosen from the peer database. And for those 7 time histories include\, a pulse \ncharacteristics next slide \nCrestron: in in our report. There’s a table that’s reproduced here showing characteristics of those earthquakes \nnext slide\, please. Perhaps more informative is this graph. It shows a response\, spectrum presentation of the design criteria. The target has it. Curve is shown in red. \nAnd then the jagged traces that you see there represent the response vector associated with those 7 selected time histories. They were scaled to match. I mean our mean value with the target spectra. \nAnd and that’s shown as a dotted line. Next slide\, please. \nCrestron: We did a site response analysis\, one dimensional site response analysis input\, at the base on the rock. There’s 7 ground motions \npropagated it. Through the the model that the deep saw model that was used. We we see the peak peak ground acceleration\, the panel on the left. It starts at about point 3 5 at the rock. \npropagates through the through the swell profile at\, but at the ground surface it’s at approximately 0 point 2 g. \nProbably worth noting that at the top of the young bay mud we’re also at about point 3 5G. And that’s actually a horizon that we use as the the input horizon for our ground motions in the analytical models. \nNext slide. \nCrestron: As far as the analytical work was concerned\, we use 2 dimensional plexus analysis. \nanalyzing reach 6 and also reach 7. Reach 7 is special because it has that fill that’s been added. So we looked at both of those as as kind of the controlling design sections. \nWe studied separately the liquefaction displacements and and then we evaluated both and combined and considered the combined inform performance based on the plexus analysis \nand the liquefaction and these lateral displacements. \nCrestron: And I’ll talk about that now next slide\, please. \nSo as far as plexus is concerned. This is the model for the reach. 6. We see the sheet pile driven through the existing conditions there. It extends through the bill \nand penetrates 10 feet below the bottom of the fill and into the young bay mud. The ground motions in the model were in input at the top of the old bay clay. \nand the sole profile is shown here is consistent with the in information that we have\, and and the primarily from those\, of course\, the the solar borrings \nand engineering properties come largely from the Adac study\, which was done in the year 2\,000 next slide. \nCrestron: These are the results. The \nfor those 7 ground motions. The average lateral displacement at the top of the sheet pile was 1.2 feet standard deviation\, a half a foot. \nCrestron: What we’re looking at. There are the contours of lateral displacement. The \nthe the Red Zone to the right of the sheep pile has got about 1.8 feet of maximum movement in that zone next slide. \nCrestron: This is the model\, the plexus model for the reach 7\, where the the field moves out. \nThe I’ll talk about that in a bit more detail later. The results\, though shown on the next slide\, we have a calculated average displacement of just over 2 feet. \nWith a standard deviation of that movement of 0 point 7 feet. I might note that the grounded this situation. The build area will be treated to mitigate liquid vaccine \nnext slide. \nCrestron: I’ll I’ll get to that. But the it’s it’s a \nsome vibrating beams that go into the ground. They’ve been used successfully at treasure. \nCrestron: The Jfk technology. \nthe \nCrestron: this is a summary of the performance of the sheet pile in terms comparing the moment demand \nto the to the moment capacity. And it’s an envelope that we’re showing on the left for reach 6 and on the right for reach 7 all 7 ground motions\, or in normal and reverse polarity\, are summarized here. What we found was the \nthe the maximum moment demand occurs at the at the as you’d expect at the top of the young Bay mud. It’s about 20 k. Feet. At that location. We compared it rather conservatively to the \na an allowable stress from a from the design sheet pile that we’ve used with a with a yield stress of 36 ksi \nand based on that we’re only 25. The demand\, the maximum demand is only 25% of the allowable capacity for that 36 K assign material. \nCrestron: If we look at the right-hand side for the reach. 7 similar analysis show that the maximum demand is about 40% \nof the mild steel sheet pile allowable capacity. Next slide. \nwe analyzed separate that the plexus analysis didn’t include liquefaction and just movements. We analyze those separately. The peak ground acceleration was based on the site response analysis for Reach 6 that we showed a slide on earlier. \nthe factor of safety against liquefaction and the relative density came from Cpt data analysis of Cpt data. and we use belongier and address to estimate the maximum cyclic shear strains that occur in the profile. \nThis was an input we followed a empirical method developed by Zangedol. which allows you to take those maximum shear strains and scale them to the position that you’re at \nrelative to the to the edge of the film. And we used A\, we evaluated that performance based on a conservative assumption regarding the side slopes of the of the shoreline bill. \nNext slide\, please. We did that analysis. The Zeng type analysis for each of 62 combinatorometer tests that are located around the perimeter of the site. \nCrestron: So essentially\, what when we do these calculations\, we’re assuming that the sole \nproperties associated with that particular Cpt infinitely and lateral direction. So it’s\, you know\, one estimate at a time that that we made of the lateral displacements\, that liquefaction lateral displacements. Ld. \nnext slide. \nCrestron: And we. This is a summary of those results. So it’s a \nlooking at the right-hand panel. This is the design earthquake. So what we’re looking at is for those 62 data. How how do those calculated lateral displacements for the 62 cpt stack up. \nWe we looked at the mean sea level. That’s the solid line and a couple of cases where the groundwater levels were at elevation. And that’s elevation plus 4. We looked at elevation plus 6 and elevation 0. Those are the \nthe\, the data to the right and the left that are summarized. But focusing on groundwater\, it means sea level\, which is where we find it in the air field. Now. we\, the fiftieth percentile estimated\, lateral displacement is a half a foot. \nand the the ninetieth percentile of the lateral displacements is is 2 feet. the next slide indicates and shows how that those displacements are distributed along the various reaches. The 7 or 8 miles that we have. \nSo what we have is on the vertical axis is the estimated movement\, and on the horizontal axis the station that occurs. \nthe fiftieth percent\, the vectors\, the vertical vectors that we have there represent calculations at a particular Cpt tip of the arrow is what the estimated displacement is at that location. \nand the fiftieth percentile and ninetieth percentile values of a half a foot and and 2 feet are are shown there for for reference. Next slide\, please. \nCrestron: So then\, we look to combine the performance of the shupa walls\, considering plaxis and the zhang type\, lip perfection studies the keeping in mind that the maximum \nCrestron: moment demand or or stress\, if you will for the \nanalysis. Every 6 was 27 of the allowable that’s really as I mentioned\, that moment occurs at the top of the young Bay mud. \nIt’s it’s related to the amount of rotation that occurs in the young Bay mud which in turn is related to the displacement within the field. As you go from the bottom to the top of the young day mud. So that displacement was 0 point 4 feet \nin our plexus analysis. If we compare that to the median value of the induced displacement. Ld. Within the the liquefaction and new settlement. That’s that’s a half a foot which compares to that point 4. \nIf you simply combine those 2 point 9 feet and use that that’s allows you to scale the rotation at the bottom. And the moment. So that would bring the moment demand up to 60% of allowable. \nIf if we use a Ld of one foot that boost that moment demand up to 95% of the allowable keeping in mind that allowable stress calculation is very conservative. It’s based on miles\, 2 \nnext slide. \nNow\, indeed\, the the Ld that controls the performance at a particular location on the sheepile is really the average ground conditions around\, not not one from a single \nCpt. although we have 62 Cpt’s\, which sounds like a lot\, and it is\, I think it gives us a good overview. In fact\, considering that we’re talking about 7 miles of shoreline. It’s not a lot of Cp. \nCrestron: so we we really need to complete closely spaced Cpt to delineate \nareas problem areas\, if you will\, where the calculated Ld\, based on average values might be greater than a foot and in those areas\, they may indeed require ground improvement or upgrading the the steel sections. \nand that’s something that in order to meet our damage or performance criteria. So that’s something that needs needs to be done. \nCrestron: Pardon me. \nCrestron: those additional Cpt’s would be in reach 6 primarily. No\, they would be along the entire waterfront. \nAnd we’re we’re planning to explore it in a rather uniform way\, because the we we expect the liquefaction problem within the fill is everywhere. It’s not just Route 6\, so we will be looking at that all along this road. \nCrestron: W. 1. One of the things that’s also important for\, and we considered was certainly along the alignment of the sheet pile\, there going to be some differential movements. It won’t all be one value or another\, and that’ll lead to some elongation strains that need to be managed with within the wall. And that’s one of the strengths of the Z-type pile is that through a rotation of interlocks \nwe’ve looked at that. And it can handle lateral strains of about 5%. And we think that that we’ll we’ll mitigate and handle the the differential zones next slide. \nCrestron: So moving on to fill placement at reach 7. it’s it’s it’s in a way\, it’s a complicated process\, but it’s one that’s very well understood and has been many\, many times in the past. \nand involved at that facilities like ours. Here at the airport\, it involves dredging and construction of a perimeter dike filling behind that installing wic trains. and following that with a preload\, fill with the wick drains accelerating the settlement. \nand then\, followed by deep compaction of the fill and the perimeter dike to mitigate liquefaction potential. And then finally\, with the installation of a sheepaw floodwall \nwithin the the perimeter type. Next slide. \nCrestron: This is a picture of of the extent of that \noutward movement of the service road. As David mentioned. the the dotted red line is the limits of the outside limits of the perimeter pill. The solid red line is the sheepaw wall itself. \nNext slide\, please. \nCrestron: To the right is is the maximum section. This\, this is at the end of the runway\, where the where it extends out the furthest. \nand it’s illustrating the geometry of the concept. There \nCrestron: the the dredging extends 20 people or the mudline \nthe perimeter dike is crushed rock\, and that would be crust stone\, and that would be placed. That’s the yellow with place within the the dredge zone that we’ve taken \ndug out to to give us a stronger material at the base behind. That would be till that would be placed that fill and would be \nCrestron: The the whole system would be treated by \nconstructing a preload fill\, which is shown in violet\, and prior to doing that\, though we would install those vertical wick drains which extend completely through the young bay mud and into the \nthe upper layered sediments. \nCrestron: And as I mentioned the \nthe compaction method we have in mind\, and still it’s early to choose. But at at Treasure Island they they use a vibrating beam. It’s 4 beams that vibrate in\, and that that had quite a bit of success. We haven’t mind using that for \nfor the deep compaction of the second. \nCrestron: So with that I think that’s the end of my story. I’ll turn it all over to \ncommand. \nCan you? \nCrestron: Thank you? \nGood afternoon. My name is Matt Brandon\, with Esa along with my colleague\, Bob Batalio\, and using a lot of input from the other technical experts. Here today\, we worked on the adaptation plan for \ntelorized flood hazards. I’m going to give a quick overview of that for the project. \nCrestron: As James mentioned earlier\, the \ncurrent design\, sea level rise criteria is 3 and a half feet that’s shown as a solid green line on the left side that tracks across the panel of seal of seal rise projection. \nand certainly with 3 and a half years it will rise. There will be significant consequences for the airport’s flooding in terms of the depths and extents\, as shown on the right with some inundation mapping of the 100 year flood with 3 and a half years ago\, Verizon. \n3 and a half feet of civil rise is projected to occur somewhere between 2\,070\, under the medium-high risk projection curves from the State to about 2\,100\, at the low risk. Aversion curves to the state \nCrestron: in addition to the and and this is 3 and a half years civil rise with maintaining fema accreditation for 3 and a half years civil rise. \nThe project also considers its adaptive capacity for 6.9 feet of seal rise\, which is the yellow line on the left curve\, and you see that takes you to 2\,100 under the medium High Risk \nscenario. \nCrestron: So here’s a look at how those work in terms of the crest elevations. \nSo the reaches are listed down by the rows with their proposed design elevations. Here\, in the third column. this sea level\, still water level is the augmented still water level from today’s present day by 3 and a half feet\, and you can see the free board \nfor these still water levels are all above to maintaining that fema accreditation with 3 and a half feet still arise. The next column over is the total water level. Calculated independently for each of the reaches\, and you can see there the \ntotal water Level Free board remains above the one foot requirement for fema accreditation. \nCrestron: I’ll draw your eye to reach 7\, which is sort of in the middle here\, where the free boards are significantly larger than the other amounts. Reach 7 is the one that Bob Kirby just talked about. That includes fill out in the bay and that has these. \nyou know\, multiple conflicts going on\, of working with sea level rise\, planning and flood assessments\, dealing with faa flight paths and with putting fill in the bay so that one is proposed to have a little bit more allowance and resilience for sea level rise\, so it wouldn’t have to be augmented and adapted as soon as the other reaches\, given its complications. \nCrestron: So this is a table sort of going forward from that condition I showed you this proposed design condition. \nSo the first row of this table is that 3 and a half feet of seal arise that was detailed in the prior slide. You can see\, as I noted\, that would go is projected to occur between 2\,100\, or as early as 2070 \nand as I showed that provides the fema accreditation of 2 feet of still water level and one foot of total water level free board. and then the table goes down with sort of incrementally more seal horizon about one foot increments. \nwith an additional foot of seal\, arise to 4 and a half feet. that’s when you would. The the project would no longer meet female accreditation\, but would really be only susceptible potentially to some wave over wash because of the total wall being a few tenths of a foot \nfrom the top. 5 and a half feet is when the free board would go to 0 for the still water levels. That’s kind of what we think of as the threshold for really being substantial consequences. If sea level rise goes higher. \nand \nCrestron: so to get from there from 5.5 to the 6.9. So the next step up. That’s about a foot and a half higher. That’s the point at which \nsince the freeboards would be going negative. At that point some sort of structural modification around the reaches would be probably needed\, something like adding a foot and a half or so cap to most of the reaches\, as I pointed out\, reach 7 has some additional capacity\, so wouldn’t need a cap as soon for that additional amount of \nto to reach that amount? Question\, Matt\, yeah. On the previous table\, the Twl column does that include is that with 3.5 feet of sea level rise. That’s with 3.5 cso. Rise. And as James mentioned\, it’s also starting the the total water level calculations\, you know\, offshore with additional seal rise\, so that added to like the wave depth and the propagation. \nCrestron: And so these are \nfrom the Fema study\, right? The the existing twl has not been recalculated. \nyou know\, to the offshore water levels additional water depth and then bring the waves sort of from the near shore in. \nCrestron: I can add to that also a essentially what we did was we took the the Fema model \nand we ran it to make sure our model calibrated. So we match today’s case that airport on the map. And we reran that model with the wall because it’s the structural element that changed and see what impacts that had on the behavior of the total water elevation \nand made some adjustments. And then\, as Matt mentioned\, we did then\, look at\, you know\, would things change in the future would sea level rise. and we ran it that also. And so that’s ultimately how we arrived at the total water and set our wall height. \nCrestron: I’m going to go a little bit more briefly onto these slides\, but you know we can certainly come back to them if you all have questions. The project\, as David mentioned\, is looking to get out of the theme floodplain that will fire a letter of map\, revision the the Clomar\, the the conditional letter of map provision process is currently underway in the airports and meeting with \nFema they’ve been looking at the inboard drainage side of things\, and so there’s been a series of models from the hydrology watershed models to riverine models that route the flow sort of around the backside and just to the north and south of the airport\, and then also taking input from that and precipitation to look at the \nstormwater system\, and how that performs. \nCrestron: So just give you a quick snapshot of those. So this is a snapshot of the results of some of the storm water modeling. You’ll see here that that \neven for cases which include extreme participation event\, and as those blue arrows indicate\, some overtopping from the adjoining riverine channels. the storm water system is capable of maintaining the water depths below a foot. \nbecause of that one of the sort of programmatic level ideas that’s been included in this project\, which is called reach 16 sort of along the western side is thought to not necessarily not be needed in terms of\, because the amount of discharge into the site would be small enough to be handled by the storm drain system. \nCrestron: here’s some more details on that sort of connection between the riverine system and the storm drain system\, which is\, you know\, using a model to go from the in this case this is flowing around the north side\, up by reach one of San Bruno Creek\, and there is a few areas of overtopping\, but they kind of pond in shallow areas and don’t extend over the entire site. \nCrestron: Similarly\, it reached 15 here the proposed where it flows just along the \nthe the the channel actually of Samuel Barry Canal channel flows right by reach 15\, and that floodwall would prevent inundation from coming onto the airport. Basically\, that green area that currently is at risk from being inundated\, would no longer be inundated with the proposed project. \nCrestron: The site also \nis is. you know\, as Bob pointed out\, built on former marshland\, and not that high above the groundwater table there’s been some hazard mapping that’s been done for groundwater at a regional level. Here’s \n2 2 of those mapping efforts by may it all and point blue in the Usgs\, showing that the site is sort of just \nsort of about 3 feet down is where the water table lies below the ground surface. Elevation\, certainly with seal rise\, has potential\, for there being some inundation hazards from groundwater. \nCrestron: the project\, the airport as part of this project has been monitoring groundwall on the site. \nThis plot here shows an example out. The light blue line is the title elevation from the bay\, and then there’s 3 other lines are 3 sites in profile along the shoreline there reach 6\, and that inset image \nyou can see in general\, that sea level is about 4 feet. As Bob mentioned before. the water levels are a bit below that\, and they remain roughly below that 8 foot ground surface elevation\, you see tagged on the upper left. So you know it is \nconsistent with those maps that you know a few feet below the ground surface. \nCrestron: So recognizing that\, recognizing some of the risks to the \nseismic hazard. the price the airport is looking at\, doing\, continuing to monitor ground water and develop it as part of and manage it. But that would be something that’d be an adaptation to this project\, not part of the current project and go into more detail on this. \nif you’d like \nCrestron: That takes us to the end of our presentation. And I didn’t quite get the order of public versus board questions. But we’ll leave \nyou all. \nCrestron: Yeah\, thanks\, Matt and team. \nAnd I think what we’re going to do next next is invite the public to. If the public has any comments regarding engineering type of criteria engineering issues or the presentation specifically \nthat they could go now and then the board will jump in with our comments. So I guess I ask anybody in the room. That’s part of the public who would like to present\, or grace if you have any anyone has raised their hands. \nBCDC HOST: I don’t see any public with raised hands. \nCrestron: and I don’t see any others in the room with raised hands\, either physical raised hands. \nSo then we’ll go on to the board. I’ll invite anyone that has a questions. Comments eventually move on to motion. But just for the time being questions and comments. \nThat’s the only \nI have a commitment. Let let me just let’s see\, remember to turn your your speaker on. Make sure your face is showing on the zoom \nBCDC HOST: chair. Can I request something? \nAye. \nCrestron: is that Grace? Yes\, this is me\, Grace. If \nBCDC HOST: the public and the board members\, and the reps when they speak\, can they speak more into the mic on my end? It’s very hard to hear. \nBCDC HOST: So if we can speak a little louder or closer to the mics\, that will be great. \nsure. Thanks. \nI have a number of questions. But I think the board member \nCrestron: how\, considering Sfo is a lifeline facility. \nHow was the 4 75 level of ground shaking. determined to be appropriate for design. \nBob\, you want me to start this off. Then? Again we looked at again the fema guidance\, and looking at the requirements for this. Floodwall. \nThe idea\, again\, is essentially it is a flood wall is its primary purpose. That’s the problem that I suppose\, facing immediately. And they are currently on a flood zone need to \nget it off the map. So\, looking at that and the primary focus there\, we made sure that for all flood load cases\, 100% resilient\, no damage. We started looking at the seismic performance. \nAgain\, there’s a sort of small table here on the right. Again\, they give different criteria looking at performance. Again\, this coming out of the Fema 543 \nrecommendations. And essentially. we picked a 475 or 475 year event\, representing a sort of a typical waterfront structure that you would normally see and checking its capacity against that and its performance. \nWith the understanding that this wall in essence is again focused on blood protection. So if you were to build it and had a large sizing event and had some damage to the wall. There isn’t an immediate risk to the airport \nin the sense that it’s not retaining any in the sense that it’s not retaining any water on every given day. Now there is an increased risk of flooding. Again\, you would be basically essentially bringing back the fema flood risk that we have today. And admittedly it does get worse over time. \nSo that was the idea of the wall. So as as in the future\, that flood risk is gonna increase. So we need to build the wall to prevent it. The seismic vulnerability then increases concurrently in a sense\, because in the future that flood risk is more and more common. So you do want to have a wall that essentially \nperform as well and can be quickly rebuilt. Looking at the more extreme cases\, the sort of we would see for an essential facility\, often felt that \nagain focusing on the wall\, for that case was difficult choice\, and it would require probably much more impactful and costly improvements to address that particular item\, and it wouldn’t address anything sort of behind the wall\, back on the airfield\, which are essentially would be the main areas of concern from an operational life safety standpoint. \nCrestron: There’s a very long\, rambling answer\, but hopefully\, is an idea how we got there. I don’t\, Bob. You want to add to that. \njust might add that. And and and this is covered in a tech memo that we haven’t actually have as an appendix to our geotech report. It’s \nIt’s appendix B\, But we we also have to look at the performance group. But what? What is what is the required performance of the facility? So\, looking at combining \nthe design event with the with the performance requirement. The th\, the the 475 year return period. Earthquake. When combined with \nwhat we viewed as a performance Group 3 structure and A and a performance requirement per the fema guidelines of moderate damage. So those factors all fit together. So it’s a risk and performance-based \nassessments that that led to that. But my concern is in your presentation. You mentioned that the maximum demand capacity ratio for design is point 9 under the Dbe level. \nStructurally speaking. so so are you reaching those levels of demand capacity ratios\, because that doesn’t give you a lot of margin once something bigger happens right \nCrestron: couple of points to that. And I think Bob’s analysis showed again from \nmuch of the size and behavior. Essentially\, this wall is a cantilevered wall. There’s no soil or basically air on both sides from a seismic perspective quite honest\, the walls just going along for the ride\, for whatever the soil does \nCrestron: so. The soil is really the main driver\, and Bob’s analysis has shown \nthe stresses\, the differential movements across the length of the wall during those seismic events is actually quite small\, because again\, the wall just kind of rides with the soil. Now you do get kind of over a long enough period. You do get a chance of differential displacement\, causing interlock breakage. But the wall itself is not gonna just fall over because there’s really no \nlateral load applied to it\, going with the soil. So that’s why\, from an inertial seismic standpoint. Again\, we are not seeing \nmuch more demand again from that. And again the DC ratios of the point 9. Those are all flood based cases\, the inertial. We have those in our calculation package. They’re actually quite a bit lower from a seismic cause. It’s self-weight. \nreally sees no outside lateral load. \nCrestron: So \nif you were\, did you even consider higher level just to check? See if you have enough margin. I’ll ask my colleague\, Evan\, who’s online again\, we can perform that check if necessary. I’m just Evan. I’m not sure if we did run that calc again given the DC ratios for the seismic were quite low from an inertial standpoint. \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): Yeah. So we we did not end up checking anything that was past the 475 year. But we\, when when doing the calculations with the 475 year\, the forces that we were seeing were\, I mean\, significantly\, significantly\, less than anything that we were seeing for the flood loading \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): cause that\, as James mentioned\, it’s it’s the self weight of the sheet pile. So if you’re doing that on a you know per foot basis\, you’ve got\, you know\, your your 3 inch 3 8 inch thick sheet \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): times the height \nat\, you know. \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): and that was about it. Whereas the the flood cases with the wave loading and everything were. \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): you know\, 200 to 400\, you know\, pounds per square inch pressure against the side were significantly larger than anything that the self weight was gonna create. \nI have few other questions\, but I’ll wait for others. Let me follow up on your comments there. Ramine. I had some questions about that also on page 19 of your presentation\, you had the the maximum d over C. \nRotational stability was point 9 point 9 0 for the sheet pile wall for the T wall bearing capacity was 0 point 9 9. Is that a structural? So that was a if you look at the I think you might have an older version. \nwe. We did make a correction on that\, because it did not logically make sense. Essentially\, again\, it’s an army corps looking at factors of safety. Essentially\, they are requiring a level of factor safety. And but we were writing like\, well\, we met it. We’re point 9. We’re right on that. So essentially under bearing capacity\, we have a 3.5. \nOkay\, Evan\, can you help me with that? \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): Yeah. So that that point 9 9 that was shown there. Originally was. It’s the ratio of the calculated technical safety factor 1.1 1 \nthat was the that was the \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): yeah\, basically it was. It was the \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): oh\, man. Sorry. I’m trying to remember here. So it was. It was taking the \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): the depth of the of step to fixity ratios. That we were providing versus actual \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): that we were calculating out. \nCrestron: I guess. What do I say? We’ll probably come back to you on that\, and give you a little more clarity. But essentially\, and from Bob’s analysis with the wall was found to be stable at the depths going 10 feet into the bay. Mud \nagain under inertial loading effects and flood cases. That’s about an embedded of roughly 35 feet with a stick up of anywhere between. I think the numbers are about 5 to 13 feet. \nYou know\, ratuing that we essentially had enough tip elevation and again looking at a liquid. Ca faction case. Now the whole soil masses sort of moving in the wall is slightly going along for the ride. We do not see any indication of the wall with \npotentially rotate and collapse. And it’s sort of a more severe manner. We can revisit that and give a little bit more clarity on that point. Walls don’t rotate and collapse if you have a safety factor of 1\, 3 \nbut that’s not a conventional design\, acceptable design safety factor understood. And so I’d be interested in seeing an actual safety factor\, or you can turn upside down and have it be a \nthe performance factor. reduction factor\, whatever you want to do. But point point 9\, II think what you’re saying is somehow the the depth is. you know\, point \n9. You know the the death required divided by point 9. So you’ve added an extra few feet or something like that which isn’t a safety factor. You’re correct. \nCrestron: along that same line makes since I have the the floor here\, and since I’m the chair and no one can take it away from me. \nLet let me let me follow up a little bit on that is II got interested in the point 9\, and maybe that point 9 is not exactly what I was thinking it meant. But there was nothing really that showed II there’s a ton of C of Cpt data. I assume there’s a lot of lab data. I didn’t see it in any of the \nPdfs that were forwarded to us. This showed how that data was reduced\, except for a few averages and some plots of cumulative values\, and so on. But I’d be interested in seeing \nsomething that shows how the data was reduced and how you came up with your design values. And actually\, what were the strength values that were used in somebody’s analyses. You know I see the analyses. I assume that behind that there’s a lot of maybe Appendix B in the Jutec report was something that that was not provided to us. \nCrestron: Ye yes\, II can speak to that. \nCrestron: There! There was a study done from about 1\,998 to 2\,001 on the \nThe. \nIt was looking at the airport development at at the time\, and it was done by Fugro and and muffin and nickel. They were the joint venture. and and most of the Cpt’s that that you saw in Bayside and along the perimeter. And what have you? Those were actually done as part of that that program. \nAnd and the and the program included extensive\, very extensive laboratory testing\, including a lot of focus on dynamic properties. \nAnd and this is what was available to us and was\, is a wealth of information in that regard. And so we drew from that database \nto to develop the engineering properties that we used in in our analysis. And and you had that live database\, you could analyze it yourselves rather than just taking their summary plots\, and so on. \nCrestron: We that we had there. We didn’t have a a live database. In a sense\, we we had reams and rings of appendices and tables\, and and the like\, which we which we reviewed. \nand and one pistana who has worked with us on on all of the plexus kind of analysis\, and selecting the dynamic properties \ngot got quite involved with with that review as well. And. Juan\, maybe I could ask you to speak a bit to the to the soil properties\, if \nif you don’t mind. \nCrestron: So how would one do that? \nThey’re not \nJuan M Pestana: can you hear me. Can you \nJuan M Pestana: see me? \nHey? Everyone? Yeah\, we got you. Thanks. Nice to see you. So the \nJuan M Pestana: so that’s a you know. Very extensive question about the properties. I mean. \nJuan M Pestana: we actually have gone through all the cycle characterization\, going from a strength to a stiffness to share modules reduction. So do name it\, except there is a very\, very dense database \nJuan M Pestana: for for that particular case. So II think your question is a valid one. It would be helpful if you narrow down a little bit\, the the concern would be \nJuan M Pestana: the particular property that you may be looking at. \nJuan M Pestana: But of course\, asking a question with the properties of soil\, is like. \nJuan M Pestana: you know\, asking for a 3 h lecture and install property. So you know\, it would be helpful to \nJuan M Pestana: specific about the question have you had in mind? Does it make sense? \nCrestron: Yeah. And and one\, I think we would just. \nBut I thought you might want to speak to the. to the wealth or to the depth and breadth of the information. But it it it’s it’s a extraordinarily extensive. \nyeah\, yeah. So so I guess my request would be of the design team. That I that I kind of assumed it looked like from the way you’d done what you had presented that there was a lot behind it that wasn’t presented. But I think. \nas ecr be reviewer\, I’d be interested in seeing that I’m not gonna spend a lot of time going into it. But just see. the criteria that you used for how you selected properties\, how you average\, how you pick standard deviations or outliers\, and \nand so on. \nCrestron: We know that the criteria that we would like to see has. \nII know\, you guys. \nJuan M Pestana: that’s that’s an excellent question. That’s an excellent question. So III can tell you of\, on the properties\, the the purpose. We’re extensively not that. And and you would be surprised. But some of those properties are actually quite quite well behaved. And the \nJuan M Pestana: yes\, of course there are always outliers\, but of course\, they are those outliers. So we we tend to look at the at the behavior. We tend to look at the \nJuan M Pestana: characteristics of soils. So we we have a lot of database\, so as far as testing is concerned\, to support or deny the validity of someone else data points. And and of course\, as a modeler\, I mean speaking now for myself as a model\, you\, you tend to develop a lot of criteria to see how reasonable. \nJuan M Pestana: The relationship between the properties are properties. So the the report was very\, very well documented\, and and I can attest to \nJuan M Pestana: to Bob’s a comment that there was a well from information there\, and it seemed to be consistent with several of the reports that we have not for other projects. So\, rather than being \nJuan M Pestana: in the San Francisco Bay Area things like the Threshold island. They Berkeley report some you know\, some properties for San Francisco Bay matter\, and so forth. So II do think they are very well established\, I mean\, if definitely\, if you\, if you need some clarification\, any specific issue? \nJuan M Pestana: and how\, for example\, we determine we use base average base value\, based estimates. And when appropriate. And this was a performance\, base analysis. But in some cases\, for example\, for strength\, we use the typical\, you know\, 30% \nJuan M Pestana: and you know\, characteristics. So so again. \nJuan M Pestana: I would be delighted to go at length in any of any of those any of those aspects. \nJuan M Pestana: Bob\, is that\, Tom? What you had in mind. \nCrestron: Yes\, thank thank you\, Juan. \nDid you have? Yes\, I think that’s fine\, I think just to go ahead. I think\, Juan\, you cited extensive documentation evaluation of that\, and maybe just submit some of that to to Jen to the Bcdc\, I just so that we have it on record that. Yeah\, it’s all been followed. Re related that one follow-on question\, one more on page 44. I think of your presentation. \nYou show the the fiftieth percentile and nineteenth percentile. And then a handful of points that are larger deformations than that. \nI. \nCrestron: And you know\, obviously\, we don’t want to have the average wall to perform well\, and only fail in \n4% of the locations. and let let me clarify. So what what we indicate is that II think this gives a good overview of of what the general field conditions are. \nBut we we have recommended to the airport that we we do as a large number of additional Cpt’s. where we would \nreally do a rolling average of calculated values of Ld. As we move along the shoreline. \nCrestron: identify areas that \nbased on that rolling average lead to \nCrestron: special attention and as a preliminary matter\, we were thinking that \nhaving a an average Ld of a foot is an area that we look more carefully at and consider either ground improvement \nalong those areas or upgrading the the steel\, but And we we have discussed with the airport about ground improvement as a as an included to assure the \nthe moderate damage performance. Criterias\, Matt. \nCrestron: we would. We wouldn’t leave that behind. And we do understand that we need to look \nvery carefully. You know. \nCrestron: You know\, every few 100 feet\, if you will. I mean not not not not right. \nAlthough 62 Cpt’s are a lot. It’s a big distance that we have. \nCrestron: Okay. \nreally\, if you got go ahead. \nthank you for the presentation. Very nice\, very clear. A few questions. If my biggest one really is the selection of seal sheet file \nCrestron: right for a \nproject that clearly is \nCrestron: 2085\, and beyond\, and adapting to it with \nso what was the thought process? And were there other alternatives considered to steal\, that was one. and then a follow on to that is that I would imagine that with steel \nCrestron: is there a \nCatholic protection system that is being included as part of the design. If not\, I would imagine that it’s probably with the section loss. You’re probably bulking it up right? And so with that bulk up section. \nYour Dcrs are still in the just at about one\, or is it substantially greater than one because of the thicker section anticipating section loss in the future. \nCrestron: So maybe I’ll stop with that and few other questions which are different topics. Right? So for the the first item as far as alternatives there was an alternatives\, analysis\, phase\, which is actually performed by a different consulting group before we came on board the report looked at a variety of different types of blood protection\, Perth and levies \nsteel sheet piles concrete\, retaining walls\, concrete panel sheet piles again\, a wide variety of different alternatives through that analysis. And looking at sort of the the life and the kind of looking at cost today versus future they made a determination at that time that they still sheet pile\, while with a a coding\, was the most economical solution for them \nfor this project. Again\, thinking through the period of 2085 leading into that sort of the second part of your questions\, we are planning to have a coating on the steel sheet piles on the above portion. We’ll extend it a short distance into the ground. \nThat coating and the wall itself again. The majority of the time is right at the edge of the shoreline. It will be accessible by foot. On either side of the wall. There is no flood waters\, there is no soil retain tension on it\, so it is accessible. So the expectation is\, if the airport chooses to do so\, and a maintenance program\, they could maintain the coating over the life of the wall to further extend it. \nWe\, as a kind of a design approach to date. We’ve assumed that they will not maintain the wall again. This is not their decision that you know. Very likely they will. But for conservatism\, we assume no \nmaintenance. So the coding we gave a life of\, I believe\, about 10 to 15 years. At that point we calculated the corrosion rates we’d expected\, based on exposure and and use those for the calculations. The DC. Ratios you were seeing in that table at end of service life 2085 against \nthe full design loads. So they are much better. DC ratios. you know\, in the first 2030\, 40 years they’re much better\, and then they get less and less towards the end. \nCrestron: Thank you. Yeah\, thanks for that. \nyou know. And and so it wasn’t just from that. You know\, my\, my other biggest question concern is the Cpg. Right? So cpige is a very large piece of any kind of fema floodwall\, particularly in segments where \nthe backland is just about at present day. Bfe! So in the future\, even with a modest amount of sea level rise. the steel barrier is the only \nseparation from the base. \nCrestron: So Matt had alluded to it in one of his slides. So currently\, as far as this project is concerned. Again\, with the media goal of getting Fema getting essentially off the fema map. \nwe are driving our sheet piles to a distance into the young bay mud to act as a deterrent to groundwater from coming under but obviously over a long enough period of time. With sea level rise. The expectation is\, the groundwater interior will will increase\, and there could be some potential for seepage. \nkind of a long-term projection is eventually again an add on project\, not district project. There will be a drainage system. Would it tie into the interior drainage system at the airport and handle sort of that seepage issue? We’re extending the sheets down in preparation for the eventuality that a system like that may be needed. \nBut again\, for this particular project. It’s not needed today\, but for sure in the future. And so again. Immediate need is\, let’s get off the map. \nOkay. My second question was\, I didn’t see a plan. I saw only at the end of runway 19\, where there is some fill that is taking place. But I see\, I think\, on Slide 2 \nCrestron: There are roads being pushed out also up to what 120 feet or so so. \nand that is in Reach’s. \nCrestron: Oh\, is it between reaches 7 and 13? I guess your slide says. \nand so \nCrestron: is that a new perimeter system that is being created? \nWell\, David has stepped out\, but I’ll do my best as essentially\, that’s the Vehicle Service Road. There’s an existing vehicle service road at the airport the current road in certain areas is required does not meet faa requirements. \nThere is a waiver that they have to request. I’m not sure if that’s annually\, but they have to get an exemption from Faa. It is too close to the taxiways\, the wing tips. \nThe idea of the movement of the Vs. Our vehicle service road is to come in conformance with with that\, the idea being that if this project goes forth we don’t want to permanently lock in a deviation from the Faa\, and that is essentially the reason for those \nshifts in the Vsr. So\, David\, there was a question about the Vsr\, so hopefully I covered it. Yeah\, my question was\, is the Vsr within the existing footprint of the runway? 28 area? Or is it a new edge that is being created for the Vsr. \nHmm. Well\, the the existing Bsr along the runway. 19. Excuse me\, runway 19 right? And then also around both the 2\, 8\, yeah\, 28 as well. So those will all be also be shifted out \nagain. My question is\, when you say shifted out\, are they on new fill in the bay? Which means the new perimeter is being created\, or is it within the footprint of the existing \nCrestron: shown here would have to be implemented \nin order to ship that the the Dsr. \nCrestron: If you can go to slide 5\, \nyou know\, my question is really on the other reaches on reaches 13 and 14. Is there a new perimeter being created for the Vsr. \nCrestron: The answer is\, yes\, very nominal. We’re minimizing it to the maximum extent possible. It’s much less than at the end of the runways. \nBut there is at certain components certain areas. We are pushing out a little bit to accommodate that Vsr outboard of the existing dyke system. Correct correct \nCrestron: that. So it is a large retention structure. Now at that point\, right? I mean\, it’s not just a flood wall like in the other reaches. No. There again\, when when the wall gets installed essentially\, that shoreline will look just the same\, or just \nsliding it out. And so the wall itself again does not have differential loading of significance. You know there’s maybe a foot or 2 here and there on each side of the wall\, but there’s no reach where it’s essentially holding back and retaining soil of significance. \nI see \nCrestron: I don’t know. Last question was\, and I think there’s some other stuff. Maybe Gail might speak to it\, but I did see that? \nWhat was it? 90%. So the ninetieth percentile of the lateral displacement of the Ld is at about 2 feet. \nwhich \nCrestron: you know. So 10% is is still substantial\, you know\, that will need to be treated. Are you thinking? Tie backs\, or are you thinking? \nJust continue with the cantilever assumption and just go deeper \nCrestron: cool. Do you mind? Take this? Yeah\, from a structural standpoint. You know\, once we treat the soil locally. \nyou know\, any sort of seismic risk really starts to go away right. Our our risk is the liquefaction\, the the soil interaction with the sheets. So the ideas would be more of ground improvement methodologies. \nbecause again\, in the ultimate\, the wall itself will not be retaining any soil. It’s purely there to wait for the flood waters to come\, which you know\, aren’t there often\, but it has no retention. So we’re not anticipating adding to any structural elements to be purely ground improvement methods to strengthen the soil locally. \nCrestron: Thank you. That’s what I had. Can I take 1 s to? Get a better answer to you about the point 9 on the rotational. So II got the facts from Evan. Here I sent you are correct. We designed the wall to meet a requirement of 1.3 against rotational stability. \nOur wall\, as currently designed\, is 1.4 5\, is our rotation factor. Safety 1.3 over 1.4 5 is point 9. Not typical way to present it. So apologize for that. But that is our design. \nCrestron: We fixed. We we fixed one. We didn’t fix the other. You’re correct. \nIf I understood it correctly. you said you use the PGA at reach 6 for liquefaction analyses \nCrestron: what was the basis of that. \nand I also think I heard that Beach 6 has the thickest payment. which I would expect to have a lot of reductions in terms of pgas. At this at the surface. \nAnd considering the 19 reaches\, which means 19 significantly different subsurface conditions to consider what is the basis there. \nCrestron: And also\, it’s very curious that \nreach 6 gave the highest lateral deformations. \nCrestron: And why would \nyou know\, go through all of this analysis that you did\, and you chose one result from one reach to consider for the whole project. \nCrestron: have some other questions\, but \nwe we select to reach 6 \nCrestron: be because of the the large depth that is the the reach with the with the thickest layer of of yoga. MoD\, \nwe we did our plexus analysis in in that reach. and our expectation is\, and I\, \nCrestron: that that\, based on the \nand and the the lateral deformations that come out of the plexus analysis are primarily driven by the shear strains within the underlying young bay mud. And and it’s for that reason we \nwe we felt that that that was the the critical section for the for the for the plexus analysis. we. \nCrestron: We followed \nsuit on that and and the this one dimensional site response analysis that we’re doing here. It was done for a couple of reasons\, of course\, and well\, it’s supporting. Reach 6. Our expectation that reach 6 is the critical section. \nOverall for the the lateral displacements. Now keep keeping in mind that the that the plexus analysis didn’t explicitly consider the the liquefaction. But it\, you know\, really driven by the \nby\, the the young bay mud. So the site response analysis was done at Read 6. It was used to \nCrestron: develop the the motions at the base of the Paxis model\, the \nto to translate the ground motions from the the rock to the base of the plexus model. It was done to using deep soil to compare that to to the re response of the one dimensional plaxis model. So it was a calibration kind of activity. \nCrestron: and and we did then as as we \nsubsequently did\, the the liquid faction assessment we anchored\, if you will\, on the on the on the on the PGA of of about point 2. \nThat’s there at reach 6 now\, there has been some some discussion about expanding that to to to look at different soil profiles and variation of PGA at the ground surface\, as it relates to the lip of action \nassessments. At the analysis that we’ve done to date on the on the liquifaction assessment has used the the site\, response analysis and Mpga based on on reach. \nCrestron: So I think that Ramen is is the point leading up to that \nthicker bay mud will give you will will shake a tall building worse than thinner bay mud\, but it will give you it will\, and it will amplify weak ground motions. But W. Is likely to attenuate really strong ground motions like you’re going to have from a 5 or 6 kilometer away. \nSan Andreas event\, and so \nCrestron: for PGA specifically reach 6 may may be unconservative \nfor the design level earthquake of the 7\, 8 at 6 kilometers. Hmm. \nJuan M Pestana: may I interject? There\, just for a second? \nYes\, please. \nJuan M Pestana: Yeah. So II think I have perhaps a simpler answer. \nJuan M Pestana: So what we were looking at the behavior for the day month. \nJuan M Pestana: So it made sense to analyze \nJuan M Pestana: reach 6. And then\, when we analyze local faction. If we wanted to somehow see how to combine we did it for for reach 6. And then we we wanted to expand that. So we use the the point to more like \nJuan M Pestana: for equality \nJuan M Pestana: over evaluation\, because the the PGA for each individual Cbt\, which has a very different\, we have a different sole profile is different. \nJuan M Pestana: So it would have been need the the analysis on the evaluation of the results much more difficult. So II think the idea here was to use that as a screening tool \nJuan M Pestana: for the system\, and to see which areas which of the reaches we’re more vulnerable and then focus the attention of \nJuan M Pestana: the site investigation to narrow down the \nJuan M Pestana: the areas where they have so many Asian needs to be done. I mean all the areas where remediation may not be necessary. So \nJuan M Pestana: II do. II do agree with you that there was the first of all\, this was not a combined analysis. We we did not do sideways pause with all combined\, which could have been done for one of those reaches at one specific location for one particular set of conditions\, but it wouldn’t be able to be done for 62 of them even less for more. \nJuan M Pestana: So I think you have to understand that graph as a screening tool tool says\, if you were to use point to which was consistent for the reach 6 that we analyze. \nJuan M Pestana: then this is what we’d see for all the other ones. Yes\, absolutely. All the older locations will have a different. So profile will have a different \nJuan M Pestana: Ega will have a different amplification\, and so forth. And that was not possible to do it systematically. So the choice was made to do it that way. And and then what that gave is to give a very clear indication that their phone areas they’re more susceptible than others. And that’s where we should focus \nJuan M Pestana: you sign investigation. \nJuan M Pestana: And for those areas\, then we can have a representative combined so profile of the Bay mode and the \nJuan M Pestana: characteristics on the fill that we can analyze together\, and then you could. It’s very difficult\, as you will know\, to add 2 things that are no wind. So the the response of the fell adding\, the map is essentially a screening tool is not\, should not be viewed. \nJuan M Pestana: So that’s the answer. But it’s a very good screening tool. \nJuan M Pestana: And so once we have those areas fully defined\, then you can do something that is more specific. And then we do a service\, pause by information analysis with the profile. So that that’s my take on on the question. So I hope that \nJuan M Pestana: then perhaps shed some light on the\, on the choices. \nCrestron: but I think it’s also could \nacknowledging the conditions change\, and our different. and you may get different answers\, different places from a system that \nis structural. \nFor the most part. \nCrestron: then it begs the question\, that is\, that an appropriate level of demand that is being considered for these particular \nsegment or reaches. so that you make sure that reach 17 with the system that you are designing for it has the right demand on it. \nCrestron: II can answer that. And again it it sounds like something we should look a little bit closer at\, but from purely a \nseismic demand again\, from a structural perspective. The flood case \nCrestron: is significantly more than we’re seeing. Again\, from an inertial standpoint. \nView\, increase the Pgna Pg\, or say PGA\, or the each reach again\, we can ultimately check that during the design\, or probably\, you know\, during the final design that will be a check. My anticipation is\, the flooding case will still control the structural design \nby an order of magnitude. If I’m incorrect\, the way to address that will be essentially thickened. The wall thickness\, and A. Z. 19700 is not a particularly thick \nsheet pile. Wall it\, that is again driven by the economics\, and also our flood demands. But if we do ever run into a case where the values of seismic inertial \ndemands are much higher\, we have a way to address that. Okay\, thank you. \nCrestron: Nick. Nick\, you had your hand up. \nCrestron: Okay\, since \nCrestron: yeah\, since the \nquestion here is resiliency against flooding. \nCrestron: I think it was your slide 28. But I’m not quite clear you indicated that there is a potential \nin certain settings to have inundation at I don’t know which one hit the inundation map. from\, I think\, was San Bruno reach \nCrestron: Channel. \nAnd my question is that\, yeah. Okay. So it would be 55\, is it? \nCrestron: Yeah\, this 1 56. \nCrestron: What provisions you? You indicated that \nyou know you think that the current. whatever pumping stations there are to evacuate the water are sufficient. But have you really carefully looked at that these are \nproperly resilient? I’m I’m thinking. You know\, it’s not exactly the same thing. Fukushima power plant had plenty of pumps. The power supply for those pumps was flooded. \nand therefore those pumps didn’t work\, and 30 cm of water on the runway effectively shut down. A few centimeters of water on the runway. Shut down the airport. So? My question is\, have you\, you know\, in the overall evaluation of resiliency against flooding? Have you carefully looked at that those \nelements are\, in fact. well \nCrestron: situated\, so that you can prevent \ndamage to those elements that are critical to keep the water out\, should there be overtopping by whatever means? \nNo\, it’s a very good point. again what our analysis showed\, and it was a very detailed combination of an interior drainage analysis performed by H. And TV and Lotus\, our consultant\, looking again at the Riverine\, this analysis was again driven as part of Fema’s \nrequirement for a Colomar Lomar package. You have to look at all flood sources. Beinga put the airport on the map due to coastal flooding. However\, we have to make sure we have addressed coastal flooding and all our all other sources \nin this particular case. The river\, and analysis\, as indicated on the slide\, has shown a couple of spill points. We’ve taken those and inputted those into the interior drainage model H and TV ran and calculated and reran the analysis and showed the current pump systems can handle that \nflooding. Now\, as far as the resiliency of those as part of the Clomar and package of the Lomar Package airport is required to prepare an operation maintenance manual. \nidentifying many of the topics you’ve you’ve brought up that these pumps will be operational when they’re needed. That’s part of. They will not give you a letter of map revision unless they have confidence that your system will be there when it needs to be there\, and that includes the operations of the pump systems. \nIn particular\, we have identified\, you know\, the vulnerabilities of the airport flooding much of the power\, and the transformers are within this perimeter without the flood wall. You know they’re very vulnerable. Hence this project. \nonce the flood wall’s there that does provide. The major source of flooding being coastal will now be cut off. Now we’re dealing with interior drainage situation\, which is again\, that’s something they’re living with right now. They have their interior drainage system has been effective\, it has been maintained. It has a proven sort of history to that. \nSo the expectation is the operation and maintenance that’s in place right now\, which has effectively kept those pumps running for the better part of 30\, 40 years\, will be effective in the future. \nso that’s our position. Having having worked on the project here in California\, upwardly. expectations were. and nobody actually looked at what the reality was. \nI would suggest that some consideration be given about making sure that the elevations of all these elements are above any potential flood flood\, hazard the fact that they worked today. \nIt’s fantastic. I’m happy to hear that. but we’re looking at future. And so it’s a while elevating the runway. Might be a much more difficult problem because you can’t maintain the \noperational operation of the airport. Elevating the power supplies above any potential inundation level is a relatively minor things that would be easily easy to do. So what I’m saying is that looking backwards \nis not really the way to address this issue. The the issue should be address. Looking forward. That would be my recommendation. Definitely understood again\, from a philosophical approach\, the airport essentially had choices. \nOne take all the critical elements and raise them up and just accept flooding across the airport. They’ve chosen option 2\, which is to is that essentially protect against the coastal flooding \nby building the wall. So I aren’t completely understand. But the idea of all these critical pieces of infrastructure are now going to be located behind this wall which is providing the flood protection. There may be absolutely benefits to consider raising critical pieces. And that’s something \nwe’ll discuss with Sfo. But again\, the fundamental. I definitely understand I’ve seen both approaches. But this case\, they decided investing in raising all these pieces of equipment. We’re gonna protect the entire area. Because again. There’s a lot of benefits beyond even those critical and elements. \nthe wider spread Sfo getting it off the flood map. \nCrestron: Gail\, I think you’re next up. \nYeah\, a few questions. so it sounds like you’re saying that seismics just flat out\, not governing anything. I would say from us a structural engineer’s standpoint. \nIt’s not a significant from a loading standpoint\, flooding out ways from a Geo technical soil structure in action. It’s very important. I just I did note\, Bob\, you mentioned \nyou were looking at Dcrs based on mild steel. but it looked like you’re basis of design\, was specifying 50 or 60 ksi steel for the sheet pile walls. So it’s even more conservative. Right? \nYeah\, the comparisons that I’ve made \nCrestron: very conservative because we compared the moment demand to a \ncapacity is actually an allowable moment \nCrestron: based based on a mile steel. And indeed\, you’re planning a stronger. Is that correct? Yeah\, it is correct. Again\, given a little bit of the uncertainty. Still\, with Cpt data\, we didn’t want to go too far if you conserve it at this stage. \nAnd I also understand. So \nCrestron: there’s very few areas where there’s going to be \nsoil behind the actual sheep bells are mostly just cantilevered sticking up. Yes\, that’s correct. I actually can’t think of any particular area where we’re retaining any soil of significance. \nOkay? So that takes care of that. Can you go to your slide where you showed the extent of lateral displacement. It was like\, Slide 39 on the dropped when you said. \nYeah\, I think you had one for each but 6 and one for each 7. Yeah. What? What is the lateral? What is the horizontal distance? Going back to? How? Where? You’re having 2 feet of displacement? I was having trouble reading the scales. \nCrestron: Oh\, oh\, it’s \nyeah. nominally. \nCrestron: Yeah. \nCrestron: at 20 or 30 feet of 2 feet. \nOkay? And what? \nCrestron: What? What are you? What are you impacting at this point\, I mean\, are you like \nhitting the edges of the runway\, or what kind of are you in terms of? I’m just looking at the performance. How local\, how local are the displacements? That’s where I’m going with this. \nCrestron: And and and this is Reach 7 that we’re looking at here. That that was the analysis for reach 7. So this is \nnot not typical floodwall. But this is the the reach\, 7 floodwall. And and we we analyze that cheap file being in the in the center\, as I recall\, of the perimeter diet. \nand I believe the the top width of that was \nCrestron: nom nominally 30 feet or so\, so that that particular\, that particular setback\, I think. \n20 or 30 feet\, so that it it\, that setback is probably 10 or 15 feet scale from the edge. So how far\, how far back. \nCrestron: how far back away from the cheapel wall \ndo you have to get before you would actually start impacting any operations. That’s what that’s kind of. So maybe a better slide with the overall airport map. Majority of these are\, you know\, away from the runway. \nso the the nearest physical element of that’s being used by the airport is the vehicle Service road. You know\, and there’s also sort of a curve. There is locations. The vehicle service road will be very close\, basically adjacent within 5 to 10 feet of the wall. \nSo there those are locations where there could be some localize cracking of the payment\, so on. But the actual runways are further away now. With that in mind again\, our wall\, our project and our focus of our analysis is on the flood wall. \nWe haven’t analyzed behaviors further back\, much further back from I seismic standpoint\, if you understand\, like looking at liquid faction across the wider air field. Yeah. Yeah. But but \nas far as the impact of the seawall goes. it sounds like it. It truly won’t impact operations. Yeah\, ultimately\, the in the wall itself. If we built the wall tomorrow and then had the big earthquake the day\, after all you would be doing is returning to your current situation today. \nRight? There’s a flood risk. The flood risk will be restored \nCrestron: in the future. The flood risks are increasing over time with sea level rise. So it does become. You know\, the performance of the wall does start to become a little bit more critical to operations because it reintroduces a flood risk. It doesn’t. The behavior of it seismically \nhas no impact on anything else on the airport other than the flood risk component to it. Okay. I was curious. Going back to actually remains very first question about \nusing 475 years. It sounded like you said\, it’ll have a big cost impact\, but everything else I’m hearing sounds like it will have almost no cost impact again. I may have misspoke in the sense of if we are my thinking on. That was if we were trying to prevent \nany sort of lateral or liquifaction behavior\, and to a very high case. \nCrestron: the cost of ground improvement over a much\, much broader sense. There’s significant cost \nBob. And our approach right now is to be more selective\, based on Cpt data where the most benefit to the airport for ground improvement will be obtained. And again\, it’s a cost balance ratio. \nStructurally. yeah\, you can throw a bigger earthquake\, and it will be fine geotechnically. So a structure in action is where there’s\, you know\, some concern\, the bigger event you look. \nOkay. \nCrestron: II think that pretty much takes care of my question. \nJustin. I think you’re next up. \nHi\, Justin Vandiver. I wanted to start with just kind of a general comment about the sea. Over rise criteria and the adoption of 3 and a half feet which seems like an appropriate \nnumber for kind of an initial build. and that essentially\, what’s documented in the report is that the risk that the airport is taking on of sea level rise exceeding that amount is essentially \njust loss of fema accreditation initially. and then\, as it gets higher\, then you have potential person wave overtopping and maybe flooding. so that all seems fine. \nCrestron: I wanted to ask if the \nif it’s billed as proposed. and sea level rise does exceed 3 and a half feet. \nCrestron: and there’s no additional adaptation implemented. Has that water level and wave loading been assessed for higher sea level rise on the as built conditions? \nLet’s hit the wall could accommodate those loads with no further adaptation. Action. \nCrestron: And in essence we have looked at sort of these stream\, I think\, as a 750 year sort of flooding event. \nThe wall and it’s in itself\, in a certain sense\, controls a load. So once the water reaches a certain height and goes over the top. There’s no load on that wall\, right? So if we don’t adapt it \nthat\, extra water is going to go over the top and cause issues of flooding\, you know\, hopefully be handled by the interior pump system. But that’s not our intent. So from a structural standpoint \nonce the water reaches the top\, it can’t really introduce more load to the wall. Now we have looked at adaptable potential adaptation on the sheet piled by adding\, Let’s say\, a concrete cap. Right now we have a bent plate\, partly for seismic performance. We’re trying to. If we get seismic moving\, having a rigid seismic cap on it \ncreates sort of locked in behavior. We want to have a certain level of flexibility to dissipate the energies and also make it easier to repair. But in the future\, again\, the site flooding risk starts out weighing that we could add a concrete cap. If you’ve seen the Foster City project \nessentially what they built there that can easily gain a foot and a half 2 feet extra height in the future\, if necessary. So no other modifications would be needed to the wall. \nNo. Again\, ultimately\, during the final design\, these are some of the criteria will establish for the the design builder. As far as performance criteria. They would have to consider that case if there was an adaptation when they designed the sheet \nto make sure they build that in and pick appropriate thickness of the sheet to accommodate additional height and additional flood forces water forces on the wall. \nCrestron: and then\, in terms of the \nfema accreditation\, I just wanted to note that it\, you know\, based on the information presented. It appear that Pre. Board and conditions are appropriate to attain. \nSee my accreditation. and that I appreciated that incorporation\, see overize into the analysis as opposed to just adding it. They split elevations. \nCrestron: so thanks for that. \nA just to go back to the discussion about\, like the combined sort of co-occurrence of a seismic and flood event. can you just for to describe\, like. \nwhat is that post-sismic condition of the wall. Look like you talked about lateral displacement. Is there any like vertical change or settlement of the wall\, or like separation? \nThey could allow water to pass into the airfield. Not not like if a hundred year event were to occur\, but just like a king tide\, or some like a much more common event \nare there gaps or a drop in the wall? It could result in flooding\, even in the absence of like a severe coastal storm event. \nCrestron: Again. This is a problem that gets worse over time. So again\, in today’s case\, you need close to the 100 Year Flood event to flood us\, though \nthat’s a bit less. But you know you need to get closer when you start looking at 2050\, or 2085 end of service life. That’s where you could potentially get king tides or small storms\, causing kind of a turnaround and a flooding event. \nMaybe\, Bob\, I’ll I’ll let you respond a little bit. You’ve been looking at kind of post performance. And what’s the expected damage after\, say\, 475 year event? \nYes\, \nCrestron: we. We have looked at the post performance\, we we focus on the lateral movement. And I and I think the the primary movement that we’re we’re dealing with here. \nIs lateral\, although there\, you know\, there there may be some down shaking of the of the fill. It itself course. The pile is driven through the fill. \nCrestron: Having having said that the the pile is deep\, it it goes through the pill\, it goes into the 10 feet into the underlying \nyoung Baymont. So we we believe the \nCrestron: you know\, the the thing that \nyou know\, the primary movement that that’s going to occur is lateral \nCrestron: as far as damage to the sheep piles. I think the \nthe the potential\, for we’ve looked at the the stress conditions in the sheet files and and and and that assumes that it’s essentially a plate\, if if you will\, in the in the process analysis. So \nwe th\, there is some potential\, and particularly at sharp turns\, if you will\, for for the interlocks to\, to. to\, to be compromised. And and I think that you know that that would be a potential for \na need for a repair. You know\, following the earthquake. But we do think that that would fall into a repairable category. \nCrestron: That’s pretty much a summary of. And the kind of that post performance\, and how very air program reacting. And it’s still being and discussed. But our expectation is after a post \nevents. Right now. We’re reintroducing a flood risk. addition to\, I’m sure some of the other issues they’re addressing at Sfo. After a large sizing event like this. The expectation is you can bring in \nfan sandbags. Things like that look for the gaps that may form again. If we have some differential movements where the wall changes directions to temporarily fill that again at re\, add back in some level of flood protection\, to provide \nan interim period until more long term permanent repairs can occur. But that was our our belief. And again. the immediate next 25 years going to be very rare\, but it will increase. So having that sort of plan in action is is something we have been discussing with us about. \nOkay. yeah\, just think it could be good to sort of document the thinking around the potential\, for I mean when you read it\, and you say\, Well\, what’s the likelihood of a large earthquake\, followed by a hundred year coastal storm. You’re like\, yeah\, that seems really unlikely. \nBut the possibility of a king tide with 3 feet of sea level rise. And that’s a much higher water level than it is today. \nCrestron: Flooding through. I mean\, that would be a lot of water coming through. \nYeah\, we have actually ran some of those scenarios and shared with us. \nYeah\, let me just observe that we were sort of aiming for 30’clock\, and it’s 12 min after 30’clock we started\, maybe 12 or 15 min late\, but \nsee if we can wrap up quickly. Ramen\, you got your hand up again. \nCrestron: I wanna be making sure that I’m clear \nCrestron: as you\, said James. Flooding is one thing\, soil structure\, interaction in terms of movements\, and the \nCrestron: performance of the system is a different thing. \nCrestron: Do I understand correctly \nthat \nCrestron: one set of \ndeep soil runs were run at. preach 6\, \nCrestron: and that form the entire basis for all the other analyses. Am I correct? \nYes\, okay. so. And then the comment was made that that soil column. the response at the top of the old bay clay \nwas taken as input. In all the Plaxis runs \nthe the ground motions at that level. At that. Yeah\, the the ground oceans at the rock were defined. and then what they \nand turned out to be at that particular level was documented. And that was the input to the and that’s from Reach 6. \nCrestron: That’s that’s correct. \nOkay? So that begs the question that whatever is between rock and the top of the old bay clay is seen everywhere else. \nCrestron: What is the basis of that \nCrestron: conclusion\, or that assessment? Or that point? \nCrestron: The \nkeep keeping in mind that the focus of the the analysis\, the 2 dimensional plexus analysis where reaches 6 and 7\, that that is a a localized area that we’re dealing with. \nCrestron: that that \nkeeping\, that in mind. We we so SSI was only done at reaches 6 and 7. That that’s right. The blacks analysis that you saw was only done at 6 and 7. \nCrestron: Then whatever results that came out of that was applied \neverywhere else \nCrestron: for structural evaluation\, for ground deformation\, evaluation. \nhazard evaluation. \nCrestron: So\, Bob\, maybe I’ll add\, at least from our perspective\, from instruct. Again\, the airport itself. \nentire airport\, and all these reaches is was filled like going back to the original shoreline. so the that layer in question. It\, you know\, varies in thickness. Bob and his team calculated\, you know\, the depth to the top of young Bay mud. \nCrestron: The rest of it is assumed. \nYou know there there may be differences within the bill\, but within the kind of the aggregate of this project we felt that was a good representation of that material. And so kind of you have this young bay mud layer \nstill layer surface\, and that’s why we felt that reach 6 and 7 was appropriate. When you look at reaches one to 15\, all of them have that same layering effect. \nCrestron: I understand that. But \nthen\, what was the criterion in terms of calling one area reach one versus the next one\, reach 2. Was it just thickness of the fill\, and be my well\, the reaches are actually more driven by physical structure. When this project was laid out\, there was trying to sort of manage the description and presentation \n7 and over 7 miles a wall. It’s kind of hard to get your head around. So there was a breakup of the reaches more driven by what you’re physically seeing there currently on the surface versus any sort of subsurface designation. So the link between the reaches and what’s the soil properties is not a \nthat wasn’t the driver. It was more of like reach\, one along the North San Breno Canal. You go outreach to around the fuel farms\, reach Fors Coastguard quite honestly. That’s how we divided it. \nNow. Bob and his team looked at every reach to identify the thicknesses of the bay mud and the bills. And then through that basically said\, you know what reach 607 at this stage\, in the analysis\, is representative for us to create a representative design that we can present and say\, you know\, generally\, the expectation this behavior is going to hold \nacross. Now\, there may be variances based on local\, but not to the point where we feel our design is presented would no longer apply. That’s understandable that the where it wouldn’t wouldn’t work. Our DC. Ratios would go from point 7 to 1.3 from a structural standpoint. \nCrestron: I think you’re planning to do some additional analysis. Right? You’re you’re pushing a whole lot more cones\, and I think there’ll be a better definition of the thickness of bay mud\, tops\, and top and bottom of bay mud\, so I can’t can’t speak to this from the timing\, and one that occurs is still being discussed with Sfo. Again\, this is a progressive design build project. \nCrestron: Ultimately there will be a design build team \ncomes in and finalize the design. The timing of that. it’s going to occur. Whether it happens under our team or this\, follow follow on \nthat will be to be determined. So as as the Ecr. We don’t care about the timing exactly as long as we would like to. By the time the project is built and impacting the bay. \nthat the appropriate design criteria has been implemented throughout. And I think what you’re suggesting remain is that by the time all is said and done. We want to make sure that you know\, reach 6 may or may not be the the most representative\, and that there may need to be some additional specific analyses at other specific profiles \nto to confirm that that there’s appropriate pgas or other depth ground motion site responses. I fully concur. The the long term plan. As a you know\, the engineer of record\, not our team. \nThat expectation is\, they have to look at every reach. And there is data gaps in the Cpt’s that we have identified. We’ve used the information we have to extrapolate the behavior. But\, as Bob has\, you know\, mentioned and presented. \nthere is a clear cap. The expectation is more cpted\, but there’s also subsequent reanalysis that would. \nWe’re expecting to be appropriate to perform kind of suggesting that. And also \nCrestron: there is a basis that you chose. A system for a particular reach. \nIs that being looked at completely in a specific way to say\, Yeah\, this is the right system for reach number\, whatever \nCrestron: ye? Yes. And again\, we’ve looked at that for each of the reaches to date\, and our best \nbased on where we are with the data we have key pile works for reaches 2 through 14 concrete retaining walls reaches one and 15 is currently where we’re at during the final design. \nAgain\, there’s boundaries on what could be changed to. But generally it’s gonna fall into one of those 2 categories. For the majority being. Still\, she piles that final design team will be the designers a record signing stamp in order to do that more geotechnical data\, and produce much more calculations than we have at this stage. Thank you. \nCrestron: Keeping your head. How you might formulate that as a motion for the end. I think \nwhat we’re gonna need to do. Aima\, you had your hand up. \nOkay\, I have a few just short question. \nCrestron: the first one is\, for Jim is kind of related to the question that Dilla passed to you about corrosion effects. \nCrestron: I think you had indicated that the rate of corrosion. I mean\, you basically determine how much corrosion would take place. \nAnd you’ve sort of a concept for that in your on the highest. \nCrestron: That is correct. We use the Caltrans guidance\, I think. \nrecently updated in 2021. They give frozen rates. piles\, steel piles\, and sheep piles \nCrestron: in a atmospheric splash zone commercial use those rates. We also use army Us. Navy guidance on kind of durability of coding\, and that kind of our basis. \nCrestron: So my suggestion would be\, I mean \nkind of dog sweat \nCrestron: corrosion related to salt there\, I mean\, which is what \nthe issue is here the rate of corrosion changes is very site specific. So \nCrestron: a generic \nrate of corrosion. It’s fine. But I think that project size you want to be \nCrestron: site specific\, and maybe the services of corrosion engineers. It’s required to make sure \nthe salt air. \nCrestron: basically model that they are using. \nIt’s applicable to this location. \nCrestron: no\, definitely noted corrosion rates are very hard to predict. What we are recommending. Airport is again a durable marine coding on the sheets. \nThen the corrosion rates hopefully\, it is maintained as anticipated. So the corrosion that we’re going to calculate \nCrestron: conservative. \nThat’s \nCrestron: coding will be maintained. You’ll never see the \npoint well taken. \nCrestron: Alright. Ii looked at the details. I \nI was kind of interested in what the existing conditions before you do your \npause \nconstruction. I don’t see any existing walls in terms of the sheet pile. It looks like\, what do you have? Is mostly a firm type \nCrestron: structure\, or it’s actually a mix within the basis of design documents. We we submitted so images of each of the reaches. There are some reaches where a vinyl sheet calls \nwas built\, particularly around reaches 14 that provide current level protection. There’s concrete flood walls along other reaches. Some are urban firms\, and some\, for instance\, outreach for the Coast Guard is essentially unprotected. Central Coast Guard\, straight town of the bay. \nCrestron: Okay. So your new construction is going to be outboard \nof all these existing \nCrestron: it’s sort of a mix match. But it’s going to be very close to alignment\, and the idea is that whatever gets built you’re not removing the flood protection there \nuntil the new one goes in\, because we don’t want to reintroduce less protection during construction. \nCrestron: That’s the intent right now. If you go through the drawings you can see \nthe location of the existing structures. Okay. \nCrestron: thank you. So for Bob. I think you had mentioned. You know you were discussing the availability of this wealth of information. \nSoft surface information \nCrestron: is that related to the Defund \nrunway extension that \nCrestron: was done by Fugro 3 years ago. Yes. \nthat data is \nCrestron: yes\, I that that is the study. \nand it was\, I think\, related to airport expansion\, but it but \nCrestron: and and that that that is the the data and the reports that are you able to lay hands on? Yes\, yeah. Because \nI was familiar with what they were doing. I mean\, they were actually doing pull in swab from the ground and testing them \nCrestron: on that on that book\, you know\, that was \nabort. So \nCrestron: right they had that information. Then I think that’s a great \nwealth of information \nCrestron: using that. That’s correct. That’s that’s the primary source of the engineering property data. Okay? \nSo the other question I had is related to the actual installation of the sheet file. \nCrestron: From my experience at the airport \na lot of the fill other than the hydraulic fill was from the San Bruno mountains. \nCrestron: Okay? And they had large pieces of \nrock in in some cases in the Phil. So so you need to be aware of that in terms of. you know. Drive-in sheet pops. \nCrestron: you know. You might want to look more into the historical call \ndata. With respect to the characteristics of the material \nCrestron: into which we are going to be driving this sheet file \na. Absolutely. This is a consideration. I part of the other benefits of the future. Cpt is to try to see if there is difficulty. That’ll be an indicator \nwe have in re meeting and researching what sheets have been driven at the airport in the past. Again\, there has been final sheets. \nCrestron: admittedly\, are not always the most robust in the airport. Generally had successes there. We’ve had\, made a couple visits to Foster City and their plug protection wall. \nvery similar type of \nCrestron: construction. And we they had a procedure where \nthey had a crew ready to pre drill out ahead as they were driving the sheets to keep the production line moving again\, being a design built means and methods ultimately decided. But you’re very correct. It’s a it’s something we’re considering \nand then finally\, for Bob\, I mean\, you mentioned deep compaction for \nCrestron: the I was kind of curious. I mean\, what kind of material that you \nthinking of using ourselves \nCrestron: for? For the the new field being placed. Our intent is to have \ngranular material\, and this would be dredge filled that would be brought into \nCrestron: for the the fill behind the dyke. That that would be dredge material that would be brought in for the \nfor the dike itself. We have in mind using questions question for that. and that would be quarry material. So I mean\, the deep compaction is for \nthe dyke\, or this. I think it’s it’s amenable to to both. In in the system that \nCrestron: that we’re thinking of. It’s it’s essentially for long\, heavy duty \nH. Piles that are have have a weight and vibrates itself into the ground. Yeah\, I mean\, I was just curious\, I mean\, with the horrid material probably would work. But if you’ve got \na lot of fines and \nCrestron: the material that’s behind it died. \nI mean\, that might not be an effective way to. \nCrestron: you know\, compact that material. \nII think the the the properties of the fill that we expect\, and we’ll of course it will be specified. It will be an imported material. I think it’s it is so. The quality \nsimilar to that. This was. use the Treasure island where this technique has been used within the the the general bill. Okay. Alright\, thank you. \nCrestron: Thanks. \na. \nCrestron: I guess we need to wrap up pretty quickly here. \nI\, too. Maybe one quick\, quick\, quick question. It seems like what you’ve got is up to 100 to 250 feet of fill that’s extending out in some places. Is that \nCrestron: I mean\, in 10 years on the Ecr we cringe when someone puts a layer of ripped wrap in because it’s kind of encroaching into the bay fill. \nJust to observe\, this is kind of an extraordinary fill over the last\, you know\, since they stopped randomly filling and dumping refuse in the bay. \nI guess you’ve addressed all that properly with in other places besides the Ecr. I think it’s not really our purview\, but just just to make that observation and passing that this is kind of an extraordinary event in the San Francisco Bay in recent decades. \nCrestron: We do have to mitigate that bill\, and we’re working with the army corps the water board of Ddc\, on that\, putting together a mitigation package. Okay\, good enough. \nAnd I think then the the deep compaction that you’re talking about it sounds like it’s relatively preliminary in your design considerations\, and so \npossibly you’ll address that further\, or possibly that it would go to the design\, build people to address that further. \nCrestron: This this is preliminary for sure\, and it it needs to be addressed further by the \nduring during the final design. \nCrestron: So fellow board members\, what do we think\, are we done\, or we wanna see it again? \nJim\, I just like to point out the questions that I put in the staff report for the board. Consider alright. I didn’t present those earlier scenarios and design criteria in the geotechical stability analysis appropriate for the site\, hazards and conditions and site criticality. \nCrestron: Our current and future flooding concerns\, IE. From groundwater\, coastal and rivering\, flooding sea level rise\, address adequately based on the references and the nature of the project \nCrestron: as the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts to adjacent properties \nCrestron: from the project have been minimized in the design. \nCrestron: You know\, I need to share screen. I guess. \nOkay. \nCrestron: is there any data monitoring you recommend Vcd. To require the applicant to enhance the future safety of the project in light of its projected 60 year\, estimated lifespan. Are there any other design and physical concerns that have not been addressed? \nCrestron: So I think that we’ve talked through pretty much all of these without \nreferencing these specific bullets. But it seems to me that there’s probably some additional things that need to be done\, at least before it goes to construction. Whether it happens \nafter it goes out to the design build team\, or what happens before. I think is not necessarily within our control. But I think that probably we have a few questions that we would like to \nsee addressed before we sign off on the project for the final time. Fair enough. I wonder if we can. \nCrestron: just throw out a little bullet list of things that we’d like to see. I’ve got \n2\, maybe\, and the rest of you can throw some other things out. I think there would be a motion. Then I would entertain at some point in the Mo. In the near future. \nOne is that we would see some. I think\, probably basically present further documentation of the database you’ve got and how you analyze\, reduce\, analyze\, and reduce the data to develop design parameters. \nCrestron: and then that would be combined with the subsequent subsurface investigation\, with whatever subsequent or related \nhow lab testing is performed \nfair enough. \nCrestron: probably geotext. \nAnd I would add that \nCrestron: at least present more site specific if you will\, conclusions that \na system and a set of analyses that were done were appropriate for a particular reach. \nCrestron: That’s a second point. I think \nit’s not unrelated\, but but it’s distinct. The analyses would be not lump things together too broadly\, but and make sure that \nanalyses and recommendations are appropriate. Reach by reach \nsomething to that effect. \nNick’s got his finger on the button. May I\, Mr. Chairman? There is one aspect that you just \nCrestron: briefly touched it to very\, very end. But we really didn’t discuss\, and I’m not sure whether we need to\, and that is the has the applicant demonstrated at first impact mitigation which we really did not discuss \nin this meeting. \nCrestron: So that that is 1 point \nCrestron: may not be in our purview. Others may be looking at it. But okay. what what I’m saying is that the point about the demonstration of mitigation or the adverse impact \nwe didn’t really discuss at this point. \nHa! Maybe I can quickly answer that part of the lomark package to Fema is they specifically look at that. Any flood protection elements needs to demonstrate. You’re not creating additional flood impacts or flooding issues. I’m not sure if that’s the point. No\, the the Bcd see\, specifically adverse impacts are on the environment of the San Francisco Bay. Not \nthat’s the encroachment that was raised by \nCrestron: Zoom friendship\, the very end. But I think maybe \nDavid Re responded to that\, saying that you’re addressing that with waterboard. And so it’s It’s a \nfuzzy on our \nCrestron: within or without our appropriate \nand and so and just so that you know our we completed the Eir process on this\, and that was completed back in June. So we’ve analyzed all the environmental impacts required by sequel. \nYeah? So so I think it’s potentially within our purview. But it’s being addressed by others at this point. So like\, we’ll just accept that \nCrestron: other points that we want to request additional \ninput from the team on \nCrestron: so specific to bullet 2 there\, I think. you know\, I mean\, I look through the basis of design and the plans itself\, and \nCrestron: and I’d like to see a little bit more on the alternatives\, analysis. \nand not just in the material treatment\, steel versus concrete\, but alternative edges that are being created\, so new edges wherever they are being created which are significant. \nYou know what was the process that you followed through\, you know\, particularly in cases like the end of Runway 19\, where you’re already putting in a large amount of fill. \nWhy would you put a wall there? Why would you not just raise perimeter \nCrestron: like the existing perimeter itself\, rather than you know\, create a dyke and then have a wall there just for the free board part of it. Things like that again you don’t have to necessarily answer\, but well\, I can quickly answer that one we did look at again. Earthen kind of \nfirms\, but it creates more bay fill cause you have to go further out to support it. So the higher you go\, the further we go out\, and with the runways\, with that location is set by the like. We had to have the wall. The height at a certain point couldn’t not be any closer runways\, but we didn’t want to go any further\, because that’s creating more fill and more mitigation. \nSo when we did look at Earth in type structures\, it created more bay fill. So that was ultimately why we went with the steel sheet pile solution because it minimized those impacts. \nCrestron: And so I think the emphasis has been on meeting the fema obligations which I agree\, you know that is the first \nCrestron: part of that process with Sfo several years ago. So that definitely is. But I think going beyond that\, which is what I think bullet 2 is getting at \nis you know\, is the treatment appropriate for situations where\, for example\, you have a sustained tide that is going to be higher than the \nelevations on the airport side\, on the runway side. \nCrestron: And so that flood wall is now really acting as the only barrier. \nRight? So it is \nCrestron: very different than Foster City and many of the other treatments where you have a wall on top of a levy. Right? So these are becoming flood walls that are \nCrestron: effectively like the New Orleans type of\, you know\, walls so \nlike to see\, you know\, just some of that thinking and the alternatives analysis. Maybe the Eir has addressed it\, perhaps as part of the alternative for B one\, or \nI’d like to see some of that. \nNo understood. Again\, our sheet piles\, our experience. We’ve designed a lot of coffer dams. It’d be d watered\, and so they are generally effective as retaining structures for water. So we felt that in the future cases where they would be truly holding back on a daily tide which is quite late in the project they should perform effectively. But the point is taken and to look at the interlocks in the you know the seepage of that \nright and simple adaptation\, such as raising the berm on the inside right? So that gets you at least some amount of protection. If there is so delete\, maybe we can just leave that because we’re late here. But I think there’s an appropriate request for additional discussion. Maybe it’s happened in house behind doors\, but \nwe’d like to see a presentation\, maybe of it. Additional discussion\, presentation of alternatives. Analysis without trying to at this point \nCrestron: seems to me like there’s maybe 3 points right now that we’ve got \nit would be additional presentation of data data analysis and how design parameters were developed from technical perspective. In particular. \nCrestron: second\, additional analyses. \nincluding potentially site response ground motions\, deformation analyses. First reach specific and consider whether ha! How much\, how broadly you can lump things together. \nAnd third additional discussion of of alternatives analyses. \nRamin Golesorkhi: is that a good summary of what we’ve got here? Someone like to make a move? \nCrestron: We got too many people going here\, so did I hear it so moved by Ramen. \nYes. there! A second to the motion. I’ll second second moved by remain seconded by Nick. Is there any further discussion of the motion? \nCrestron: Hearing no further discussion\, all those in favor say\, aye. \naye\, aye. any opposed? \nCrestron: Oh\, let’s say\, source but \nBCDC HOST: chair. This is the host. If you all can speak up a little louder on the next item \nBCDC HOST: that would be great. It was very hard to hear you all speak. \nBCDC HOST: Sorry guys. Like\, it’s very low. \nMy\, my. \nokay\, so \nCrestron: so the public is invited to address concerns. \nAbout this project about any issue related to this project. \nCrestron: So \npublic present\, I don’t see any hands raised here in the room. Grace\, do you see anyone online that’s expressing interest. \nBCDC HOST: I do not see any \nand \nBCDC HOST: or anyone wishing to speak. \nCrestron: Okay\, I think then with that we will \ntransition. Take a maybe a short 5 min. Break and be back in 3\, 48 sharp and Rod will resume \nchairmanship of of the remainder of the meeting. Thanks. \nthank you. \nAnd where \nBCDC HOST: what happened? Kasami. \nBCDC HOST: won’t you go over? \nCrestron: Okay\, everybody. \nCrestron: can we? Can we? \nprepare to get started here\, please. \nYeah\, I don’t know \nCrestron: how we doing? \nHmm. \nCrestron: Grace\, can you please promote \nthis meeting is being recorded. \nCrestron: Our next speaker. \nCrestron: Bernard Ware. \nto a panelist. \nCrestron: Okay. \nCrestron: agenda. Item. Now\, I guess this is Number 4\, \nOr 5. Item of discussion. the Oakland Harbor turning Basins. Widening project. We are now considering the Oakland Harbor. Turning basins widening project. \nThe project proponents for for this project are the Us. Army corps of engineers and the port of Oakland. Jen Hyman\, senior engineer from DC. DC. Will make a short presentation \nwith some background information on the issues before the Board today. followed by a presentation by the core on the engineering issues related to the in water structures. \nCrestron: I would like to remind the Board and participating members to please turn on your video when you’re speaking. \nwe’re answering questions when you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your video so that we minimize distractions on the screen. I would like to ask the board if you can please save discussions until after the presentation. \nClarifying questions can be asked during the presentation\, if needed. At the end of the presentation we will pause for public comments related to the engineering issues in the presentation followed by \nboard discussion. \nCrestron: One board discussion once board discussion is concluded. \nwe will take public comments on the project not related to the presentation. Okay\, Jen. \nCrestron: thank you. Good afternoon. Chair washed and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. This will be the Board’s first review of the Oakland Harbor turning basins. Widening project. \nI have some background information on the project to share to you. \nCrestron: This project \nwould widen 2 turning basins. or the port of Oakland. one in the outer harbor shown in the photo\, the picture on the left. \nand one in the inner harbor \nCrestron: and larger picture on the right\, on the slide. \nthe outer harbor widening impacts\, only subtitle habitat. \nCrestron: the inner harbor widening impacts 3 areas on the land. \nMr. Steele Howard Terminal. the port of Oakland\, and a warehouse site in Alameda. This is not a permit application\, it is a phase\, consistency\, determination. \nCrestron: So what is a consistency? Determination \nunder the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1 72\, as amended Federal projects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Region’s Coastal Zone management program. \nCrestron: Ecdc. Has a federally approved amended Coastal Zone management program for the San Francisco Bay Segment of the California Coastal Zone \nfor Federal projects. The Commission reviews a project for potential effects to the Coastal Zone and consistency with the San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone Management program. \nThis is the consistency\, determination. The Mcateer Petrus Act and the Bay Plan are a significant portion of the San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone management program \nCrestron: for this project. The Us. Army Corps has requested a phased consistency determination \npresenting information in the feasibility stage of the project today. \nCrestron: which will be heard by the Commission at the November Sixteenth\, 2023 meeting. The Us. Army Corps is requesting consistency at this time \nto support the submission of the project or the chiefs report\, and then proposed authorization and appropriations by Congress \nCrestron: once authorized and funds appropriated. \nthe Us. Army Corps would request further consistency review in the planning\, engineering and design phase. \nCrestron: The proposed schedule for the project commences construction in 2027\, and completion in 2 and a half years. \nCrestron: So the Oakland Harbor training basins widening project both the inner and outer harbor areas involve deepening and widening the turning basins to negative 50 feet mean low low water. \nThank you. \nCrestron: I apologize. My slides were not advancing. \nCrestron: The proposed area in the outer harbor \nis currently negative. 5 feet mean low\, low water. a shallow subtitle area covering about 21 acres. The inner harbor area involves excavating fast land and dredging to negative 50 \nmean the low water about 20 acres in size. \nCrestron: In these areas \nmean low low water is used as an elevation\, and that is about equal to the elevation in the datum nav. 88. \nCrestron: The inner harbor turning base in widening is the one that includes 3 new Earth support structures. \nThe first one number one in this figure. is an underwater bulkhead wall\, just off the shoreline of Schnitzer steel \nCrestron: number 2. In this figure is a bulkhead wall to support the shoreline at the port’s Howard terminal \nand removal of the wharf. A portion of the wharf that has 3 cranes on it. \nCrestron: the third \nmark 3 in this figure on the Alameda side. as a bulkhead wall to support the shoreline at a warehouse site in Alameda. and removal of a portion of the wharf and land there. \nThese structures are not designed for flood risk reduction. \nCrestron: So the questions for the Board to consider in the presentation. Today \none are the scenarios and design criteria in the geotechnical stability analyses for the new 3 to one dredge slope appropriate for the site\, hazards\, conditions and site criticality. \nCrestron: 2 are the structural engineering design criteria. \nincluding seismic criteria and design loads for the 3 new bulkhead wall structures appropriate for the site hazards\, conditions and site criticality \nCrestron: free our current and future flooding concerns\, IE. From groundwater and coastal flooding address adequately based on the site\, hazards\, and the nature of the project? \nCrestron: 4. Are there any other design and physical concerns that have not been addressed? \nCrestron: And lastly\, 5. Do you recommend a future Ecrv meeting for this project? \nCrestron: Now? \nthe army corps will give their presentation. \nCrestron: It says\, I’m sharing. \nI’m sorry. \nCrestron: Okay\, is it? Gonna show up there. \nCrestron: Nice dark background. \nCrestron: thanks\, Jen\, and thanks to the board for allowing us to present our project to you. As Jen said\, \nwe are in the very early stages of our project. You know we’re we are looking for a phase. Consistency. Determination \nwas. \nSo I did want to start just by introducing some of our partners with port of Oakland. We have Justin Tosser. Kamloole\, Chopp. Pauline Leung\, Sammy\, you and I offer this \nfirst week of support. Welcome\, welcome we also have\, Eric Jolly from on record of engineers. Who is our environmental planner. \nCrestron: I did just want to start by talking a little bit about our our process. It’s I think it’s a little different than what you may be \nused to\, especially after that last presentation was very technical. like\, I said\, we\, we are in our feasibility. Study portion of this project. \nThe basic goals of this is to determine if there’s federal interest in this study. So we’re going to look at the economic benefits and the environmental and social impacts \nthan the costs. So we at the end of the study\, we’re looking for a solution that’s technically feasible\, environmentally justified or economically justified and environmentally acceptable. \nCrestron: What do we mean by economically feasible. What we do is we look at the \nbenefits. So in this case it’s increased maritime efficiency versus the cost of the project. And if we have a positive benefit. if it’s a cost ratio\, it is economically justifiable for the Army corps to move forward the project. \nAt this stage. We are looking at a total project construction cost of over 500 million. But there’s also the benefits are about 30 million dollars annualized. \nSo it has a benefits cost ratio about 2.5\, so it will pay it for itself. And so that’s looked as very positive. \nCrestron: At the end of our feasibility study. We are going to have about a 10 to 30% plan set. \nAnd so it’s it’s not as far as the advances. The presentation that we just saw before this. \nCrestron: Our goal is to submit our final report to headquarters uses headquarters \nin January 2024. And then after that\, we’re gonna hopefully get kind of congressional authorization to proceed. And then we’ll move into the pre-construction engineering and design phase. Hopefully\, in the 2\,025 range \nwith the start of construction around 2027. \nCrestron: this says a 2 year construction duration\, our estimates closer to 2.5 years. \nCrestron: and just the reason why we’re doing this. I see. When we previously widened the turning basin in the early 2 thousands. \nthe design vessel was 1\,139 feet long. Today vessels are calling the port are much bigger. They’re about 13 110 feet long. \nCrestron: This is a overview of the port of Oakland. and there’s 2 turning basins. If you can see my pointer. This is the outer harbor turning basin. \nand then the inner harbor turning basin. So these are the 2 areas that dictate what size of ships can call to the port? This\, these are the areas where they can turn around. \nCrestron: So this is the outer harbor turning basin. Currently\, what it looks like is the diameter is about 1\,650 feet. \nThe entire area is dredged to elevation minus 50 feet. with 3 to one side slopes over here. One other important \nCrestron: thing to recognize is that during basing goes all the way to the edge of the wharf \nduring this project we’re going to move it further away\, because when there is a ship berth there\, it basically limits the or shrinks the size of the turning basin \nthe effects of sizes. \nCrestron: It wasn’t really apparent from that last picture\, but this is the symmetry. So you can see the this is the Federal channel that stretched every year and maintained at minus 50 feet. \nAnd so the turning basin is widened in that area. \nCrestron: and what we are planning to do is no additional dredging \nalong this part. The dash part of the circle that’s already dredged annually to minus 50 feet. We are looking at expanding the turning basin to the northwest \nout in this area with again 3 to one side slopes. \nCrestron: This is just a plan with the showing\, some existing subsurface information. So there is not a lot in the where the actual cut will be made. But we are planning on doing additional exploration out there during the ped phase of the project. \nCrestron: There. There was a fair amount of explorations done within the turning basin area in the past for environmental sampling and disposal dredge material as well as during the minus 50 foot project. \noccurred in the early 2\,000. \nCrestron: So there there are additional Cpt’s and boring. In this area. There \nthey’re shown as smaller dots just to make the figure a little less busy \nCrestron: but this entire area\, all the bay mud has been removed\, and we’re down into the denser San Antonio formation all throughout this area. \nCrestron: And so this is just a cross section. \nGo back and cut right through this area if you can see my pointer. \nCrestron: And so there’s the existing 3 to one slope. \nCrestron: and we’re moving that all the way back here. Sorry for the lag. \nSo we’re just going to create another 3 to one slope out in this area. And this will be the edge of the new Federal channel. And so what we do annually is we come. So when we build this project\, we will dredge \nthis entire area\, including the including the slopes. \nCrestron: but on an annual basis. We’ll come through and dredge everything inboard of that \ndown to minus 50 feet. So we don’t dredge the slopes on an annual basis. \nCrestron: and I just just want to show \nsome of the engineering analysis. \nCrestron: So we looked at\, you know\, circular failures going through the tow. We looked at more wedge type failures that are shallow. And then we looked at deep seated failures. \nIt’s not shown here. We also looked at block failures as well. They came up with higher pressure safety. So I’m not showing them. As I said\, we we don’t have a lot of geotech information where the actual 3\, one cut slopes being made. So we selected what I think are fairly conservative strength parameters. \nand \nCrestron: we’re getting acceptable results of the the only ones that are below. 3 \nare the very shallow wedge failures which you know over time. Those may occur. And if if you know\, shower special soils\, do slide into the turning base\, and they’ll just be dredged out annually. \nCrestron: This is the last slide on the outer turning basin. So \nif there’s any questions. Please stop me. I know I’m going which we’re on time. So I’m going a little fast. \nCrestron: Okay? So the inner harbor there’s 3 areas that we’re looking at \nin the Northwest. This is the steel property. \nCrestron: and we’re I’m going to go over these individually. \nSo the Schnitzer steel. And then we’re looking at doing work within this cove area between Schnitzer Steel and Howard Terminal. This is the Howard terminal. And then down here is the allometer or the fist property. \nCrestron: What’s shown in blue is the Bcd shoreline band jurisdiction. \nIt was kind of complicated through these areas. There’s several different things. So out in this area. We’re \nCrestron: the dash. Green line \nis the 1965 shoreline. And so the jurisdiction extends \nCrestron: 100 feet in from that. Then\, as we go here there’s a bulkhead wall \nand \nCrestron: is so. The jurisdiction sends 50 feet from the bulkhead\, and we transition into a slope. \nand it’s the shoreline is marked by the mean low\, low water point\, or mean high water point. and it’s a extends in 50 feet from there. \nor sorry a hundred feet. \nCrestron: and then there is an existing bulkhead. Wall here that’s buried that was constructed in 1\,915\, \nand I guess there’s some previous \nCrestron: What do you call it? \nCrestron: principles that this is that \nthe shoreline band extends inboard from that 1915 wall. \nCrestron: And then on this side\, similarly\, there. \nthere’s a 3 to one slope here. I’ll talk about this wharf later. but there’s a slope that comes up and ends beneath this wharf. That’s why the band starts not the edge of the wharf\, but somewhat inboard of that. \nCrestron: And then there’s a bulkhead wall that was constructed as part of that \nminus 50 foot project right along here. \nCrestron: Everyone see my pointer. I realize it’s \nand heart disease. \nCrestron: So I’m going to talk individually about each of those 3 areas. Ask a question on that previous slide there. \nbut it shows 3 to one along the Howard terminal. \nCrestron: Is it really 3 to one? Does the port not dredge \nfor the birds also to 50 feet there along the terminal face? \nCrestron: I think that is actually not 100% accurate. There it stretched to\, I think\, minus 42 feet right along \nthe base of that \nCrestron: good catch. \nCrestron: So this is the Alameda side in. I’ve I’ve \nCrestron: drawn in where the wharf structures are since is an aerial photo from 1\,939. And so you can see that this is all former marshland \nalong the south side of the Channel. \nCrestron: and sometime between \n1939 and 1946. The war from the warehouse structures were constructed. \nCrestron: So here by 1946. These are in place\, plus. \nThese bursts have been dredged into. This is a area called Bay ship and yacht. So all these areas have been deepened by 1\,946\, \nCrestron: and then moving forward. This is 2\,000\, which is just before our minus 50 foot deepening project\, you can see those. \nThe wharf and structures are still in place. \nand then\, after the project we came through\, and we constructed a bulkhead wall right along through this area and trimmed off a portion of that wharf structure and several of the phase of the warehouse. \nCrestron: this wharf is a hundred percent pile supported as are the buildings. \nBut it’s not the basically\, the southern two-thirds are sitting on land. whereas the there’s about a 5 foot gap under the northern portion of the wharf \nhere\, so you can walk underneath this wharf. \nCrestron: and this is just a typical or a detail of the structure that was constructed as part of the minus 50 foot project. So it’s \nIt’s vertical sheet piles \nCrestron: vertical sheet piles down to so 75 feet long\, tipping out elevation minus \nminus 70. \nCrestron: There’s battered piles in front\, 24 inch diameter\, steel piles \nat 11 feet on center. Add a 2 to one batter \nJesus. \nCrestron: and they’re they’re partially filled with concrete. So the the lower portion up to elevation minus 30. \nSo basically\, the lower two-thirds are filled with concrete. \nCrestron: and it retains about 32 feet\, and then in front of it there’s a \n1.5 to one slope with a 4 foot layer of rip\, rapper\, rock\, slope\, protection. \nCrestron: Here we go. So this is proposed condition. So all we’re proposing is doing is building a very similar wall \nback in this area so as far as construction\, sequencing demolishing the warehouse buildings install. This bulkhead wall\, the vertical \nand excavate in front of it. Remove the Rip wraps install battered files similar to what you saw in that detail\, and then the last thing will be to install the \nriprap\, which is the up yellow areas. \nCrestron: So this is just a rough cross-section. \nI realize\, kind of at the end that we didn’t hadn’t drawn these files long enough. \nCrestron: So these files actually extend \nas shown here. And so basically. you know\, in our feasibility level analysis\, we’re we’re we haven’t really redesigned this entire wall\, we’re saying\, we’re we’re going to build something very similar to what was built. \nAnd so it’s offset back pretty far here during our ped analysis we will go and do some additional boring back in this area. \nCrestron: So I think there. \nwe’ll do some. at least here\, where there’s a space. Be on this side of the warehouse. and then in between the warehouse. we’ll try to get at least one \nCrestron: along the alignment of the wall \nCrestron: the only other thing in this area is\, there is room to kind of \n3 to one slope here without impacting the existing wall. But there won’t be any structure here. Just a excavated slope. \nCrestron: And so that’s the last slide about Alameda. Are there any questions? \nCrestron: I’ll I’ll keep going. \nCrestron: So this is the Howard Terminal. So \nthese are the existing conditions plus \nCrestron: borings that were done out there. Most of the \nblack dots were just probes that were done prior to construction of Howard terminal. So basically\, they just drilled down till they felt firm material and logged that. So they aren’t very detailed logs. \nCrestron: this shaded area here. \nI realize this looks very monochromatic is the outline of the existing rock dyke \nCrestron: just shown here. \nSo it’s a \nCrestron: fairly massive rock dyke. We’ve got 1.5 to one slopes. \nand then \nCrestron: 24 inch octagonal piles were driven through it. \nThis rock dyke is constructed of material. It’s up to 12 inches in diameter. \nCrestron: Then this entire area behind it was hydraulically placed sandy fill \nwhich is going to be an issue. There was a history of liquifaction during the 19 90 99 earthquake at Howard Terminal the only effects were settlement of up to about 6 inches. \nCrestron: so we know it is hydroly place fill. We know it’s liquefiable. We are going to explore it more. Starting in a few weeks. We have some. Cpt. \nCrestron: Let’s see. So this is the proposed condition we are looking at building a bulkhead wall. \nand it’s mostly behind that rock dyke. It does first through the rock dyke at the very end here. \nCrestron: and just at the feasibility level. We’re we’re thinking this is \nIf the material behind it is not liquefiwall\, the wall will look very similar to what the wall looked like on the almet side. There’s only we only have one cpt in the backfill zone right now\, and it \nshown that the that material is fairly loose and can liquefy. So we are going to explore that more in the next few weeks. \nCrestron: And so this is just a cross section going through. And \nCrestron: as was pointed out\, it’s not a 3 to one slope right in front. It is cut down at minus 4 to 2 feet. \nCrestron: and so \nthis is where we’re planning on building that new bulkhead wall\, you know\, as I said\, you know\, it’s probably gonna look fairly similar to the wall on the Alameda side. The question is\, are we gonna have to do any ground improvement on the backside of it \nthrough the liquid viable soils? \nCrestron: So that’s the last slide on Howard. Any questions about the Howard terminal side. \nCrestron: that folder. \nCrestron: Yeah\, but it it is a curved structure. So it it changes as you go along the alignment. \nSo in in this area\, we’re removing the entire rock dike \nCrestron: up until here some of it will remain. \nCrestron: I did. I did have this one question on this\, given\, that \nthe dike has worked\, and successfully\, and it even went through structure similar to that was\, has not been considered as a new edge for the turning basin here. \nCrestron: No\, it hasn’t. We are trying to stay on the inboard side of this green line\, which is that 1\,950 playwall there is\, contaminated soil on that side of the wall\, so we are trying not to excavate very far \nCrestron: is this project contingent on the Oakland is moving to Vegas. \nCrestron: No one of our constraints was to stay on the west side of their entitlement line. Okay. \nyes. And and there’s been. And as part of the A’s studies that have been done\, there’s no more data on Howard Terminal. It’s part of that study available to you guys. Yeah\, as part of that study\, there’s the Cpt right about here. \nAnd so that’s the only existing Cpt that we have in this area. \nCrestron: And then there’s there’s one’s further in \nthat also show lucifiable soils. \nCrestron: Okay\, so this is the this is the cove to the west of \nPower terminal. \nCrestron: What we’re trying to avoid touching this the snitcher steel property again\, there’s we don’t own it\, or the poor rope doesn’t own it\, and there’s contamination. \nThere. So we’re trying. What we proposed is a varied bulkhead wall or buried retaining structure where we where we get close might be easier just to show a cross-section before we go into this. \nCrestron: So this is the proposed edge of our turning basin. \nCrestron: and if if we were to \ncut a 3 to one slope we’d be\, we’d risk undermining the existing bulkhead. Wall. So what we’re proposing is a inboard retaining structure. Not quite sure what it’s going to look like yet \nit could be driven concrete or steel piles in a row \nCrestron: drill drill piles maybe a drilled secant wall. So there! There are many options. We don’t know quite what that wall is going to look like. \nWe just know about where it’s going to be. \nCan I just ask a quick question? Since you mentioned ownership and contamination on the port of Oakland side? Does the port of Oakland own the Alameda side. No\, they don’t. That’s private property\, and I would assume\, based on legacy land uses and bay ship and yacht that that is also contaminated land. \nI don’t know. I’ll put that to Justin the camera. \nCrestron: Okay\, but I guess if there is contamination it will be dealt with appropriately during construction. Oh\, yes. \nCrestron: yeah\, so sinister steel. This is \nthe wall kind of what the geometry looks like. \nCrestron: And then\, as you get further away\, there is room to cut a conventional slope in this area. \nCrestron: These slides are out of order. So we have some upcoming work. \nWe are\, gonna do some environmental sampling throughout that cove area. and \nCrestron: through that will also\, you know\, be able to tell the geologic contact between the Software Bay mud and the underlying dense San Antonio formation. \nWe’re going to do some Cpt’s at Howard Terminal along the alignment to show the the depth and consistency of the field that’s out there. \nThen we’re going to do a geophysical survey of this entire curve area atov area. \nCrestron: And so what that the geophysical survey is gonna do \nasymmetry size scan sonar\, which is shown here as an example. Magnetomer survey and a sub bottom profiler. So the what we’re really looking for is \nburied obstructions throughout this area\, then the sub bottom profiler will not only tell us very obstructions\, but it can will also tell us the thickness of the looser deposit. So this is further down the channel. \nwhere everything has been excavated down to hard material. Except for the there is some looser deposits in this area\, as you can see \nCrestron: as shown right here. \nCrestron: So we’re hoping to get a better handle on the depth of bay mud in that covariance. That’s really one area where we don’t have a lot of information. \nCrestron: And then this is our sea level rise analysis. I didn’t do this\, so I’ll have to go to my notes. \nso the core engineers\, as I mentioned earlier\, we we looked at things as a 50 year analysis period. and then we look for adaptability out to the 100 year timeline. \nCrestron: And we look at 3 sea level rise curves that \narmy corps engineers created. I know they’re different than the State of California curves. \nCrestron: What this is showing \nis that \nCrestron: this top figure is showing sea level rise based on title current data from 1\,992 on. \nand showing about \nCrestron: point 8 7 rise per year\, or about. That’s about 3 hundredths of an inch \nCrestron: per year. For our study. Our base year is 2\,030\, \nwhich would represent about the end of construction and going through 2080. \nCrestron: The the one thing I take away from the sea level change. Analysis is that. \nyeah\, we’re looking at changing the shoreline only in 2 areas. And Howard Terminal and at the Alameda side. and both those structures. The Alameda’s about elevation 13 and a half. \nyou know\, Howard\, we’re about elevation 12 and a half to 13. So even at the \nCrestron: before. We start overtopping those areas. It’s quite a ways out. So so I think this is \nsea level rise plus \nCrestron: King tides. \nIt’s all the way out till \n2095 before you start overtopping either of those structures\, and that’s on the highest curve only. \nCrestron: And then\, considering extreme events. It’s all the way out to like 2050 before you start overtopping those structures. \nAnd again\, that’s on the highest sea level rise curve. \nCrestron: And that’s my last slide on sea level rise. I know we have some extra work in the room\, so hopefully. \nhopefully\, there aren’t too many questions on. \nCrestron: Well\, I would just say\, I mean. \nI don’t know. You probably can’t change it in chief support if you’re submitting it in January. Looking at Alameda’s tag gates for such a sort period. Probably isn’t at all gonna go with sea level\, rise trends and sea level rise with \nsuppressed for a long time by the Pacific decadal oscillation. I would encourage you to look at the 2022 Federal Civil Rights Technical report which the Army Corps is a co-author. \nand it includes projections of sea level rise based on satellite data and tide gauge data to 2050. It shows that \nin the bay area. It’s tracking with the Federal intermediate low curve which is about the Army Corps intermediate curve. Just for reference we are. We do have lower sea level rise here than a lot of other areas in the country\, which is good. But \nyeah\, when it goes into like further design\, probably use kind of the latest Federal science. \nCrestron: Okay? I’ll mention that to our coastal engineer. Also\, the coastal appendix is posted. So if you do have \nfurther questions or comments. Yeah\, I’m sure we’d love to. \nCrestron: Let me ask\, with regards to sea level rise \nlike on the Alameda side\, what are your what would your commitment be? And maybe this is for Jen. What’s the \nCrestron: what are? What are they required to do to protect like the wharf? Because the the wharf you can’t \nraise up. and I know\, for the further down where it’s being developed for Alamine Landing. They set up the barrier behind the wharf\, and they raised the elevation of all the new buildings behind it. \nAnd the wharf is basically staying where it is. So what do you? \nCrestron: What are what are these guys supposed to do? \nWhat’s their commitment to do? Even if the wharf is inundated due to sea level rise. \nWell\, I would say\, for for the consistency determination which looks at if the project’s consistent with our policies. this \nCrestron: this is probably similar\, and we haven’t had a big talk about it internally yet. \nBut the one of the last projects the Ecr heard was run one greenwood\, which was also a bulkhead wall. and I remember Chris May had the comment that even though bulkhead walls aren’t designed for flood protection. \nthey may be missing an opportunity for an incremental cost to provide additional flood protection on top of that. But it’s because it’s not part of the project purpose. \nCrestron: It doesn’t have a flood protection \nstandard to me \nCrestron: as far as Vcdcs. \nWe’ll probably look at it. \nCrestron: But it it may be valid comment that there may be a missed opportunity here\, depending on what the regional \nplan is for sea level rise in the area. \nCrestron: Okay? \nactually\, that was my last slide. Jennifer encouraged me to put some questions in here. \nCrestron: so one thing I thought of is you know\, there\, there’s a lot of research and kind of the late. \nyou know\, around 12\,008\, 2\,010 about seismic Earth pressures. And honestly\, there was just so much stuff coming out. I haven’t kept up on it. So I was wondering\, you know if the board had any input on. \nYou know what the latest and greatest is. I know we have Professor Sitar here\, worked on a lot of that material. \nCrestron: too many of them. \nWell. I think. Yes\, we. There are publications on this at page WA. Actually as incorporate some of it in their manuals. \nand the latest fema document on it is pretty good. \nCrestron: and we can certainly share on this. \nThe liquefaction is pretty straightforward. \nCrestron: slow\, liquid pressure. \nOh. if you go back to your profile to to suggest that \nCrestron: support for the I guess it’s the yeah. That’s one \none more forward. \nCrestron: Those are standard books. There is nothing really there. But if you go to\, I think it’s the Schnitzer steel where you have the \ndouble next one. Yeah\, this one \nCrestron: that that that really becomes a slow stability problem. \nYes\, and these things should be analyzed as a sort of stability problem. Because if the material mobilizes. you really are putting. It’s not really a seismic. \nCrestron: So my recommendation would be that this would be carefully looked at as a slop stability problem. \nCrestron: Yeah. \nfor this particular. I guess I was asked to speak so again\, let me repeat that that these should be analyzed as a slope stability problems rather than just seismic or pressure. The seismic first pressure generally \nis not much of a problem. Once you consider the full pressure of Baymud. the basically the static pressure. When you have clay backfill. You get already very high pressures. \nand what is often missed is the slope stability aspect of this. Because you have a you have a slope there that may yield. and if that yields\, then you’re \nokay\, of course\, doesn’t have the passive support that you are counting on. \nCrestron: and that would be the place to look at. \nThat’s a sort of off the I saw your question earlier. So I did think about it. But that’s basically a short answer to your question. We can\, of course\, have longer discussion. \nAnybody\, you know\, I can make a presentation. Of course\, we’d be happy to. \nCrestron: So that was my last slide. So \nif there are any questions. \nplease. okay\, so \nCrestron: At this point of the meeting we would like to receive public comments on the presentation. \nWhen called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. You have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. \nPlease keep your comments respectful. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. \nHate speech. threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language will not be tolerated. Anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits \nwithout permission\, will be muted. \nSo \nCrestron: is there any public comments \non the presentation in the room. \nCrestron: See any hands \ngreat? Do we have any? I see none. \nBCDC HOST: There are no\, there are no public comments on my end. \nCrestron: Okay\, thank you very much. \nOkay\, so public comments. On the presentation is closed at this point\, let’s have a \nCrestron: board discussion. Are there any \nitems that \nCrestron: we need to \nlooks like Rameen has a question or a comment. \nCrestron: I have a question. \nI’m actually pretty surprised that the 3\, 2\, one slope is stable. is. Is any of those dredge slopes? That you talked about? Do you have the symmetry of \nwhat is the inclination of those? Is it? Yeah. So \nCrestron: the reason why I think 3.1 is pretty tried and true. Design is. \nthere is\, you know\, over 2 miles on of slope that is cut and has stayed for a long time. We do have what I showed you in that \nthe blue slide is a full bathymetry survey. That was done in 2\,019\, and you don’t see any failures. Several times a year before and after dredging we do \nthe symmetry along our channels. which extend\, you know\, we usually send 20 to 30 feet beyond. So you know\, we have 10 years of data that shows\, you know the bottoms of those slopes\, or. \nCrestron: okay\, II have another question. \nYou assigned a strength parameter to the bay much\, and it increases about 12 pounds per square foot per foot. Considering this is normally consolidating material. Say. \nstress ratio is about point 2 5\, maybe 2.3. \nCrestron: If I take the 12\, and divided by your effective \nunit weight of the Baymont\, which is about 28 pounds for school per cubic foot. \nCrestron: So you get a ratio of 12 over 28\, which is more like point 4 something. \nCrestron: What is the basis? How? How is that justified? in this case? Site? Specifically\, it is justified. There’s volunteer data \nin not only this area\, but all along the alignment. That shows that it is a fairly consistent relationship. \nCrestron: there’s theoretical basis\, as well\, you know. \nThe Chancellor procedures\, you know. and but for an Ocr. Of one in Bay MoD\, you get pointfour\, I’m a little surprised. We’re cutting. And so you have less effective stress. So \nhigher. Ocr\, in those areas. \nCrestron: I would ask you\, do\, do you? I I’ve seen 12 Pcf use \nincrease 12 in many other areas\, have you? Well\, what I’m saying is\, the the stress ratio becomes about pointfour. \nCrestron: yeah. Su\, over P\, or to get it really technical. Yes. \nthen that that to me sounds high\, pretty high for Baymont. \n8 or 10. I have seen 8 pounds per square foot per foot. which is around a factor of point 3. \nCrestron: Yeah\, I mean\, point 3 is the commonly used number \nCrestron: our static analysis is showing factor safety of 3. \nSo II agree. If if we back down the number that we use\, we may get a lower fracture. Safety was still stable. I \nCrestron: okay\, I can follow up with\, you know\, data to kind of yeah. \nback up our number. Thank you. \nCrestron: Okay\, any \nanybody. Oh\, looks like Jim’s got his microphone on. \nCrestron: So this is a pretty early presentation from what we’re usually seeing. And it’s so different questions\, maybe\, than what we usually are are trying to address. \nCrestron: I think you’re kind of asking. You know what \nwhat particular approaches ought to be used. And I would point just for starters. I guess I would point to port of Oakland\, especially Alameda\, less\, maybe port of Oakland has a lot of studies that have been done pretty extensively. \nCrestron: In the 90 S. And into the early 2\,000 in particular\, with a lot of data. Subsurface consultants. \nyou know. Make sure you have everything that subsurface consultants done from the port of open \nCrestron: they have a ton of data\, you know. See if you can \nCrestron: dredge up\, so to speak. \nsome of their their Gis databases. I think they’ve got everything pretty neatly put together and packed up. And that’s Fugro now. So I’m not sure what Google is going to charge to try and borrow some other old data. \nOh\, we we do have those Sci reports\, and so we’ve digitized\, you know database from them. And then the port of Oakland Wharf and Embankment strengthening program also \nshould have some some good. \nCrestron: a \ndatabases as well as extensive \na static\, but focusing on seismic stability and deformations. \nCrestron: first met Gale\, I guess. Huh! \nCrestron: What? The West project? Yeah. Early. 2\,000 \na and \nCrestron: well\, there was just one other thing I was thinking of\, anyway. So it’s a lot of extensive data to make sure that you’re familiar with\, not just the databases\, but also the analysis and what those results have been \nCrestron: in all those analyses that were done back. Then \nthey were done for 3 to one slope\, or even steeper. You know they proposed. \nCrestron: Once you get into the San Antonio\, even steepening it. \nCrestron: Yeah. So so one of the things that’s gonna be tricky is\, you know\, like\, for instance\, if you’re removing a dike and moving things backwards and putting a wall in place. \nthere’s a little bit of material removal\, and so there’s a little bit of over consolidation\, which will give you a little bit better strength. \nCrestron: Whether that reduces your at rest\, earth pressures or active earth pressures is\, is a is an interesting question\, I guess. \nbut just encourage some. you know\, especially looking at bay mud pretty sensitive to stress paths\, and what the latest \nCrestron: the the latest\, most current conditions are. What’s the state of drainage as you’re excavating things are gonna strange \nstrain \nCrestron: slowly\, as they drain. So I think you got some really interesting \ncomplex analysis that needs to be done. Especially with \nCrestron: time related aspects of excavations\, and how things are disturbed. But pile driving\, and so on. \nOh\, \nCrestron: Following up on \non what Jim was saying\, I’d say. Also take a look at and report might have access to the work that was done for the Howard terminal \nCrestron: expansion. I think Ngo really did do a deep dive to look at a lot of the prior data that existed. \nincluding the original construction of the raft. Right? There might be some data there. Yeah\, we have the the geotech reports that were done prior to the rock dyke\, and then the plans for the rock dyke. \nWe have looked at that \nCrestron: underneath the rock deck all the bay mud has been removed. \nCrestron: and and the only other recognizing that. Yes\, this is fairly early on. And so you’re probably looking more to us\, which is what we would be looking at \nin the future. you know\, following up on what Chris said\, I would imagine that the local community would probably \nCrestron: look at some form of flood improvements in the future. \npretty much along the same \nCrestron: footprint of whatever the bulkheads are. \nand so just keeping that in in mind\, you know\, if there is wall extension of of an existing pile cap that might occur in the future. There’s opportunities. \nJust something we would. \nJim. Yeah\, just to follow. And I think maybe you were here during our previous presentation. \nCrestron: When you come back to us again at the next stage. \nOne of the questions that we’re gonna want to know is\, you know\, you just said you have all this old data from Wasp and from Sci gym\, matrix has a lot of studies from the port of Oakland. Also \njust make sure that you give us a documentation of all the steps along the way. Not just say\, yeah\, we have that data. It’s extensive. But but show us and we’re not. Gonna \nCrestron: we don’t recheck all of your calculations. But we do want to see that you’ve done those calculations. So so just kind of walk us through the the process. I think that’s what we’re \nwe’re gonna want to see how you develop your engineering criteria. Definitely\, we’ll we’ll do that. is. \nCrestron: you know\, these engineering and parent appendix to feasibility studies are just kind of supposed to represent the final. So they don’t want us to put all the. \nIt’s supposed to be a very short document. So yeah\, there’s a \nCrestron: inconsistency that we can do that. You know\, we’re not going to spend a lot of time on your backup information\, but we want to be able to glance at it and see. Yeah\, there. It’s it’s in order. \nThank you\, Jim. Anybody else. Lima. anything? \nCrestron: Just a quick question you. You going to be doing some seismic analysis of these slopes. \nWe we’ve done some kind of screening level analysis. It wasn’t in the \nCrestron: appendix that was submitted\, which was a \nfew months ago. Basically the seismic analysis we did was starting with the Usgs hazard tool. We ran it for a site class C\, which would be represented kind of the top of the \nSan Antonio. Yeah. And then we looked at published report that was done for the quarter to San Francisco. There. including amplification ratios through bay mud. You know they they had different ratios for \ndepending on depth of bedrock and thickness of mud. That was kind of how we did back of the envelope. Okay. \nCrestron: alright. \nCrestron: Okay\, Philip. \nSorry I had one more\, you know. Looks like you’re you’re starting a campaign. Pretty vigorous campaign of exploration and geophysical and sonar and stuff. I didn’t see any boring’s in there. On either side Malameda or Oakland. Would that be something that that would happen during the frequency construction and engineering side. Basically. \nCrestron: Okay\, I’m looking right. I’m looking left. \nI don’t see any more red lights except for mine. let’s see \nCrestron: to do. Okay\, Jen\, do you have those questions that you can put back at. Let’s just make sure we’re \nCrestron: we’re addressing those. \nAnd then we’ve addressed them. \nCrestron: Okay\, so \nCrestron: quick glance here \nsounds like \nwe have. \nCrestron: answered. I think we’ve got answers to all these questions. Jen. \nokay. so \nCrestron: are there motions? Is there a motion that’s appropriate? \nCrestron: Thank you. I’m not sure we have much of a detailed. \nI’m not sure we have much of a detailed motion other than to say. This is not our the final time. We want to see the project. \nCrestron: which is\, I think\, was you said that at the beginning\, I think more in in essence. So \nCrestron: we agree. Okay. \nCrestron: is that a motion? I don’t know beneath the motion \nthat well\, just to invite them back\, invite you back when you’re ready at the next phase next step. \nOkay. is there a second \nCrestron: second? All right\, all in favor. \nAlright. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Passes. Oh\, all opposed. Any opposed? Okay. \nthank you. \nCrestron: And now we move to \npublic comments not prefer items not on are not on the project\, but not related to the presentation. Anybody in the room. Is there anyone present who would like to make a comment on the project \nnot related to the presentation? \nCrestron: Okay\, I don’t see. But any hands raised in the room. Grace\, is there anybody online who’s got their hand raised? \nNo one has raised their hands. \nCrestron: Okay? Well\, then\, I think that closes the item. And \nwe did a very good job of doing this in about an hour and close finishing up on time. Well\, do we have a motion to adjourn. \nCrestron: Okay. Second\, all in favor. Alright. Any opposed. \nCrestron: Okay\, we’re closed at 5 PM. \nThank you. Everybody. Next other place \nCrestron: go there. And what? \nYeah. But I think that heading now more and more towards \nCrestron: well\, they’re gonna they’re gonna have to do that because they’re kicking out. \nCrestron: Yeah. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-27-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board/
LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230911T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230911T170000
DTSTAMP:20260501T001033
CREATED:20230912T062516Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235013Z
UID:10000062-1694451600-1694451600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 11\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This meeting of the Design Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board Members are located at the primary physical location. If\, after a meeting notice or agenda is published\, a Board Member wants to change the location from which they originally planned to participate in the meeting\, that Member must participate from one of the noticed teleconference locations in the meeting notice or agenda (including the meeting’s primary physical location). Furthermore\, all noticed teleconference locations listed below must remain open and publicly accessible for the duration of the Board meeting regardless of whether any Board Member is actually at such location\, including the location originally listed by the Board Member who decided to change locations. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88589468132?pwd=MG9kbWlSYUdIUVZuVlArQkJScDNKdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID885 8946 8132 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for March 13\, 2023 (PDF) and May 8\, 2023 (PDF) Meetings\nStaff Update\nIndia Basin Shoreline Park Redevelopment Project\, City and County of San Francisco; Second Pre-Application Review (PDF)The Design Review Board will review the design by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department for its proposed India Basin Shoreline Park Redevelopment Project. The project would involve restoring and enhancing the existing\, approximately 5.6-acre India Basin Shoreline Park\, located at 900 Innes Avenue in the City and County of San Francisco. The redesigned park would include a large recreational pier and floating dock\, a large lawn\, a gravel beach\, shoreline pathways including a Bay Trail segment\, fitness and play areas\, basketball courts\, restrooms and parking\, and other amenities. This is the Board’s second pre-application review of the project.(Schuyler Olsson) [415-352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				Draft Summary of the September 11\, 2023 BCDC Design Review Board Meeting \n\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review. Design Review Board (DRB) Chair Jacinta McCann called the hybrid meeting to order on Zoom\, at approximately 5:00 p.m.DRB Board Members. Chair Jacinta McCann\, Bob Battalio\, Leo Chow\, Patricia Fonseca Flores\, Kristen Hall\, and Stefan Pellegrini were present in person.\n\nBCDC Staff. Ashley Tomerlin\, Yuriko Jewett\, and Schuyler Olsson were present in person.\nProject Proponents. David Froehlich (SFRPD); Christine Boudreau (Boudreau Associates\, LLC); Katherine Liss (GGN Ltd.); Chihiro Shinohara (GGN Ltd.); Katie Chamberlin (Anchor QEA); Sean Hart (Moffat & Nichole)\, Dilip Trivedi (Moffat & Nichol).\n\n\nStaff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update on the recently completed Bay Trail gap closure project along Doolittle Drive in East Oakland as part of MLK Regional Shoreline Park and new boat launch facilities. The DRB reviewed the East Bay Regional Parks District project back in 2016.\nIndia Basin Shoreline Park (Second Pre-Application Review). The project involves the redevelopment of the existing India Basin Shoreline Park. It would include building the park on a system of terraces\, with a sloping lawn in the center that would terminate at a gravel shore beach\, held in place by two Mixed-Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls. The Project would include a variety of site improvements and support diverse recreational and educational opportunities\, including walking/jogging\, bicycling\, fishing\, basketball and other sports\, nature viewing\, and outdoor picnics and barbecues. Water access would be provided at the gravel beach and at a large recreational pier and floating dock. The Project would also include shoreline recontouring\, shoreline protection\, and marsh creation and enhancement. The Project is eligible for funding under Measure AA from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority\, and the pre-application process is underway with the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team (BRRIT)\, an interagency team with representatives from BCDC and five other regulatory agencies\, to obtain agency feedback on the project design.\n\nStaff Presentation. Schuyler Olsson provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.\nProject Presentation. Katherine Liss\, designer with GGN\, Ltd. provided an overview of the project with a slide presentation. The presentation focused on the project goals\, background\, local context\, existing site conditions\, and a detailed description of the proposed project design.\nPublic Comment. Eight public comments were received for the project.\n\nLily Brown\, Transportation Planner\, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/Bay Trail (by email ).\n\nMTC appreciates the proposed gap closure and creation of a continuous shoreline trail experience along India Basin.\nWould like clarity of the proposed width of the Bay Trail through India Basin Shoreline Park. The trails in this area are likely to have a higher level of use due to the proposed amenities. MTC recommends that all Bay Trail segments be designed with a 26-foot width.\nMTC appreciates that the proposed project has many amenities. To add to the amenities for trail users\, consider adding drinking fountains with bottle fill stations as well as bicycle repair stations.\n\n\nJackie Flynn (now Jackie Bryant)\, Executive Director of A. Philip Randolph Institute (in person)\n\nSupports the project noting that SFRPD continues to capture community feedback on the project.\nIn terms of equitable development\, members have gone through trades programming to work on site or in other projects in San Francisco and work with youth programing.\nThe project is inspiring the next generation of park stewards. Everyone in the community are park people and they need park spaces. A tech hub/community innovation space was created to support this area. This space is essential to our community members. APRI plans to continue leading the way to bring community voices to the park project.\n\n\nElsworth Jennison\, neighborhood resident for 43 years (in person)\n\nMain concern is the project impact to habitat and would like to see it protected. Notes that the site currently hosts snowy white egrets and herons.\nThe proposed floating dock is not in a good location given the mudflats at the site that extends to Heron’s Head. India Basin Shoreline Park is unprotected and in mud. It is not safe for children. The 900 Inness site would be better for a dock.\nHas concerns regarding maintenance of the site. The boulders at Heron’s Head Park were exposed only six months after construction. The park would be best suited for green grass or walkways and not much more\, like Dolores Park.\n\n\nJill Fox\, India Basin Neighborhood Association/neighborhood resident (online)\n\nComments are her own and is not speaking on behalf of the association.\nLongtime neighbor and advocate for the park and is happy to see improvements are being made to the site. Noted that a neighborhood improvement is ultimately a regional improvement.\nFeels that access is important and there needs to be more parking. The availability of parking is not enough now\, and the new project appears to provide the same amount and will not accommodate growth. Currently\, people drive on the grass to get to the basketball court\, for example. Need to provide better bicycle access. Need to consider water access like water taxis connecting from the ferry building to the neighborhood. Better transit will allow for tourism. Support bikes and more bike parking further down into the site and near the program areas. Bikes are better for nature and the neighborhood.\n\n\nMaya Rogers\, San Francisco Parks Alliance (virtual)\n\nWorks on the Blue Greenway project and lifelong resident of Bayview Hunters Point and is showing support for the project.\nThe project transformation of the neighborhood and the equitable development plan supports the neighborhood\, it works for the community and the project. Creates spaces and preserves cultures\, welcoming to everyone. The balance developed by this partnership has created a synergy.\n\n\nSarka Volejnkova\, Trust for Public Land (virtual)\n\nTPL has been working for many years with SFRPD and Parks Alliance to design and implement this park\, along with the landscape architecture consultants. It is important to the community and an important landmark park for the City.\nNotes that the project will continue to provide recreational access to the waterfront especially along the south end of the community. The design is in line with what the community wanted and has many elements that were important to the community.\nAppreciates the access connected with this park and good to integrate water activities for San Franciscans and likes that the habitat areas are integrated into the design. The park is very usable by multigenerational visitors. There’s something for everyone to enjoy.\n\n\nStephanie Troyon\, San Francisco Parks Alliance\n\nAs a partner\, Parks Alliance has been working with SFRPD and others to implement the 13-mile Blue Greenway. This park is integral to the connections and will close a critical gap in the Bay Trail. The park will transform areas to a usable space.\n\n\n\n\nBoard Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation\n\nKristen Hall noted this is an area of low car ownership and asked for clarification of bicycle parking locations. The project team stated that bicycle parking for the project is proposed in three locations: near the “porches” near Hunters Point Boulevard; the turnaround area in the parking lot near the boathouse; and in the basketball court area.\nKristen Hall requested status of the soil on the site. Is remediation required? The project team stated that unlike the neighboring site at 900 Innes\, this area was not used for industry and shipbuilding. The filled lands here were always for park use and soil testing showed that the site did not require remediation.\nKristen Hall commented that it appears that the connection from India Basin Shoreline Park to Heron’s Head Park will flood by 2050. How will this connection be maintained? SFRPD stated they are working to partner with property owners (PGE\, Port\, and private owners) to coordinate maintenance of continuous access\, but details are not available yet. The project goal has always been to have the site read as one continuous shoreline.\nBob Battalio commented that the floating dock will be exposed to waves probably up to 2-to-3 feet\, much larger than what you experience in a marina\, for example. Is the design of the dock able to withstand these conditions? the project team stated the stability of the floating dock has been reviewed by the coastal engineer and it should withstand such conditions.\nBob Battalio asked whether the team considered a less lawn-like space between the Bay Trail and gravel beach? Waves can push gravel up and have it flatten-out and in nature there is often a transition zone. The gravel beach could be larger and travel further upslope. The project team stated they had looked into it and can look into it again.\nSeveral Board members had clarifying questions related to the Bay Trail\, including connectivity to the adjacent 900 Innes site\, grade transitions\, materiality\, trail width and specific amenities that the project will provide along the trail. The project team stated there is a smooth transition between the two parks and the trail has grades of approximately 4%. Materials include exposed aggregate paving in both parks. The width ranges from 12 feet to 14 feet with 2- foot shoulders on each side. There will be fixed benches along the Bay trail.\nStefan Pellegrini asked if there has been coordination between the improvements being made to the right-of-way in this area and the frontage of the park. The project team stated there will be a new sidewalk at the frontage of the park and that is included in the scope of the project. Raised crosswalks and curb ramps at Hudson and Hunters Point are also part of this project in partnership with DPW; MTA is currently implementing a road diet pilot project with K-Rails and a multiuse path on each side as part of the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. PGE is also implementing work along Hunter’s Point Boulevard that will result in right-of-way improvements; and The 700 Innes development project is required to make streetscape improvements in this area\, including new curb rumps\, raised crossings\, and signalized intersections.\nStefan Pellegrini requested clarification of other amenities the project will provide related to water access at the site beyond the boathouse and dock. The project team stated the project will provide a boat washing station. Feasibility of providing open water swimming is being discussed with stakeholders\, and SFRPD is working with the Port to develop policies related to fishing. Heron’s Head currently offers fishing and there is a desire to continue that program at India Basin Shoreline Park as well.\nPatricia Fonseca Flores asked for clarification on the adaptive capacity of the pier and floating dock; what is the life span of the materials for the dock? The project team stated the materiality of the floating dock has been designed for a 50-year lifespan.\nLeo Chow asked how much seating is provided along the Bay Trail. Formal seating is important\, and a bench count is important. The project team stated there are benches along the Bay Trail\, as well as the nature pathways throughout the park. Benches provided on intermediate pier\, where paths cross\, and seating is provided adjacent to program entry. Count: 37 benches including swings.\nLeo Chow requested further detail on the windy conditions at this site\, especially in the late afternoons. Is there a digital analysis of this condition available? The project team stated the site can be windy at times with winds coming from the west. The decks are level with the street\, however there is a 4 to 5-foot grade change to the lawn area so that the landform will provide protection as you make you way to the water. Programs such as the basketball area and the playground are on lower terraces\, tucked into the slope to allow for more comfort from the wind. The team has not modeled the site digitally for wind and there is no wind consultant on the project.\nLeo Chow expressed concern about the geese at the site and requested clarification for how this will be addressed with the new design. The lawn should be useable and other projects reviewed by the Board have identified the difficulty of managing geese population. The project team acknowledged there is a geese population at the park now. The project team will have to investigate this topic more as it relates to maintenance.\nJacinta McCann requested clarification for arrival zones at the site. It appears the same number of parking spaces are provided\, but the project is aiming for a lot more activation. While activation is a good thing\, understanding how sports teams\, large parties of people carrying heavy things\, will transition to using the site is a concern. The project team stated the parking lot will have 24-26 spots and there is turn around for drop off. Dropoff at 900 Innes site is also possible. There is also on-street parking along Hunter’s Point Boulevard to the south. The project team is working with community/MTA to implement a shuttle program to better connect the neighborhood. MTA will be the agency to plan and implement the transit stops.\nJacinta McCann clarified that native planting is proposed for the site\, but asked if the park will have irrigation. How will the planting be maintained? The project team stated that irrigation is included with the design and the maintenance building at 900 Innes site and will serve both parks.\nJacinta McCann asked if there is an education program planned for the site? The project team stated there is a special events and programming plan required as a condition of the BCDC permit for the 900 Innes site. The shipwright cottage community center serves as the visitor center. There will be a community classroom and a shop building to accommodate community activities\, arts\, and crafts\, etc. All of the open spaces have potential to be programmed. SFRPD is still working on logistics and whether the programs will be implemented with inhouse or with outside vendors.\nJacinta McCann requested clarification on the planting categories and if a tree list will be included and if they will also be native species. The project team stated the trees will be native species and a list will be provided in a later submittal.\nJacinta McCann asked if the park is fully funded? The project team stated the project is close to reaching its goal. The India Basin Waterfront Park initiative consists of both sites to make up one park and totals approximately $200M. This includes $15M for the development and implementation of the equitable development plan. 85% of the initiative has been funded so far. The 900 Innes phase is fully funded and the shoreline park that we are reviewing now is close to 80-90% funded.\n\n\nBoard Discussion. The Board discussed how the project addresses the seven objectives for public access found in the Public Access Design Guidelines\, provided feedback on the proposed public access improvements with respect to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise\, and environmental justice and social equity\, and addressed the staff questions listed below.The seven objectives for public access are:\n\nMake public access PUBLIC.\nMake public access USABLE.\nProvide\, maintain\, and enhance VISUAL ACCESS to the Bay and shoreline.\nMaintain and enhance the VISUAL QUALITY of the Bay\, shoreline\, and adjacent developments.\nProvide CONNECTIONS to and CONTINUITY along the shoreline.\nTake advantage of the BAY SETTING.\nEnsure that public access is COMPATIBLE WITH WILDLIFE through siting\, design\, and management strategies.Staff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration:\n\n\nDoes the project successfully complete the India Basin shoreline system in a cohesive and inviting manner?\nAre park programs and spaces sited so as to minimize potential conflicts between the design objectives and planned uses?\nAre the scale and design of the water-oriented public access features (gravel beach\, associated Marineway wall\, and recreational pier and floating dock) necessary and appropriate for the success of the water access objective?\nAre the water access elements designed in a way to minimize future required maintenance needs?\nDoes the shoreline protection strategy adequately address current and future site resilience? Is there opportunity to use more natural and nature-based shoreline protection features in areas where riprap is proposed?\n\n\nSummary of Key Issues and Board Comments\n\nOverall Site Design\n\nBoard members agreed that the project successfully completes the India Basin Park Shoreline. General comments included that the design is thoughtful and appears to be built on a community process to meet the design goals on a small site.\nThe Board agreed that pulling the hardscape inland from the shoreline edge makes for an attractive design.\nThe Board appreciated the programming of the site\, underscoring that basketballs won’t bounce into BBQ areas for example. The concept to “stack” the programs throughout the park works and helps protect activities from the elements such as wind.\nThe Board noted that the sightlines to the water were generous and that the ability to get to the shoreline was clear. Better understanding how the sightlines work at night was requested\, there could be some safety concerns for some areas.\n\n\nSite Arrival Zones\n\nThe Board expressed concern around the arrival zones of the park\, specifically noting that large groups arriving at the site will have a difficult time getting to where they need to go. Sports teams\, large parties for picnics arriving by car will have a lot of distance to travel across the lawn area. The drop off area near the boat house does not seem sufficient for vehicle access.\nOne Board member noted that part of the adventure of visiting a park is to travel there; no one wants to picnic right next to a restroom or parking area. Consider ways to make that long journey more successful with key elements that provide smaller moves of activation or elements for play on the lawn\, such as the red chairs at Presidio Tunnel Tops\, or example.\nThe curbside access with the K-rail and temporary bike path that is there now also seems to invite conflict of users getting to the site. Board members requested that be looked at again since the condition is part of a pilot program.\nAnother Board member noted that the upper section of the park appears to feature a lot of secondary paths\, potentially creating superfluous movements that don’t have the same meaning as intended.\nThe Board appreciated the coordination with other agencies and emphasized how important timing of the implementation of the overall improvements will be key with the opening of the park.\n\n\nBay Trail\n\nThe Board discussed the Bay Trail width and if it is sufficient for the site. Board members noted that the Bay Trail is an offroad condition that the city bicycle network does not always offer. There are design moves the project could do to slow the bikes down and better share the trail with slower moving travel\, while the city bike route could be the “faster” mode of travel. A narrow trail can accomplish this\, but too narrow and there will be conflicts with a variety of modes sharing one trail. The Board recommended not going less than 20 feet to avoid creating user conflicts.\nThe Board noted the proximity of the playground and the Bay Trail and the Hudson ROW and making sure there’s a way to keep these programs separate. Not necessarily fencing\, but planting and other methods of containment could be accomplished here. The Board also suggested moving the trail upland in the lawn area to create a better edge condition and help mitigate conflicts between habitat and public access; it is important to get this balance correct.\n\n\nPublic Dock\n\nFeedback on the dock were generally favorable\, noting that boating is an opportunity for community stewardship of the park. There are few opportunities to get people out that far on a dock. Offering the opportunity to picnic at the end of the dock for example is a unique feature and not present at most parks in the city.\nThe Board expressed concerns regarding the stability of the dock in this location due to waves and requested further study.\n\n\nShoreline Protection\n\nThe gravel beach seems too narrow and the Board recommended possibly expanding it. The EcoAtlas shows an extensive beach for this area of the Bay\, and here it is between two walls. If the paths and trails are set back even further you will have more success to get the ecotone in there now and provide scrub brushes as a buffer between the lawn and beach.\nThe Board felt that the shoreline protection seems reasonable; it does provide a hard edge to establish the upper planting area and the park could go with a low- risk adaptation scenario on the elements that are outboard of Bay Trail.\nThe Board also noted that the Marineway walls seem like a big investment. Another thing to consider here is that the walls may reflect some of the strong waves to other shorelines. If that wall goes in\, the patterns of sediment in that cove may change in unforeseen ways but the walls are necessary to frame the beach and maintain beach material.\nThe Board felt the beach will be a popular recreational site.\nWhile the PGE site is adjacent to the park and outside the scope of this project\, it is worth noting that it is a critical piece of shoreline that can connect the India Basin neighborhood to Heron’s Head. There is an opportunity for a gravel beach and back beach area at that parcel. A Board member recommended looking at the overall habitat programming for this section of shoreline and weighing the benefits\, a gravel beach at this location would help protect marsh at that site.\n\n\nLandscape and Planting\n\nThe Board encouraged the project to seize the opportunity for nurturing park stewardship through volunteer programs to enhance the native planting and engaging the community during construction.\nThe Board requested the project better analyze the distribution of shade throughout the park\, such as shade structures in the BBQ area and especially encourage further study of the trees.\nRelated comment regarding soil amendment and understanding the salinity of the site. Large gaps can be created through the loss of 2-3 trees so maintaining plant health will be essential to success.\nThe Board also requested that the appropriate caliper trees are budgeted to allow for immediate wind protection and long-term success. While striving for a complete native palette is a good goal\, note that the melaleuca trees on site are healthy and while not native\, are providing good protection now.\n\n\n\n\nComments from Project Proponents\n\nThe project proponents clarified that while the comment to provide a gravel beach to enhance the connection between India Basin Shoreline Park to Heron’s Head is a thoughtful one\, this area is not in the scope of this project.\nConcerns of managing the geese in the lawn area have been heard and will continue to be studied by SFRPD.\n\n\nConclusion and Meeting Adjournment. The Board stated the project has completed its Board review and design refinements can continue at the staff level. Board member Kristin Hall moved to adjourn the meeting. Board member Bob Batallio seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.\n\n\n\n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/09-11_DRB-Audio.mp3\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. \n			\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n			\n				\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \n[ZOOM LINK HERE] \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID[ZOOM ID HERE ] \nPasscode[ZOOM PASSWORD HERE] \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-11-2023-design-review-board-meeting/
LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230807T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230807T170000
DTSTAMP:20260501T001033
CREATED:20230808T061539Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T225743Z
UID:10000061-1691427600-1691427600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 7\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This meeting of the Design Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board members are located at the primary physical location. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84698619387?pwd=Q2xuV0dSOFJlaTBKKzJMQlp2ZDFadz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID846 9861 9387 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for December 12\, 2022 (PDF) and April 10\, 2023 (PDF) Meetings\nStaff Update\n1301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; First Pre-Application Review (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold its first pre-application review of the proposal by Four Corners Properties to redevelop a 6.91-acre site with a life sciences campus at 1301 Shoreway Road in the City of Belmont\, San Mateo County. The project proposes to demolish the existing four-story office building on site and construct two 7- to 8-level office/R&D buildings and a 9-level parking garage. The project proposes both on-site and off-site public access improvements\, including constructing a new sidewalk along Sem Lane to provide public access from Shoreway Road to the shoreline\, widening the Belmont Creek Trail\, and refreshing the landscape with seating areas and trail serving amenities.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nSan Leandro Shoreline Development Project\, City of San Leandro\, Alameda County; (Fourth Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold their fourth pre-application review of a proposal by Cal Coast Companies\, LLC and the City of San Leandro to redevelop the San Leandro Marina and surrounding land. The proposed project would include a waterfront park\, hotel\, restaurant\, residential and condominium buildings\, and a commercial building. The project has undergone significant design and land use changes since the second review in 2016.(Jessica Finkel) [415/352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Video Recording & Transcript\n				\n \nMeeting Transcript \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, are we ready to go? \nOkay. Good evening. My name is Gary Strang. I am the vice chair of the B. C. DC. Design Review Board. I’m going in tonight for just into the can who could not be here. But she sends her regards\, especially to the new Board members \nwho are joining us tonight for the first time\, Leo Chow\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: and so \nShe wish she could be here. But she is following along. \nDRB Meeting Room: we are located at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and those who are participating online. Our first order of business is to call the role board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. So\, Ashley\, please feel free to call a roll \nacting chair\, strain. present board\, member or not present board member\, Chow. \nboard\, member leader here. board\, member Pellegrini present. \nBcbc. Staff attending tonight\, or myself\, Ashley\, Tamerlan. Kerry Jewett\, Kathryn\, Pan Shutti\, Sinha\, and Jess Sinkle. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, thank you\, Ashley. We have a quorum presence. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nand I appreciate everyone’s patience as we go through some protocol for everyone online and in the meeting room\, please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nfor board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it is on\, so everyone can see you for members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period. That is part of an agenda item\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nFirst\, if you are here and with us in person\, we’ll ask you to form a line near the podium. If you wish to make a public comment. Speaker\, cards are available at the door. You asked to come up to the podium one at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation. Prior \nproviding comments during the meeting. After all of the individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely the second way\, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hands in the zoom. \nIf you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised. \nDRB Meeting Room: Finally\, if you are joining our meeting via phone. You must press Star 9 on your keypad \nto raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. you will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised. \nDRB Meeting Room: After you’re called on you will be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nPlease state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of the remark. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nDRB Meeting Room: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We’re here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. \nbut everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. It will not tolerate hate\, speech threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time with it \nwithout permission for public comments. If you’re attending online. Please note. we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you’re attending the medium. The meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists. Audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced to individual panelists. Videos. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties\, list to be notified of future meetings \nconcerning these projects. Please call her email Ashley\, Tom Orlyn. His contact information is on the screen or is found on the Cdc’s website. \nDRB Meeting Room: Finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting post Yuri\, our Bctc. Staff \nare acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the next order of business is to approve the \nthe minutes from the previous 2 meetings or \nDRB Meeting Room: and so board members. We’ve all been given draft minutes of our December twelfth \n2\,022 meeting and a draft summary of our April the eighth\, 2\,023 meeting. Are there any comments or corrections that anyone would like to make? \nDRB Meeting Room: I would appreciate? \nYes. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, so let’s go ahead with comments. this would just be for the board members who attended those meetings. Obviously. \nDRB Meeting Room: Stefan. \nanyone else? No\, comments. \nCf\, I so since I had a comments minor comment\, crafting some language. see? \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. She gave me a comment. But I’m not sure which of the meeting notes \nfirst 2. She had made a general statement \nDRB Meeting Room: chair. Mccann mentioned that this was very sad. I think we were saying goodbye to \nAndre. At this point she said\, \nDRB Meeting Room: She mentioned that this was a very sad evening for everyone on the Drp. And she stated the Graphic that you have shared\, and she lined out \nand replaced it with clearly shows \nDRB Meeting Room: the incredible impact that you have had on the Dr. B’s work. So minor. But \nit’s important to crop that line. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you didn’t get that\, we can catch up on it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. \nSo like to make a motion to adopt the minutes\, then can someone make a motion \nDRB Meeting Room: move to the \nokay\, and if there are no no issues with that\, then the minutes will be approved and amended as noted. \nDRB Meeting Room: And now the Board Secretary will provide staff update. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Chair. \nI’m going to keep this brief tonight. Thank you. To the Board members who attended the July 20 sixth they adapt Briefing staff\, found it to be an incredibly rich conversation\, and we look forward to working with the boards as the projects develop \nfor newly reopened public access. Foster City Phase 2 is now open\, and Phase 3 is on track for opening later this month. This time there are approximately 4 and a half of the 6 and a half miles available for public use. \nDRB Meeting Room: The picture shown is one of the levy access trails. \nOur next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, September eleventh\, and will be a hybrid meeting here at Metro Center we will be holding our third review for the India\, based in Shoreline Park and our first review of the proposed office development site in Oakland. \nThat concludes the B. Cdc. Staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. \nthere is none. So we can move on to the next item. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, the next item is public comments for items not on tonight’s agenda. We’ll start with those members of the public and our headquarters building here today. Please form a line near the podium. If you have a public comment. \nAfter all\, the individuals who are present make their comments. We’ll call on those participants who are attending remotely. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: seeing no comments here in the room. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment. \nplease raise your virtual hand. Remember\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press\, star 9\, and your keypad. Raise your hand to make a comment to mute or unmute press\, star 6. It will be called on. Your your hand was raised\, and you will have 3 min to speak \nhere. You will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your comments \nDRB Meeting Room: just mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties\, list to be notified to future meetings. \nPlease call or email. Actually. \nDRB Meeting Room: we have no public comments here. \nDRB Meeting Room: In that case we can move on to the first review of \nproposed Project 1\,301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development in the city of Belmont. in San Mateo County. \nDRB Meeting Room: The first review \nand just to remind everybody of how the meeting is scheduled\, they’ll be \nDRB Meeting Room: Dcdc. Staff introductions. \nA project proponent presentation followed by clarifying questions from the Board. A period of public comment \nDRB Meeting Room: which will then be followed by a board discussion and summary. \nand then an opportunity for the project proponent to briefly respond. \nDRB Meeting Room: And so with that. DC. DC\, permit analysts. \nIntroduce the project. 50. \nThank you. Acting chair Strang\, and good evening board members. My name is Shutti Sina. I am a permit analyst at BC. DC. The first project for review tonight is a Life Sciences Redevelopment project in Belmont\, proposed by 4 Corners properties \nDRB Meeting Room: before we discuss the project\, we would like to begin by acknowledging that the majority of the land in this area was once water in historic tidal flats located near lantern\, the unseeded ancestral homeland of the ramitous Olone. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay Area. \nDRB Meeting Room: 1\,301. Shoreway is a 6.9 one acre site at 1\,301 shore road in the city of Belmont\, San Mateo County\, just outside the Redwood Shores waterfront Community. \nThe project site is bounded by Sam Lane to the northwest Shoreway road to the southwest. a Pg. And E. Substation to the south and the Belmont Creek to the east. \nThe site shares the Belmont Creek shoreline with 10 twin Dolphin and 200 twin dolphin\, both recently reviewed by the Drb. In 2 in 2\,022 \nShoreway road is adjacent to\, and runs parallel with Highway 101. \nDRB Meeting Room: The existing permit for the project site \nB. C. DC. Permit number M. 1\,981 point 6 4 point 0 2 was originally issued on May eighteenth\, 1\,982\, in association with the construction of \na 48\,000 square foot building\, which is now a medical offices building. The permit was amended once for construction of a private sports court and the overall public access requirements of the permit include \nappropriate landscaping a 10 foot wide\, pedestrian path\, no fewer than 3 benches. no fewer than 2 public access signs and an 8 foot wide connector path on the north side of the tennis court or the Sports Court. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a Google Street view capture of the site from Shoreway Road. To this\, to the right\, you can see the vehicular entrance of the site\, and a 4 story. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry \nthis. This \ncapture is taken from Highway 101\, which runs parallel to show railroad. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is another Google Street view capture of the site from Semlene to the right you can see the parking lot of the 1\,301 Shoreway campus. To the left is the pedestrian entrance to the the trail from Sam Lane. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a photo of the Belmont Creek at the site from a staff visit \nlast year. The building on the left is the existing building on the former oracle campus across the creek. \nDRB Meeting Room: This slide provides some regional context for parks and public access areas. The existing Bay trail alignment is shown as a green line. The Belmont flew as a light blue Line \nHighway 101 and Highway 82 as dark blue lines\, Cal. Train as the pink line and nearby parks in green. \nDRB Meeting Room: With respect to the social setting of the project location. The area is largely dominated by office buildings \nand B. Cdc’s vulnerability mapping tools shows the project area as having moderate social vulnerability associated with lower contamination vulnerability. In this area\, the social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile are for people with no vehicle\, people with a disability. People of color\, people with limited English proficiency\, and people with very low income. \nNote that there is some. There is an area to the West that has a higher social vulnerability. Vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile. For this area includes children under 5 people over 65\, and alone\, people with no high school degree people with limited English proficiency\, and people who are not Us. Citizens \nDRB Meeting Room: moving on to sea level rise. \nI note that Belmont Creek is a tidal waterway and using current site elevations. This map\, with the projects I outlined in red shows that shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remain unchanged \nfor the medium to high risk aversion. Scenario 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level\, which would also not cause any flooding on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site if unchanged. \nHere the project site is outlined in yellow\, but the medium to high-risk aversion scenario 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the 100 year storm at mid-century\, and mean higher high water in the year 2\,090\, \nDRB Meeting Room: and you can see that there is inundation throughout the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: To conclude this introduction\, we’ve summarized the Bay Plan policy and guideline questions that apply to this project. In addition\, we have also included some questions by staff that we would like the Board to consider. \nPlease note that the staff report had identified the proposed courtyard as publicly accessible. However\, the project team has indicated that the courtyard would\, in fact\, be private. \nDoes the Board have any clarifying questions at this point? \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s like no questions. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. With that I will hand it over to rich Ying of 4 Corners properties to present the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hello\, everyone board members and staff. My name is rich in the 4 Corners representing Project ownership. \nRene here\, will go through to the presentation on me. I’m just going to give a pref and trump \nDRB Meeting Room: with me in person. Here are Renee Connor and Daniel\, from SW. A. \nCraig\, from Dga. Raquel\, from Bkf. Villa\, from Moffat Nichols. \nDRB Meeting Room: and I think joining us remotely\, is Karen and Dj. As well. \nDRB Meeting Room: So before I turn over to Rene\, who will go into the project details\, I just wanted to give a brief overview of who we are. So 4 corners started almost 20 years ago. \nAnd since inception we’ve been Bay\, area-based and B area focused. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, our ownership. History \nhas solely been concentrated on the Bay Area from San Francisco to San Jose. In fact\, one of my partners and I are both barrier born and very raised. So you know\, we have a pretty \ndeep commitment to building high-quality projects in our backyard \nDRB Meeting Room: for context. We purchased the property back in December of 21 with our capital partner. and since then we’ve been working with the city \nand B Cdc. Staff on the design and necessary approvals for each relevant component and I just wanted to note that while nobody from the Sbca\, I don’t think is on tonight. Remotely\, we did forward a letter to staff \nfrom Sbca. Endorsing there. support for our \nDRB Meeting Room: proposed improvements. \nAnd with that I’ll turn over to Rene. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, if I got that part Russian\, easy \nGood evening. Distinguished Commissioners\, board members\, and BC. DC. Staff. My name is Renee Bian\, managing partner of SW. A. San Francisco \nstudio. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s an honor to present the 1\,301 Shoreway project this today. This evening. \nI represent one small part of a team that I think has a very deep bench in this area. And if questions get technical later on\, we may have to call some of those \nto the mic. I’d also like to give a warm shout out to Shrew T. And Ashley\, who’s been great thought partners for us over the last several months and highly professional in guiding us through this process. \n13 or one sure way\, I’ll try to not be too redundant with the overview that Truty gave. But It’s in the city of Belmont\, and it’s adjacent to the Belmont Creek site as shrew teeth navigated \nthe site\, although our site itself is fairly small\, I think it combines beautifully with both the 200 twin dolphin site and the 10 twin dolphin site kind of\, you know the parts adding up to a a bigger whole. \nsuper. Important to recognize that. Our site is\, in fact\, the on the creek side\, and it does not correct. Connect directly to the larger bay trail system. However\, with the advantage of 200 twin dolphin and 10 twin dolphin\, it will connect through those those sites. \nDRB Meeting Room: also. to note that. the site\, the DC DC jurisdiction area is only half owned by our client. 4 corners. The other half is owned by Sbc. A. And as Rich said\, they’ve been very supportive. And albeit last minute they did draft a very supportive letter today. \nother kind of important contextual things is that to the west some lane is a private street owned by the city of Belmont. To the east is the Pg. And E. Substation quite an unsightly mess. \nand then we have both the one one freeway and shoreline to the south. As Shruti mentioned\, the site was originally approved in 1\,981\, and then in 1\,985\, a modification to add up a tennis court adjacent to the site. \nagain\, the trail head for our site begins currently at the end of Sam Lane. There’s a small sign and a \ntrailhead. However\, there’s no public walkway that connects from Shoreway to the trail head itself. The site will eventually\, as I said\, connect to the north side of the creek itself\, and from the north side will have connections both through the 200 twin Dolphin and the 10 twin dolphin projects. \nDRB Meeting Room: oops. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry. existing condition of the site. You know. I’m just gonna be frank. It’s not great. the in addition to the 101 freeway and Shoreway Road. There’s a 70 foot wide. Utility easement to the south side of the site. The Pg. And e substation is is currently \nonerous\, to say the least. Some lane only has one access into the existing surface parking lot. And again\, the current access to the actual trail head is is not great. \nimages from the 101. There are no indicators that there is\, you know\, a a water body\, natural system from the 101 itself \nas you get in a little closer to one I want sure way. same thing. You know\, it’s about 5 to 600 feet from Shoreway to the actual trail itself\, and there are no visible indicators that really show you\, you know. \nGo here\, so to speak. the site itself in the upper right that is the trail head and the sign. But again\, no public access to that trail head \nThe creek is. The condition is currently. you know\, pretty much in disrepair\, with the benches and the trash and the other amenities overgrown. And even that vegetation\, you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: implemented several decades ago\, is not\, is not great. the. It’s also\, I think\, a little bit of an incoherent Site plan in terms of There are not enough indicators to help clarify. You know\, the directionality of the path. How do you get from one place to the other. the shaping of the spaces. Everything feels just a little bit hunky\, Tonk\, and maybe not\, as on par with the other amenities that we see in the Bay area for this this level of of site. \nDRB Meeting Room: this is the flood map and we covered that briefly. But I want to give my oops. \nSorry\, a quick indicator of numbers here and again\, if there are specific technical questions\, we can come back to that. But the creek. Yeah. The creek trail itself \ncurrently meets a resiliency standard to mid-century based on a king tide of 7 9 plus 2 feet sea level rise. So worst case scenario 9.9. \nThe Belmont Creek is currently at 11 to 11.8 feet in elevation\, which exceeds the 9.9 the trail can be adapted to handle the 1 100 year storm event. \nand for good measure we’re proposing to raise it to 12.2\, so existing building is it 15. Existing elevation of the shoreline is 11 to eleven-five\, and the trail fluctuates from 10.9 to 11.5 in its existing condition. \nSo we’re going to switch a little bit to talk about flood adaptation\, and how we intend to address that both short term and long term. first of all along the creek itself\, as I said\, for good measure. \nwe’re going to raise the trail to 12.5 from its current standard of 10.9 and 11.5. The building elevations will be set at 12 per the city of Belmont and we’re also going to do some shaping to the berm that I’m gonna get to here. \nDRB Meeting Room: So left to right\, I’m I’m sorry. In the upper right hand corner you’ll see some section keys\, and if you follow the those through the series of sections\, it should be pretty clear what we’re doing. So building pads are going to elevation 12 existing curb and gutter to remain at 10.3 and then the trail and the planted area\, and the \nhead of the berm itself will raise to 12.5 at the high level \nDRB Meeting Room: next section. Cut a little bit further down as you’re into that proposed courtyard itself. the again. The berm will be elevated from it’s currently at 11 2 to 12.5. \nThe Graphic is a slightly off on on this one. If you read the the actual numerical at 12\, it should be 12.5. It looks a little bit higher than that. I apologize. But \nDRB Meeting Room: Then the section at the garage itself\, again elevating the levy to 12.5\, and keeping the building at 12 and existing courtyard fluctuates with that flow of the grading itself. \nlong term\, and for that 2\,100 mark we feel that there’s plenty of room to build up to the high\, high level of. We have about 50 feet to deal with\, and which gives us enough time enough room to burn up\, to get the access to the site\, and then to return back before we hit the downslope to the creek itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: So\, switching now to a program and kind of the amenities package\, so to speak. \nstarting back at Shoreway. we are proposing to add a 6 foot wide sock sidewalk. with proper signage at the intersection of Sam and Shoreway. \nThe walk continues all the way down to the site itself\, where you’ll meet a improved trail head\, 10 bite parking stalls\, 3 vehicular parking stalls\, and then a series of both passive and active seating nodes along the trail itself at a rhythm of about 100 150 feet each. \nDRB Meeting Room: so the signage again\, both pulling it out to Shoreway Boulevard. I think\, particularly for hotel guests in the adjacent room. That’s where they’re gonna want to kind of see it and kind of pick it up and go down to it\, and then improving the signage and bringing more of an informational signage to the trail\, head itself at the creek. \nSo existing condition. where then? Not a through street sign is to the right will be the new walkway to the left\, at the hotel that walkway does not continue all the way down. \nso it would be 6 foot high side walkway. And again the informational graphics \nDRB Meeting Room: and a planting buffer between the walkway and the proposed building. \nDRB Meeting Room: once you get to the trail head itself. As I said\, there’s a series of different nodes. One is kind of to build on that existing athletic program nodes. So a bicycle repair station\, obviously bike parking\, but also kind of high quality exercise stations in half of the nodes that are being provided. \nThe other half of the nodes will be more passive seating node for bird watching. Or you know\, quiet phone calls You know\, we want this to be a a trail and an amenity that’s for people of all ages and all economic groups. we want it to be inclusive. So we’re we’re proposing as much variety as we think is kind of reasonable on the the site here. \nBut also\, you know\, the nodes aren’t one-liners. Obviously\, if there’s exercise stations\, it’ll be paired with a quality seating that gives people good orientation\, not just to the creek\, but to the to the surrounding landscape \nDRB Meeting Room: again\, you know just a so simple and accessible node next to the adjacent path\, and looking down the the slew itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the fourth node is slightly larger\, and it would include\, obviously\, community\, more community style tables and chairs where people could have meetings or \nhave their launch\, or\, you know\, do something that’s a little bit more socially engaged \nDRB Meeting Room: just a slight blow up of these areas again that as you’re looking at it 3 new designated parking stalls\, there are 0 now. 10 class 2 bike parking. There are 0 now\, a new walkway to connect to the trail head and improved educational signage. and then which kind of brings you around to the first \nseating burning node there. \nDRB Meeting Room: so the existing condition again. No parking\, no bikes\, no connectivity \nto the proposed condition. I should also point out that to the left\, here in the center of the screen. That’s the official bay trail. we’ve also included a secondary trail adjacent to the parking structure\, so that there’s 2 ways to kind of navigate through the through the project itself. \nA slight blow up of both that active node\, the fitness node above\, and the more passive trail seating below. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then finally the largest node at the end. It’s it would be a fitness node a meeting node to the center or above the the tennis court\, and a fitness node below. So the 2 nodes combine\, and there’s an additional seating node in the back\, which is a part of the existing \nwalkway system behind the courts themselves. \nBlow up looking you’re looking across at 10 twin Dolphin drive the future 10 to the dolphin drive. and an example again\, of the scale and the materiality of of these nodes. \nDRB Meeting Room: existing vegetation. Again\, it’s not great. The trees are listed in either every tree is listed either as poor or extremely poor conditions. Several are already dead\, very few natives\, and we would be replacing that with a more \nindigenous. plant pellet. We’re clearly wanting to complement and build off of the plant palette that both 200 twin dolphin and 10 to involve and have done for a bigger\, larger ecological impact \nto the Overall creek itself. hopefully. the material palette looks familiar to most of you\, but this would be the look and the scale that we’d be looking for. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the ground covers. \nDRB Meeting Room: And that’s a presentation. Thank you very much. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much\, Renee\, for that very clear and comprehensive presentation and and graphics that are really easy to comprehend. So we’ve got a we’re going to take a moment here to see if there’s any questions from the board\, clarifying questions on the proponents. Presentation. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you have a question\, please. \non your mic. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. Nice presentation. this is a new\, newly constructed parking day along the \nhe’s in the creek. Are there a. C. 3 stormwater requirements they handled in there somewhere. \nDRB Meeting Room: for the the development itself\, for for the\, for the parking strip that’s within the yeah\, that that will all drain to the private development itself. Yeah. \nright\, Raquel. \nthat \nDRB Meeting Room: that I I will say that for the private development we’re using pretty much the same plant palette and the same strategy kind of tying the 2 ecologies together. So the the C 3 requirement is actually kind of a feature of the \na private courtyard. \nI had one question about just to make sure I was reading the illustrations correctly. The adaptation zone for a future as well as the nodes that you were showing. \nDo those fall outside of your client’s property. Ownership \nDRB Meeting Room: is that within the other property ownership that you established at the beginning of the presentation? \nit’s really designed as as one zone. The nodes are within the twelve-five adaptation area\, though\, if I understand your question. \nDRB Meeting Room: so they’ll be above twelve-. \nOkay\, is that was that the question. the question is more about the property lines. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s a that’s \ngood question. \nDRB Meeting Room: Got it. So that property line is indicating everything east of it is the Sbc 8. Okay\, thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Anyone else. \nYeah. maybe 2 questions. If you could help us with one. Is you heard the question from Staff about the the quality of publicness of the central court. \nSo it’d be great to hear a little bit more about the thresholds \nDRB Meeting Room: entering and exiting that court\, and how that is made to feel welcoming. \nAnd then maybe the second question is. there’s a larger cluster seating adjacent to the court\, which perhaps reflects the current condition. \nIs there any thought about how the changes to the uses on the land side effects where people are more likely to gather or not? \nYeah. So your first question is\, how are we making it more public the court\, the making it welcoming for the public to move through the court\, because my understanding is that that is considered part of the public access. Oh\, the private court\, as a part of the development. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the question the question is\, how is the courtyard with what’s your attitude on the publicness of the courtyard that’s being created by the 3 building? If I could Just clarify that there are 2 things that might be. we’re being referred to as a court. There is an inner court yard which is part of the proposal. and then there is a \nsports court\, which is a an existing feature on the site both of which are are private and intended to remain. So. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe you can handle the \ntouch on the the gathering by the private court\, the the sports court. Okay? Why\, there’s a larger one there. Given the changes on the land side. Okay? so in on the \nthat \nDRB Meeting Room: more or less\, this is it. \nthat’s the largest area right now. And if you look at the Site plan\, I mean one of that one of that I think benefits to the to the greater public is that this parcel line kind of triangulates in front of the Pg. And E substation. \nSo the planting and the landscape that goes there will help screen that at least from short way drive. And so there’s there’s benefit there that larger gathering space there is about the size of the existing gathering space that’s currently there. So there’s a larger space there. The other nodes are distributed. I guess they would add up to allow a larger space. \nBut I’m trying to. \nDRB Meeting Room: Your question is\, why? Why? Why is the big space where it is now? Versus later? Yeah\, I think it has more to do with the geometry and the fact that there’s more area to work with there because the space can pull in adjacent to the to the Sports court. \nI mean\, if there was a desire to make one of the other nodes larger\, we could. I mean\, there’s nothing precluding it. This is not a trail that currently gets a lot of use because it it’s somewhat dead ends on some lane. So we don’t want to over scale these spaces. We want it to feel comfortable. \nbut the the largest space is adjacent to the tennis court\, just because there’s more flat landmass to to deal with there. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much for the presentation. \nhave a \nDRB Meeting Room: couple of questions\, and then I think\, as some clarifications would be helpful about something in the staff report. \nmaybe we could start with that. There’s the discussion I have a levy \nDRB Meeting Room: and the justification for why the levy improvements are sort of outside the purview of this project. and I would love it if you could provide us some more context as to where that levy is \nDRB Meeting Room: and in its relationship to what’s actually being improved. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, can I? Do you mind just killing your microphone? \nCan someone else help me with that one? \nGo back to the see my map. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hi\, my name is Rachel Phones. I’m from Bkf engineers. so the actual creek is outside of the property. \nin. we are basically just enhancing it. since it’s outside of our property. \nDRB Meeting Room: I know if that answers your question\, and it’s about maybe 30 feet away from the property line. \nDRB Meeting Room: But there is a levy on the \non the inland side of the creek. The you know. It’s a berm. It’s not technically a levy in in in the staff report\, and this might be a question for staff. \nThe discussion of this levy is\, is that what you are referring to? Yes\, the trail\, the Belmont Creek trail on both sides\, on the 1\,301 Charlotte Showway side\, and on the 201 dolphin intent on dolphin side. are both on a what we’ve understood from those projects to be a fema\, certified Levy. So the the trail \nthe pedestrian trail. They are actually on top of the levy and From those the the prior projects we’ve learned that because it is there on a a fema certified levy. any changes \nto to the those those areas would require action from several other agencies and municipalities. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the strategy is to have the individual property owners gling the 2 that we’ve previously seen\, and this one to improve to a new base plot elevation outside of the physical levy. \nand that sort of further down the road there could be a agency-driven fled control project within the creek corridor. \nBut yeah\, but but the idea is that we’re just looking at the per view. I see. Actually\, you’re not in your head. Okay\, yeah\, I just want to make sure that we sort of understood that in the context of what we’re sort of talking about\, Stefan. I also would like to add that I think the levy that you may be referring to should also mentioned. It’s that dash black line. Yes\, that is on the other side. Yes\, that’s \non the other side of the quick\, which is not part of this improvements. Okay\, yeah\, thank you. So in that context. And this might be a question for today. again. But we’re talking about the sort of connectivity and synergy that can come from \nthis project in the context of the twin dolphin improvements. So for someone to actually access the trail and cross the creek corridor. \ncan you provide some guidance for actually how that actually would happen for a production\, either on this side to reach the bay trail side or from somebody on the twin Dolphin side to actually come over to this side of the creek. \nSo currently the trail head starts here. and continues and connects to the north side. Here it’s sure way. So you come here. There’s no bridge or structure that goes over the creek until you hit shoreline\, so then you would follow shoreline to the north side of the creek\, and either you know\, cross here to the bay trail or come down to this end \nto hit the bay trail. \nand the \nDRB Meeting Room: context that are providing additional connectivity between these sites in this location \nis due to the fact that the \nDRB Meeting Room: creek is lying outside the jurisdiction. \nThat’s really what we’re looking at like. If\, for example\, like a pedestrian bridge or something that would create synergy or provide opportunities for these amenities to be more easily accessed between sites. It’s this jurisdictional issue. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m sorry I don’t understand your question like why you couldn’t propose like a pedestrian bridge across the creek that actually would provide a more direct connection between where the improvements are actually happening. \nFor example. \nyeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the creek\, it’s not part of our property. And I mean it’ also trigger all their agencies like you\, said Fema. And they are out of our control. Yeah\, right? Yeah. I mean the the context for my questions is\, if it\, the access to this portion \nof the jurisdiction is is still pretty challenged. And so I I just try to sort of address that. And then Have you had any discussion with Staff about \nany \nDRB Meeting Room: shared use happening in the adjacent \nopen spaces to the public access. For example\, either the Sports Court or the Larger Development Court. Has there been any discussion about potential for shared use\, maintaining privacy on those sites but opening them up under certain terms \nor uses or activities to the the broader public. \nDRB Meeting Room: because of that nature of the building itself is like science security is definitely an an issue\, and the owner is kind of adamant that the court itself\, although visually accessible and ecologically accessible\, not be physically accessible. \nAnd then this force that goes for the Sports Court that’s adjacent to the trail as well. Well\, I think the preference would be to keep the it’s it’s not as hard line. But I think the preference would be to keep the sports chord private. Okay\, thank you very much for the additional contacts. Appreciate it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \na couple of questions I have. So the 12.5\, the berm or the levy whatever calling it when you get to the ends. Is there any indication of\, you know connection at the at the ends or \nyou know. I guess we’re always interested to\, you know\, when you look at it in section. It looks like you have protection when you look at it in plan\, you know. Not as much protection until you know the levy continues. \nDRB Meeting Room: so is a question that when you get to the end\, do you know\, work to go? Where to continue? Well? Does it? Does it close off\, you know. Does it turn back on the property lines to protect or or is it? Is it only effective when the adjacent properties complete the the thought\, and \nyou know\, related to that also is just the the finish floor of the existing building set at 12\, you said\, which was by the city\, the set by the city. Yeah. Okay. And I was just curious where you know the what\, what sets that? What are the guidelines they’re going from or the the \nI don’t know. The criteria that sets that when those guidelines were written\, perhaps is is maybe more to the point. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, maybe someone else has a better answer. But I think they use the fema guideline\, the city of Belmont. \nDid you know \nDRB Meeting Room: I actually just did it here. So the city of Belmont required us to. We’re on flat Zone X\, which there is no a specific base\, flat elevation\, but the city of a Belmont. they said that they would like us to set it at 12\, just because. \nwe’re right next to the phone\, ae\, with base flight elevation 10. And they wanted to make sure that we are accommodating for the 24 inches\, probably the sea level rise. So then\, they said\, please set it to 12. So that’s where that came from. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, yeah. And I I guess my question is\, you know\, was there any consideration about going higher\, or what is longevity of the 12 So we’re trying to make sure that we’re able to conform to the streets because the streets same lane and also the short way road. So I think based on the guidelines the city gave us. That’s probably the most so we can go right now\, otherwise it will be hard for us to create more challenging to confirm to the assistant streets that are not going to be raised. \nYeah\, thank you. It’s it’s pretty much maxed out right now. \nDRB Meeting Room: just for accessibility on the\, on the issue about what happens at the end of the trail. I don’t have the history of when it was proved\, but the adjacent property adjacent to Pg. And E. Seems to have had a recent \nimprovement\, and it’s pretty nice when you get there. You know you feel like you just continue on in terms of the feel of of the nodes themselves on on our property. They’re intended to be able to look 360\, not just like\, you know. Look there\, and we’re turning the back on that on the project itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: Great\, thank you. Yeah\, I realize it’s a regional problem. But I was just curious. Any thoughts you have on how you how it transitions into the future. Yeah. The the other thing I thought I heard you ask\, but I think it’s an important point. Any is that we’re not dependent on 200 twin dolphin or 10 twin Dolphin to have a successful project because our loop goes to Shoreway. when when our project is built in our trail is\, you know\, it’s kind of a standalone piece improved. Obviously\, when the neighborhood improves but not dependent on it. \nDRB Meeting Room: because because the whole property is raised\, you’re protected. Yeah. \ngot it? Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. If there is no further questions\, then I think we can move on to \npublic comments. \nDRB Meeting Room: like to open the meeting to the public. Any member of the public attending. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to make a comment. if you do\, does it look like you have comments. If so\, I’ll read the instructions again. \nDRB Meeting Room: There are no comments online here. \nOkay. okay\, hold on. We did receive one letter of support from the project or for the project from the Redwood Shores business agency. \nRegarding the proposed shoreline trail improvements. The comments have been forwarded to the Board and will be included in the meeting summary. \nOkay\, thank you. Then\, at this time we can have a board discussion. I think this is\, oh\, did you have something? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, quickly. I would like to \ncorrect something I told in. I I said in response to board member Pellegrini’s question about the levy I just spoke with dillip survey of mafia and nickel which is consulting the applicant. \nThe the project team on sea level rise and and flooding assessments. and I’ve just been told that \nthis side of the the the Belmont Creek the \nDRB Meeting Room: it is not a fema certified levy. It is on the twin dolphin side\, but not on on the 1\,301 sure way side\, not on the side that this project falls on \nso presumably this means that it can it it. \nDRB Meeting Room: There is a possibility of \nplacing\, fill\, or or or conducting other activities on this side of what is basically a berm \nDRB Meeting Room: which would not have been possible without agency. \nFurther agency action on the other side of the creek\, on the twin dolphin side. So I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Great. Thank you. Troy. So yeah\, we have an opportunity to bring forward any comments that the Board has at this time any advice. \nAnd \nDRB Meeting Room: what we can do is \nI think we want to answer the questions in the context of the \nDRB Meeting Room: the issues that we are asked to address as a board. There are 7 objectives for public access. \nMake the public access. I feel public\, make it usable. \nDRB Meeting Room: provide\, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and the shoreline. \nmaintain and enhance the visual quality of the day. Shoreline and adjacent developments provide connections and continuity along the shoreline. take advantage of the base setting \nDRB Meeting Room: and ensure that public access is compatible with wildlife through citing design and management strategies. So those are those are issues that we’re asked to \naddress for every project. And then\, in addition to that\, there’s a few other more specific comments that are coming to us from staff. \nDRB Meeting Room: How does the project proposal result in the public spaces that feel public? \nAnd does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people. \nDRB Meeting Room: Proposal includes both passive and active public spaces along the shoreline integrated with campus-oriented uses. \nlike the sports court and parking does. The sighting of these public and campus-oriented programs enhance and activate the shoreline in a manner that is inviting to public users \nDRB Meeting Room: what additional improvements could enhance the public access experience from the publicly accessible courtyard \nto and along the shoreline \nDRB Meeting Room: and that I believe that’s not correct\, right? It’s not a publicly accessible courier. \nSo I say that again\, what additional improvements could enhance the public experience from the \nDRB Meeting Room: courtyard 2. And along the shoreline. And this is referring to the large courtyard. Correct? And I could I ask if we do? We have a an enlargement of that area since that’s one of the main questions. I think that would be helpful to \nput that up as possible. given the increase in scale and size of the buildings on site. That’s the proposed design. Provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike pedestrian networks \nto draw users into and through the site. The Belmont Creek trail and shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adapted to sea level rise \nin balance with ensuring high quality\, public space. public access\, opportunity. So I know that’s a lot. we can come back to those if if needed. But maybe we’re just \nso we just start at the end of the table there. Stefan\, and we’ll work our way. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, I’ll try to do my best to go first. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think in a I’ll start by saying in the context of the other projects that we’ve seen in this area. \nI think that just \nDRB Meeting Room: from a starting point. The idea that there is new development that’s happening that actually can enhance the public realm is like a huge positive \nbecause the sort of the previous generation of development that happen in this area. It’s it’s ready for some renewal. And so I think that actually is really positive. \nthat there’s an opportunity to enhance the sort of public space in this location\, and particularly when there’s multiple projects that are adjacent to one another. \nso I I’m that’s I think that’s a big plus sort of a benefit. Here. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m gonna look at the rest of my my team members here. I the this one\, I think\, is a little bit tricky\, because the \nDRB Meeting Room: as I mentioned\, like the access in this \nlocation\, this is sort of not great. It’s not well connected. It’s sort of shoe horned in between the freeway and the other amenities that are basically on the other side of the waterway in this location? \nand so I think\, trying to sort of understand or look at it through. That context is important\, like\, what are we trying to do by maximizing public access in this location? \nDRB Meeting Room: I guess one thing that’s going through my mind is that the way that it seems to be set up is that it’s looking at \nassembling as a enhanced access point for the community that you basically can find your way onto the site with bike and the the 3 public parking spaces \nat the entry where you actually enter into the project that’s enhanced\, you have better signage. It’s you’re directed into that location. And then you could sort of get off of your vehicle or your bicycle at that location and find yourself basically into the the larger public network. \nso I think that’s sort of a positive it is potentially sort of better connected to the network than you would the situation that you have today. but I’m sort of curious or sort of looking at it through that lens of \nif this does become sort of a enhanced gateway for this neighborhood to get into the Bay trail system. How much public access do we need? \nAnd so that’s I don’t know if I have the answer to that. but it does seem like that’s just sort of my context as sort of how I would look at that. Look at this in this location. \nI think. \nso on one hand\, like clear signage. clear understanding of where you are\, what you can get to. that getting to the amenities in this area. You still have to take this kind of roundabout way \nto get there. But this idea that you’re passing through nodes to get you from 1 point to the next\, I think\, is actually very positive. there’s improvements on the Pg. And that we talked about. That’s also positive. \nSome things I’m sort of wondering about is To what extent can you benefit from \nDRB Meeting Room: having visual connections to the larger open space network\, even if they’re not going to be publicly accessible. \nAnd so I’m just curious about that like can the landscape? To what extent can the landscape continue across the parking lane. can you sort of visually be in a space? What’s the edge of the public courtyard like \nthat? You can clearly\, visually access that you would not be allowed to sort of go into And those things\, maybe. \nDRB Meeting Room: they’re not well communicated by the really great set of design that we have sort of in the proposal. So I’m curious about that. \nThe Sports Court seems like a great opportunity to sort of enhance public access in that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s a fairly prominent site. It’s elevated. \nThere’s an opportunity for habitat\, probably some views in that location. and I’m just curious if there’s sort of a way to kind of push the envelope there and \nDRB Meeting Room: and get some increased public access. \nin that location. So I’ll stop. Yeah\, thank you \nDRB Meeting Room: please see on \nyeah. Actually\, maybe 2 parts. one. Stefan\, in terms of your question about general accessibility and connectivity to the broader district. \nDRB Meeting Room: I didn’t. I didn’t hear it. I didn’t know if it’s a possibility that there is signage at the end of some lane \nwhere there could be something as simple as a trail map\, indicating all the trails in the area. So at least there’s raising the awareness of what the public amenities in the district are that people could access. \nand I think with that kind of simple \nDRB Meeting Room: amenity\, would help people really maybe become aware of and encourage\, and perhaps spread the word any. And then the second \nthing it is\, I guess I I was asking the question about the larger seating area next to the court sports court in part\, because \nDRB Meeting Room: in its original condition\, that it was at the end of a \na driveway from Shoreway Road\, and so it felt pretty connected back out to Shoreway Road. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, in its current configuration\, where that of parking on the east side of the property is really a dead end loop now \nstarts to feel more remote and perhaps less available to to folks. So I just wonder if maybe that \nDRB Meeting Room: seating could be spread out more. Perhaps there’s a a node that is closer to the actual entry point. Now\, because I think \nthe configuration really shifts all of the entry to the north end. \nThank you. Okay. \nthank you for the presentation. I I agree with stuff on your framing and understanding of the context. And Gary\, as you read off \nthe goals of the lenses through which we’re viewing this\, it’s interesting that the visual connection aspect to the bay or the regional connectivity are sort of limited by conditions outside of the \ncontrol of this project. And there’s lots of limitations. And so acknowledging that the focus of this discussion primarily becomes the publicness of the trail. And \nI think that’s really where a lot \nDRB Meeting Room: of the comments that I’m hearing and where I’m going to is \nthe tennis court is a real opportunity to create something that is an anchor for public shared use\, as you know\, in your presentation running. You even describe this isn’t necessarily a popular or doesn’t see the levels of use that you might expect. So having \nsomething that signals to visitors or pastors\, by that this is intended as a place for public use or rest. and it could maybe even paired with something as simple as a water fountain. Or you know\, I mean drinking water fountain or something that’s an amenity for a public user. \nI think\, and create that signal quite successfully. I really appreciate and enjoy the concept of the fitness\, nodes and the idea of thinking of this is a cohesive trail\, and you encounter these moments\, that kind of reinforce that witness theme. \nso I think those are really successful\, and\, you know\, can add an element of playfulness. It is where I’m getting caught\, too\, is a lot of this is. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, what could be perceived as \nbehind the building. Kind of\, you know\, we’ve all been in places that feel like it is designed publicly\, but still gives you cues that you’ve chanced upon something that maybe you’re not supposed to be there. So \nthink with \nDRB Meeting Room: signage or way\, finding that even \nalong Semlene. earlier on\, before you get to the trail to be able to have these signals. That gesture towards there is a public amenity back there and encouraging people. could go a long way. So \nreally I I guess the \nDRB Meeting Room: majority of my comments are about the power of the small moves of way finding or small public amenities\, and embracing those aspects more fully. But thank you for the presentation. \nI think it’s a pretty straightforward project. I think it’s well handled. I just have 3 comments just to add on top. I think number one is\, I think the tree would be nice at the trailhead. We come down Sam Lane \nto have a \nDRB Meeting Room: a clear explanation. How in the world are we going to get to the \nDRB Meeting Room: vitriol from here? It’s it’s quite circuitous. So \nsome may have explained that it was going to be a long way. Maybe a drinking fountain would be nice. Is it going to get the receipt by time to get there? And I also. I believe I’m not sure if the crosswalk \ncoming over from private courtyard it’s a traffic table\, but I think that’d be beneficial. \nDRB Meeting Room: And the third thing is\, I I just think this \nprivate sports court \nDRB Meeting Room: not very nice idea. I think it should be. \nI think the applicant should strongly consider the the benefit that would accrue to them by making that public. especially if it’s surrounded with fitness\, equipment. These are things. But you can’t. But why can’t I go in there? Well\, it’s private\, you know it. \nIt doesn’t disintegrate message\, and I think it’s not a big deal. Don’t let the public use that thing as well. \nOkay\, thank you. Thanks all for your comments. yeah. So steps. You can jump in if you have any comment on this. But I I I think that the work that we’re being shown is is really fantastic\, and you know it looks like it’s been \nvery well done\, and and and pretty thoughtful within these constraints. But I I can’t remember that we typically review projects without getting a better picture of what’s going on with the side planning of the buildings\, because\, even though we have a hundred foot shoreline band \nso that our per view is is sort of limited. You know\, the visual and physical access to the to the bay is really the major charge that we have. So usually\, we start these discussions by\, you know\, talking about the you know the arterials that serve the property\, and where the property lines are\, and what street frontage looks like\, and what’s your experience of approaching the building\, traveling down Sam Lane\, where the utilities and \nthe parking garage and and so I guess I had expected to to hear more about the courtyard\, and how that interface with the\, you know\, with the outdoor space. Is there a fence? Is there a wall? Is it \ncompletely open? And on many projects that we’ve looked at. You know\, there are building responses. And the what I think we’ve seen about the buildings is provocative. The buildings look\, you know. \nlike they’re really thoughtfully done. And sometimes we review buildings\, and there’s like a. you know\, like a recess or an overlook or kind of a third level porch\, or something like that\, that that kind of mediates the scale of the building as it pushes up against the the shoreline band\, you know \nthe Bay trail. So I I would love to. You know we don’t review the building\, so you don’t really have much to say about that. But we we do have the ability to comment on things that we think would improve the public experience. \nAnd and the buildings are so have great opportunities. you know\, for views\, and I just like to see more about how that interface looks\, because it\, although this strip of land is is very nice. You know\, there is a \nI don’t know. 20\, 40 foot wide parking lot\, and then and then not far away\, is the wall of the building. So. when when the project comes back\, and I think that it should come back. Of course this is just a preliminary review\, and these are very general \npreliminary comments. I think it’d be great to see that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So \nwith that\, I think we concludes our comments and our recommendations\, and the project proponent is welcome to make any statements or responses to those comments. \nDRB Meeting Room: thank you for the comments. really clear and very helpful. I think if the project has to come back\, then we don’t really have any comments at this point\, we’ll just address it as a part of the process. We’ll continue with this. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’ll continue working with stuff. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think. You know\, I I I personally\, I apologize for excluding the building. That was a little bit on me. I thought that \nwe didn’t want to focus much on the buildings and really kind of focus just on the on the landscape work itself. So my apologies. I think the other stuff\, you know. a map at some lane. Absolutely. It would be great to work with staff\, and maybe we can get \n210\, and you know\, to kind of. We can work together and have a comprehensive package\, because I agree it would be great if the district was was better connected for sure. \nAnd you know the comment on that exercise station that there’s another. There’s a passive note on the other side of that \nsports court\, which is equal in size to the exercise station. maybe that that wasn’t clear\, but we can clarify that \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the other comments are pretty\, you know. It’s pretty clear. \nWell\, I I totally appreciate your comments\, and it you know we it is kind of a gray area about what are you know what we’re addressing here? I think that we are an advisory group. We make comments about really anything that we think \nthe experience of being on the shoreline. And then\, you know\, it’s filtered through staff and the Commission. There are legal restrictions on what you know what can be \ndetermined. Yeah. But I think at this point I think we’re just talking conceptually about the project and trying to. you know\, \nDRB Meeting Room: make what improvements we can. And I think buildings are a huge part of that. And you know\, sometimes we talk about brood safe glass\, or you know\, reflections or \nyou know what is the you know? Shadows cast. you know\, from the buildings\, and so on. \nDRB Meeting Room: What one question I \nclarifying question I wanted to ask was\, I think you had a question for comment about \nDRB Meeting Room: what it \nexisting. I guess \nDRB Meeting Room: accessibility is in terms of \nfrom the main frontage\, presumably from Shoreway Road. It was it. \nDRB Meeting Room: was it what the existing view corridors are like\, and that I wasn’t quite clear\, because we did \nin the beginning. And and maybe we just kind of brushed over too quickly. But there\, there were some use of what the existing conditions are like relative to where the trail is in the front. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, yeah\, no\, absolutely. I I think. \nI’m just thinking that the \nDRB Meeting Room: the present you know you have. You did some big big context. And then we we went right to the shoreline. And I think this middle piece of the site planning and the building would be great to just get a better picture of how it all fits together. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \nDRB Meeting Room: that concludes our our \ncomments. And \nDRB Meeting Room: can we do we have any other business before we \nduring the meeting. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, okay. \nadjourned this meeting. Sorry my language. But yes\, I I am aware \nDRB Meeting Room: we can take a 5 min break to transition between the process. \nI think we’re ready to get started. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ll now begin our review on Agenda item Number 5\, which is the fourth review of the proposed San Lee Andro Shoreline Development Project \nfor the city of San Leandro and Alameda County \nDRB Meeting Room: to remind you of the Project Review order. We’ll have B. C. DC. Staff introductions and project proponent. We’ll make a presentation. \nWe’ll have clarifying questions from the board. Brief period of public comment\, and then the board discussion and summary. followed by a response from the proponent. \nSo with that \nDRB Meeting Room: just think all \nProject analyst will introduce the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Acting chair string. Good evening\, board members again. My name is Jessica Finkel. I’m a shoreline development analyst at BC. DC. And and tonight I’ll be introducing the second project for tonight’s review. This is the fourth review of the Stanley and a Shoreline development Project\, also sometimes called the Monarch Bay Shoreline Development Project in the city of San Liandro\, in Alameda county. \nDRB Meeting Room: Before I continue\, we’d like to acknowledge that the land in this area is unseeded. Lish on territory\, the ancestral homelands of the Chicago-speaking Aloni peoples. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay area. \nDRB Meeting Room: The proposed project is located at the Stanley Andrew Marina\, in the city of San Leandro\, about one miles south of Oakland\, International Airport\, and 2 miles southwest of downtown San Leandro and the San Antonio Park Station. \nThe Marina is situated between 2 other recreational areas\, oyster points so regional shoreline to the north and Marina Park\, immediately across the channel to the south \nDRB Meeting Room: to Orient you to the project site and vicinity. Here you can see Sam Andrew Marina to the west of Monarch Bay\, drive \n2 peninsula around the Marina Mulford Point\, to the north and west\, and Pescadur Point to the south. The portions of the project within B cdc’s jurisdiction are on the Marina side of Monarch Bay Drive. \nThis is where the project project proponents are proposing a public park\, some new commercial buildings\, and a new multi-family residential building to the east is the Marina golf course\, where new single-family homes and town homes are being proposed. \nThe project site is accessible for Monarch Bay Drive\, which becomes Marina boulevard in the north\, and eventually connects to I 8 80\, about a mile away\, and the site can also be accessed by a fairway drive from the south \nDRB Meeting Room: to provide some additional context about the current site conditions. This area to the west of Monarch Bay Drive is approximately 36 acres\, not including the water area and approximately 59 acres with the water area \nexisting. Commercial uses include Horatio’s Restaurant\, El Torito Restaurant and the Marina. In there are also public fishing peer and boat ramp\, and about 1\,800 surface parking spaces throughout the site. \nA few other landmarks of clothes like the blue Dolphin restaurant which has been demolished\, and the Sandly Andro and spinach or yacht clubs. \nDRB Meeting Room: The Marina itself closed at the beginning of this year\, and there have been some challenges at the site. Since the last time the Drb. Saw the project \nthere’s been an increase in vandalism and some other nuisances that have prompted the city to close Mulford Point and Pescutter points to vehicle traffic and staff is currently working with the city to address these issues in the short term while they continue working on the overall redevelopment plan \nDRB Meeting Room: briefly about public access facilities is on the site. The municipal marina dates back to the early 1960 S. And it’s generally been accessible to the public. But there are several\, as you can see\, existing Dcdc. Permits that provide for public access facilities. \nthe staff report goes into more detail. But there are some pathways and green spaces\, as well as the boat ramp and the bottom. Right off of Pescetera Point some public access was tied to projects that were never completed\, like the relocated boat launch on Mulford Point and the Conference center at the Blue Dolphin. \nDRB Meeting Room: In addition\, there is an existing On-street Bay trail segment along the Marina golf course on Monarch Bay Drive. That’s not connected to a permit \nthat segment connects to striped facilities south of Fairway drive and on Marina Boulevard to the north. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’ll briefly go through several photos and images to give you a general sense of the site as it currently exists. \nThis aerial view of the site from July 2022 provides a nice overview\, and it highlights that the site is mostly paved over. \nDRB Meeting Room: This shows the approach to the arena coming from the north on Monarch Bay Drive. \nThe proposed hotel would be straight ahead as you follow the roadway and the sidewalk on the right would connect to the bay trail and would continue along the shoreline north of the hotel. \nDRB Meeting Room: These images are from Mulford Point Drive\, looking towards the Marina\, heading towards the Bend and at the point. \nDRB Meeting Room: and these photos are from Pescatur Point Drive. They show the southern approach on Monarch Bay\, Drive\, heading west towards the point and the public access area and fishing pier at the end. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the fourth review of the project. The last review was in December 2022. \nAnd this is a brief look at an earlier iteration of the project from 2\,016\, which would have placed a lot of development on the Peninsula side of Monarch Bay drives\, including residential office\, commercial and hotel uses\, and some active recreation areas included in the public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: And this is the site plan. From last December \nthe major difference between the 2 16 and December 22. Design\, which is similar to the current proposal\, is the decreased intensity of development on the Peninsula with most private development. Moving east of Monarch Bay Drive and a bigger focus on continuous public access on the western side. \nThere’s also a decrease in the amount of in-water construction. For example\, they’re no longer. There’s no longer a bridge connecting the 2 points\, the beach or the repurposed boat slips \nDRB Meeting Room: at the December meeting. The Drb. Was pleased to see the private development was largely outside the shoreline band\, but expressed concerns about the rip\, wrap along the shoreline the amount of parking the landscape plan\, the lack of safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists and future sea level rise adaptation. \nThe Board also urged the project team to explore ways to activate the basin after the marina facilities are removed\, and to give the public a better interim park experience. The project team will describe the changes that they’ve made in more detail. But in general they’ve replaced the uniform lawn areas with zones for native grasses and pollinator gardens divided bank plantings along the coastal edge and interior basin. \nIt expanded the boat launch facilities at Pescador Point\, reconfigured the bay\, overlooked points and trails\, and added pedestrian crossings along Monarch Bay Drive to improve pedestrian circulation. They’ve also revised the facing plans to \nprovide public amenities earlier in the project timeline. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here’s a look at the community vulnerability mapping tool output to the area. The tool identified some block groups as having highest and high-social vulnerability as well as the census tract with highest contamination. Vulnerability. \nThe relevant factors vary\, but some common ones include the rate of renter households\, people of color\, individuals over 65\, living alone. Limited English proficiency. Non Us. Citizens and low-income households. \nContamination vulnerabilities attributed to things like the presence of hazardous cleanup and water cleanup activities in the area\, solid waste sites and hazardous waste facilities as well as an impaired water body\, which is the bay \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding potential sea level rise using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if a site remained unchanged. \nusing the Ocean Protection Council’s 2018 sea level rise. Guidance. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level under the medium to high-risk aversion. High emissions\, scenario at mid-century. \nAt this level there’s some potential for over topping on site\, as indicated by the red lines along Wilford Point\, as well as inundation around the edges of the peninsula around the existing rip wrap. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like. It’s the site if it were unchanged. This roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level at 2\,090\, in the medium to high-risk aversion\, high emissions\, scenario\, as well as the one hundred-year storm condition. At mid-century. \nIn this scenario much of the back end would be flooded in much of the marina area as well\, although some higher areas in the middle of the Peninsula might not be flooded. \nDRB Meeting Room: The San Francisco Estuary Institute’s adaptation Atlas identifies nature based. Adaptation opportunities along the shoreline. These are areas that are well suited for interventions or actions that can help both address flooding and provide ecological benefits \nat the project site. The Atlas indicates suitability for eel grass in the Channel shoreline Beach\, along the outside of Mulford Point upland title\, marsh\, and preparation for upland habitat migration. \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, here’s a summary of the questions\, and the staff report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. \nFirst\, please consider how the project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcd’s public access design guidelines. And then staff has identified particular areas we’d like the Board to address\, including\, does the Peninsula feel public does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s previous concerns? \nAre there safe and clear connections and way finding to the shoreline does the proposed shoreline protection approach enhance the experience of the shoreline. Does the proposed design adequately provide for existing and contemplated future uses\, such as fishing a private water shuttle\, and recreational use? \nDRB Meeting Room: And does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections? Before I introduce the project proponents\, does the Board have any clarifying questions on the staff introductions. \nActually\, I do have one question for staff. our purview is the 100 foot shoreline band. What about the water itself? What is our preview. With that \nyou may speak to any site aspect that involves or contributes to the public’s experience of the area that goes beyond the shoreline band connectivity from adjacent roadways to the shoreline\, but also \nDRB Meeting Room: a big water body that’s in the middle of the site. \nOkay? \nBut also\, if it helps \nDRB Meeting Room: it is so. They is a key part of Pcd’s jurisdiction. And so anything that you’d like to say about it\, please\, please do. \nhey? I think we can proceed\, then\, with the proponent presentation. That right? Okay? So from the project team today\, we have John Hughes with Griffin structures and Chuck Ardella from gates and associates presented. \nThank you\, everyone. My name is John Hughes. I am the project manager for the city of San Diego. For this project I’m going to be introducing some of the key goals and objectives of the project before I invite \nChuck Cardella from gates and associates to go through the design iterations that you see before you that we feel addressed the concerns and questions that we heard last time we were here \nto recap the goals of the project on behalf of the city. the city seeks to enhance the community engagement with the bay. Through this project this project seeks to mitigate against sea level rise. \nDRB Meeting Room: This project seeks to \nprovide natural restoration of a blighted site. Right now\, it’s a very\, very challenged site. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’re trying to enhance public access into the water\, not just around and about it\, but actually in it. \nDRB Meeting Room: and provide a park for cultural reflection. \nThe appreciation of nature and family enjoyment. \nDRB Meeting Room: as you may recall from our last presentation and the reports that have been provided to you that the the city has done extensive community outreach. We’ve had over half a dozen community outreach events we’ve \nsent out. I think\, 7\,000 emails to solicit interest. We’ve had pop up events. We’ve met with the Kymanu Canoe Club. We have met with the tribal community. We have met with the Lost Boat Memorial Society. \nand in all of that\, over 13 years we feel that the goals that we just listed represent what the community is looking for. that this project \nDRB Meeting Room: is delivering 100% of the bay. \nthe the B. C DC. Jurisdiction Landside\, B. C. DC. Jurisdiction to the community. There is not a single portion of the B Cdc. Jurisdiction that is excluding the community or the public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: 13 years of development negotiations with calcos development\, where you saw we have pulled out all of the buildings that we’re within the 100 foot band. Because we we share in your goal \nthat we want to bring the community to this park. And we want to take an area that has suffered for decades and turn it into a gym of a park. \nDRB Meeting Room: So with that\, I’m going to hand it off to chuck to take you through some of the changes. We’ve taken a lot of your comments to heart. \nWe think that they’ve really helped us and enhance this project both in the the phasing in the design and the aesthetic theme. and I’ll leave it to chuck to share some of that with you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, John. \nDRB Meeting Room: So to give you a quick overview of These are a lot of the slides that you’ve seen in the past\, just kind of overview of the existing context of the site location adjacent to the Oakland International Airport in relation to other green space around the community. \nDRB Meeting Room: this slide just shows the some of the graphics that were already covered\, showing the the finalized\, the face. This was the original plan that submitted in December \nof 22\, and so we’ll go through and highlight\, the revisions\, and what we’ve heard from your comments in the past. And this is showing the revised site plan as submitted today. And we’ll get into a little more detail as we go through these \ntouching base on the public access. So going back to where those existing Bcdc permits do exist. we are going to be taking those and enhancing public access and retaining all those areas shown in yellow \nas well as developing everything in green. There will be fully\, publicly accessible. there are parking lots as well that will be publicly accessible. and then there will be shared parking with the hotel restaurants and apartments and market \nas well. \nDRB Meeting Room: going through of what we heard and how we responded to Bcdc’s comments. \nThere were some discussions about providing additional circulation on the top left. So we’ve increased the circulation here. We’ve added a lower terraced trail system \nas well as provide an additional trail connection. The Bcd seeds trail system runs up on the west and north side of the Mulford Point\, so we’ve provided some additional circulation routes. \non the site plan on Mulford Point. One of the big comments was about softening the interior of the lagoon in this area. So in in lieu of using rip wrap\, we’ve been consulting with dill up with a booth and nickel \nabout\, planting the interior base of the edge with planting\, so all of the elevation within the interior lagoon will be planted and not utilize rip wrap. \nDRB Meeting Room: There was other comments related to parking\, and\, you know\, pulling back the the imprint\, the footprint of the parking lot within the center of the site. So we’ve shifted everything to the north \napproximately 50 feet and then reorganize the layout of the Hammerhead to integrate the Hammerhead layout into a public plaza that highlights the restroom facade. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ve also looked at some ways to activate the basin the lower terrace trail would utilize the existing grades that are out there now. We would maintain a trail along the shoreline edge on the interior of the basin. \nWe’ve also created an additional overlook at Pescador Point\, at this place. and then increased the fishing and watercraft docks by about 1\,300 square feet. \nat this lower location here\, where the boat R is going to be added \nDRB Meeting Room: from a connectivity standpoint. There was lots of discussion of increasing connectivity\, so we’ve included the additional crosswalks \nalong the roadway here. so that the residential development on the east can easily connect to the west. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then looking at creating some landscape diversity with the planting palette that we’ll get into a little further as well by creating additional pollinator gardens and habitat. \nDRB Meeting Room: So one of the big key factors of the design. So we’ve utilized the the Monarch butterfly as kind of the main design theme\, and integrated the butterfly wing in kind of this colorful \ndesign layout. You see here. and so we’re using that to mimic and create little nodes of color that we’ll get into a little further. But this is showing what has changed in the phase one graphic. So in the prior December \npresentation this was a very simple phase one\, and so we’ve taken your comments and integrated a additional overlook. at the northern part of Mulford Point. We’ve also added about approximately 33 trees where they will not be impacted by future phase 2 construction. \nWe’ve added that secondary loop path along the lower lagoon edge. the terrorist path we’ve integrated seating nodes along the exterior bay trail \nhere so that will enhance and maintain the existing fishing access that fishermen do use along the side of the bay \nDRB Meeting Room: and then working with Wra. We developed some native pollinator hydroseeds \nalong this area\, and trending developed this to be a very colorful in a playful experience for the public. So it’s not just a a barren field of hydrogen. \nDRB Meeting Room: We also have an interim overlook at the lower southern portion of Mulford Point. \nand then the the boat ramps and Kayak would be the kayak launch and fishing areas would be expanded by 1\,300 square feet\, as previously discussed. \nDRB Meeting Room: from an interim connection of phase one\, we would place a shared use bike path\, pedestrian trail on the roadway. Here \nthat way we are ensured public access from the existing bay trail. and then\, as well down to muffered points\, both \nDRB Meeting Room: looking at the phase\, 2 revisions \nof what we’ve changed. this is\, you can see the overlay of red items. It’s really hard to see at this scale just given the size of this project. but everything in red was the original December presentation. \nbut we’ve revised the layout of the overlook here to mimic the butterfly theme. That goes for the other posit that’s shown behind the Zoom toolbar. Here. \nWe’ve also \nDRB Meeting Room: pulled in the the plaza and the parking lot area at this location revised a parking circle \nthe secondary paths. and we’ll get into a little more of these in the blow ups as well. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is just the image of the existing Bay trail system that exists today. So we have the existing \nA on Street Bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive and the planned access out to Multiple Point \nDRB Meeting Room: as part of our placement of the Bay trail. We were still looking at utilizing a eastern edge alignment \nof the Bay trail. The reason behind that is there was only 2 pedestrian roadway conflicts with driveways on the eastern side versus the western edge has 7 driveway crossings. \nSo that was one of the elements we use to locate the Monarch Bay Trail in discussion with our engineering team. \nDRB Meeting Room: That Bay trail does come around and make a loop on Mulford Point. connecting back to a kind of a traffic circle for pedestrians and bikes \nto make that circular route. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then we also have additional pedestrian connections \nalong the lower edge of the lagoon. Here \nDRB Meeting Room: the construction phasing plan we touched debate a bit on this already\, but this was just showing those \nproposed shared. Use walkways \nDRB Meeting Room: at number 17\, and then 16 as well. So 16 would be a class 2 and 17 would be a shared use by claim. and those would be protected with \ndelineators and striping and planters as well. so that we’d have a a protected pedestrian edge for that experience from the public right away all the way into the park \nDRB Meeting Room: here. This is just showing the overview of the phase 2. Development. \nas we as phase one\, is built out\, these would be existing. and Phase 2 would come in and develop the entirety of Mulford Point. we would at that time do the final tree planting shrub\, planting irrigation systems. \nstormwater treatment\, and then build out all the overlooks to their 100% a development. There’s an overlook at this location as well as well as build out the rest of the bay trail segments in coordination with the apartment development that is being developed by Cal. Coast. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a rendering of the hotel development that coast is proposing. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this Graphic for some reason not showing the hotel background. But this building. The hotel sits within this white space here \nthe hotel access only that is the pool area. So that is the only area of private access at the pool zone is at the pool zone. There’s an exterior courtyard for the hotel that is fully\, publicly accessible. There’s no gates or fencing in between these. \nThis is the overlook in the boardwalk here\, and the bay trail comes down from the north and actually heads this direction as well. so there would be a seamless flow of \nthe public space flowing into the hotel. And through these areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the development of the single family homes and the town homes to the East. \nHere\, there. This is just showing the circulation related to the sidewalks that they’re proposing. and then the additional crosswalks that it will be proposed to provide uninterrupted circulation for the pedestrians and bikes to the park development. \nDRB Meeting Room: Now we’re going to get a little more into the details of the park itself. \nso we’re going to skip over this and go to some of the enlargements and details of signage. There is a at the top here which I don’t know if I can \nget rid of this. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here \nwe do have a bay trail signage and a number one is a gateway monument. So this is existing as an art piece with some Us. flying birds as well as a big Marina Bay sign that would get replaced. \nand we’d also have a public shore access and mile marker signage. Come along the entire bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive. We would have park signs \nas well as directional science\, to ensure that the public is very aware that this is a public facility\, and we’re not trying to hide the park from them. So we’re trying to make the signage as visible as possible and provide signage up on the monarch. They drive \nand then provide directories at key points\, such as the restroom in the overlook areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: So from a programming standpoint\, we’ve \nare developing a \nDRB Meeting Room: variation of on the pollinator gardens. So we’ve actually\, instead of a a solid hydroxide or \nshrubs and grasses we’ve actually focused in creating these habitat generation zones along here and using those to kind of play on the the butterfly wing theme\, as well as creating those highlighted focal areas \nalong the perimeters of these pathways and the nodes. so that helps create some identity and clarification as to entry these\, there’s some small pathways\, a secondary pathways of circulation through these spaces. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then at the overlooks as well as creating the the garden spaces within those overlooked spaces here \nDRB Meeting Room: the tree palettes would be developed further \nas the project progresses\, utilizing. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, the expertise of Wra’s landscape architects and the Restoration specialists \nfor this project. we’ve been \nDRB Meeting Room: looking and considering\, you know the views and not blocking views and then maintaining. \nyou know\, when buffers were feasible within some of these other areas\, because that was a concern as well. \nDRB Meeting Room: here we’re showing the develop revisions of the interior basin planting. So this is that coastal edge planting. So in lieu of ripper. \nthat entire interior basin gets raised and gets planted with landscape versus rip wrap. So that also goes to this protected part of the lagoon \nhere on the interior side\, and then all of the interior. We’re going to this place. The exterior of the lagoon. in discussion with Dyla cannot be planted or landscaped. There’s too much erosion\, and wave action that would lead to failure in those areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: So we did. We did explore a lot of options. And that was the \ndiscussion and outcome of those \nDRB Meeting Room: next just plant palette images. I’m sure you’re \nthese are similar on the \nDRB Meeting Room: from the last presentation. \nand I’ll hand it over to Liz. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hi\, everyone for those who don’t know me. My name is Liz Allen. I’m a regulatory permitting specialist at wra environmental consultants \nand we helped out putting together the seed mixed palette. So this seed mix would be used for the phase one in the hydro seed mix\, and it was designed by our botanist and restoration landscape architects. And it’s designed so that \nall of these species\, if you’re not familiar\, are native to the Bay area and are appropriate for this region. These color palettes have also been designed so that they won’t just be up during a certain time of the year. We selected species that would bloom consistently throughout the year\, so that color would always be present. \nsince we acknowledged that the phase\, one condition\, will be there for a bit before the ultimate project is completed\, wanted to make sure that it looked nice. During that phase of the work \nthe site will be treated ahead of time to make sure the soils are suitable to ensure success of these species\, and there will be irrigation applied as needed to make sure that these seeds do turn into the plants that they are supposed to turn into. \nThe other thing is this\, planting palette was put together with input from one of our Phd level entomologists who specializes in pollinator habitat design and she confirmed that all of these species are \nexpected to to attract the pollinators that we want to arrive so it won’t just look good. It’ll also be there to help provide legitimate pollinator habitats. What’s really interesting is that by clumping colors together. She told us that that actually is better for a lot of the butterflies\, including the monarchs that are known to occur in the area\, but we also were careful to exclude species that could disrupt the overwintering of the monarch butterflies that are known to occur in the area. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then on this slide. I’m going to talk about. What about the lagoon portion of the project? We heard your comment that you guys are interested in hearing how the lagoon is going to be activated. \nWhat we’re focusing on here is the fact that just by removing all of the existing Marina infrastructure our biologists on staff expect there to be a substantial increase in shore shorebird activity in the area\, because part of the reason this marina is getting decommissioned \nis the fact that the basin experiences high rates of sedimentation that mean that dredging currently was needed consistently because of that sedimentation without all the docks and peers. This lagoon turns into a really nice flood mud flat even during a typical low tide. Today it’s very exposed and creates great foraging habitat for these species. \nThe bird species listed here\, most of which are known to be mud flat foraging specialists. in our local to the Bay area. Some of them are even endangered. \nor on this state like us\, fish and wildlife service birds of conservation concerns \nDRB Meeting Room: the. As you guys probably know\, the existing Marina infrastructure has a lot of creos out treated wood that is known to impact water quality. So the removal of that infrastructure is expected to \nimprove the water quality of the basin to better support these species. In addition\, the existing peers provide predator purchase for predators that then preclude these species from being present. It’s actually a very common comment from wildlife agencies to remove predator purchase\, such as pilings when they’re unnecessary\, because they often \nthe predation that they have on the fish and the other birds in the area limits the function\, the habitat function of the whole system. the green that’s noted on the edges here is some limited cord grass that we’ve seen that was observed in the lagoon area. \nwe’re not sure but it’s likely that this chord grass is the non-native Spartina. Largely because this area is not a historic marsh. Even before this \nthe original fill went in\, and the invasive species tends to be the one that shows up where Marsh hasn’t shown up before. unfortunately\, that iding this type of chord grass and differentiating it from the native typically requires \ngenetic analysis or expert eyes. But we’re plan on partnering with the invasive of our China project to determine if it’s the native. or if it’s the invasive\, and if it’s invasive\, the project plans to remove that spark China\, to prevent it from spreading further. If it surprises us\, and it happens to be the native\, we are going to retain it in place\, but it should be noted that it’s pretty sparse as it is\, which further suggests that it’s likely that non-native variety or a hybrid with the native\, which is also considered to be harmful. \nI would also add that I specialize in eel grass. So if you guys want to talk about the suitability of eel grass in this area. I’m happy to talk about that\, but I can just I’ll put it out there that it’s not considered very suitable habitat within the basin for Yale grass. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, Liz. So here we’re getting into the enlargements and detail of the pieces of the plan. So we can further. Look at those. \nso here is Neptune drive. We have our main pedestrian connection. In order to accommodate the sea level rise\, we will be coming up in grade from about 8.2 up to 16. So we have an eight-foot fill \nthat’s going in in this area. So this we’ve looked at the grades. We are definitely accessible. we were looking at creating a different material. That was a comment\, so that the bay trail \nis clearly evident\, and the the secondary maintenance access to the Sewer pump station that’s existing to remain will be a differentiated. So there’s a clear delineation there. This is our project signage. And then we’re also utilizing the. There’s some existing palm trees in the road is playing with it\, utilizing that same theme to capture those palm trees and \ntry to maximize the view as much as possible\, although the grades will be a challenge in that area. \nDRB Meeting Room: Just quick sections \nwant to just fly through these\, so we can get through the presentation. this is the hotel. Overlook this. Everything you see here is publicly accessible. We did revise the design layout of this area. \nso the calcos development. The hotel lobby sits here and there’s a door here. The entire pathway is focused on the door and then to the lobby. And so we’re playing\, utilizing that theme in creating a kind of a terminus overlook at this point \nas well as focusing on the trail Bay trail alignments. So we’re kind of creating an intersection\, if you will\, in developing some places for large groups\, smaller areas\, and then \nsmaller groups down in along the edges. Here. We pulled this back so it’s not protruding over the water’s edge as well to reduce costs. \nand then simplified the overall design and layout of the overlook here at the hotel \nDRB Meeting Room: general sections. parking lot sections. This has not changed since \nyou’ve last seen it \nhere. We’re at the Overlook at Mulford Point\, at the knuckle. Here we’ve revised the Overlook layout to follow a little more of a called modern butterfly wing themed utilizing benches that create some nodes\, nodes\, and individual spaces in between these areas \nproviding opportunity for an art piece at this location. Here we have that secondary path that has been added that provides a little closer access to the water’s edge \nas well\, and then we’ve shifted some of the burns to provide a visual buffer from the vehicles as well as they come in through this area. Here\, you see this. This is the existing rip\, wrap\, and then we have our planted coastal edge here \nthis planting on the outside on the bay side. this would incumb incorporate the new rip\, wrap\, and then everything above the new rep rap line would be landscaped as well. \nAnd that’s what’s shown here on this section of do rip\, rap\, and then coastal edge planting on bay and on the interior side existing riprop with all new landscape. Where the sea level rise fill is required. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a detailed blow up of the revised restroom maintenance building layout. \nHere we’ve adjusted the Eva turnaround to integrate it into the plaza design and then created a focal point at the roundabout at this location\, so that we’re able to utilize this space and turn around both for \npublic use in public as well as for Eva and maintenance truck turnaround for this space. we’re also located the memorial here. This is the lost boat Memorial\, which is the giant torpedo \nwith some seeding nodes at this point of inflection. and then creating the habitat pollinator planting that’s shown in the bright oranges and yellows. Here again we have the additional \ntrail system that’s behind the building. and then our seeding nodes that occur\, but approximately every 150 feet or so along the bay trail edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: and those those are going to be used for additional maintain the fishing access. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is lower area the where the used to be just the giant lawn. So this has been revised to native grasses\, and then we utilize the pollinator and habitat planting. It’s hard to see. But underneath the trees \nin these areas\, defining those edges of the pathways. again\, the seeding nodes for fishing and public access\, and the viewing along the bay trail. \nand here we have the cultural overlook zone that would be pay tribute to the the ingenuous tribes\, as well as provide some signage and educational signage to the historical aspect of that. \nDRB Meeting Room: And here\, at the tip of Mulford Point\, this is the revised overlook again adjusted to follow modern butterfly \nwing. We’ve utilize that secondary trail since we have to go down from about 15.5 down to 9\, which is the existing grade. At this location. \nwe would be sloping down to that rip\, rap edge\, and following that with a bay trail \nDRB Meeting Room: pretty much following the existing rip\, rap alignment at that Point location. \nwe would have a sloped bank of landscape above that\, with some additional seating nodes along that lower terrace trail system. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then here we would still utilize a a large area of in in phase 2. This is not\, hide your seat anymore. This is actual shrub planting. \nof following the pollinator habitat working in coordination with a Wra specialists. \nDRB Meeting Room: We also have the landscape burns for wind control. We’re trying to maintain those at a \na height of\, you know\, maximum 3 feet. There is a lot of septed visibility issues with police surveillance and crime that’s currently being that challenge out on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here we have the Pescador Point overlook and boat launch. \nSo we’ve been working with the Kamano. Canoe Club of what their needs are for their launching facilities. We’ve added dry onland storage for kayaks. \nAnd we’ve increased these areas by about 1\,300 square feet of kayak and fishing deck access. In this location. Here we have the restroom building\, as what was previously shown. But we’ve added a additional overlook public space \nto the rear of that building\, so that the views to the West can still be had at that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is just the traffic circle at the apartments. This has not really changed since the last presentation\, with the exception of \ncoastal planting on both sides\, where fill or where Rip rap was previously shown. \nDRB Meeting Room: and at the lower part of Monarch Bay Apartments\, Pescador Point is just to our north. Looking here at the key map. \nwe’ve revised and simplified. This overlook to be completely on grade and then creating some pinch points for access\, so that those material changes so that the overlooks are clearly defined from the Bay trail circulation\, that these are movements out of the active circulation. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then just the general materials following city of Stanley Andrew standards for benches and trash cans\, etc. \nDRB Meeting Room: that is it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you for that very\, very detailed presentation. \nI can have some clarifying questions from the board here\, and I thought I would just maybe kick it off. that you know you’ve done an incredible amount of work\, and the graphics are really clear\, and I commend you on that. And there’s no question that this is the maps \nimprovement from what’s out there today\, and I think we recognize that of the comments\, or at least I recognize from the comments we gave you last time. I think you’ve picked up the vast majority of them. And I just wanted to. \nyou know\, with with that as a backdrop to say\, there is a couple of comments that we’re at the top of the list of the board\, and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment \non really\, the the basin. you know the mudsl and the rip wrap. The thought was\, is there anything that can be done to kind of aid in the succession of the of the mud. And \nthere was some suggestions about stepping the elevation\, you know\, like removing Rip graph and stepping the elevations. And I completely understand that you’re adding planting \nabove the rip wrap of the ripe. So it’s really not a criticism. It’s more in the interest of clarification\, complete the presentation. I I think the city did \nmake it really clear that\, you know there are lots of good reasons why you’ve ended up where you are\, and I just wanted to see if you could share that with the group so maybe that could. Just. I don’t know. We can \nDRB Meeting Room: get that out\, you know we’ll start and I’ll hand it up to you guys. So thank you for that. Yes\, we took that to heart. This team \nwent through an an an extensive analysis of various options\, looking at steps\, looking at slopes\, looking at beaches\, looking at ramps. \nAnd I’m gonna let Dill up from off at a nickel as well as Liz\, from to kind of articulate. The decision points as to some of the challenges associated with those\, and why we ultimately landed on the design that we have. But\, I can assure you that \nas much as you. We want to activate this space as much as possible\, as much as feasible\, and in a way that is sustainable\, both environmentally and financially\, for the long term. And so I’ll hand it off to maybe you guys to get into some of the details. \nThank you. in terms of the repr. You know\, it is a pretty steep. It was built as a Marina\, right? So this was an artificial\, artificially created peninsula\, very specifically to provide protection for a marina basin. \nAnd so the slopes are pretty steep. wave action is not very significant\, and so the rock size demonstrates that it’s generally small\, you know\, smaller rock size on the \non the inside. however\, something is needed. Erosion. Protection is going to be needed\, you know. If not rock\, it would be some other kind of hard structural elements. \nDRB Meeting Room: unless\, of course\, you bring in a lot of fill \nand flatten the side slopes. or you cut back into this. You know very narrow Mall peninsula that you have and so\, wherever possible\, you know\, above \nthe elevation of \nDRB Meeting Room: erosion protection we have gone with as flat of a slope as possible for the grading of the fill for the park itself. \nThose will all be vegetated. \nin terms of the basin. Sure. We looked at\, you know. We looked at bringing back some amount of recreation. You know. What can we do with sailing\, or or canoes or kayaks? \nit’s very limited in terms of its water depth\, availability itself\, you know\, you can see that that is not a rendering. That’s an actual photograph which shows the channel. \nDRB Meeting Room: it. It’s a high amount of sediment load. \nHowever\, it’s not high enough to sustain a pickle in Marsh that would\, you know\, come on its own. I think. between rising sees that our pay sediment and the deficit of sediment that we’re seeing in San Francisco Bay. There just isn’t enough sediment to sustain a build from a mud flat. So we do expect that the mud flight will continue Acc. Creating. \nit will probably very likely\, for the foreseeable future mid-century remain a month flat \nDRB Meeting Room: in terms of others\, you know. Yes\, maybe List can speak. We looked at islands. We looked at Beaches. We looked at\, you know\, large restoration projects. I think the project \nthe Marina project. Probably \nDRB Meeting Room: you know it. It were difficult to add a large restoration project onto a Marina Park project itself. There are other avenues\, you know\, so I don’t think the door is closed on future restoration projects. If there is. \nit’s Stewart. If there is a proponent\, you know\, and there is some funds to bring in restoration elements of title fringe marshes you can have for it \nDRB Meeting Room: in certain areas. \nYeah\, I can. There’s Allen again from Wa I can speak more to some of the other considerations we had. We looked into putting out peers that potentially people could launch from We looked at putting out Bird Islands. The reason that we didn’t add any public peers or retain any of the existing structures is directly related to the saltation that’s experienced at the site currently\, where \nthere’s concern that people would get stranded during low tide. Since it’s not just during extreme low tides\, it’s during typical low tides that the majority of that lagoon becomes a mud flat. In terms of the Bird Islands we looked into\, whether putting out structures for birds would be suitable. But from my project experience\, working with East Bay\, Regional Park district and other projects that are fundamentally restoration projects. \nyou have to be careful about creating unintended conflicts between nesting bird habitat and the public And so the concern would be if we put out islands. And then Sushi started nesting\, such as what happened not too far from here\, with least turns in East Bay Park’s favorite marsh project you could lead to conflicts between when they’re nesting and the buffer zones that they need. And so \nthis habitat is really suitable foraging habitat in its current form. It’s not highly suitable nesting habitat\, and I see that as a good thing for this project to maintain or not create unnecessary conflicts. \nand that same comment would be true for other restoration in the area. The existing choreographs\, regardless of whether it’s native or not\, does indicate that there might be potential for some fringe. \nOther cordgrass marsh in this area. But I do have concerns about whether it’s worth putting the effort of restoring that habitat in an area where the marsh has no room to move with sea level rise. \nAnd in addition\, I\, the other agencies that all have the opportunity to issue comments on this project before we receive permits. they typically expect around 10 years of monitoring\, of restoration projects like that. And that’s a cost that the city is not willing to take on\, and would potentially \ncause reductions in other portions of the scope. It’s just a major addition to the project to add that level of restoration\, especially when the longevity of that restoration past the next couple of decades is in question. \nbecause in the current form there’s a nice mud flat. But\, as Philip said. despite the fact that sediment settles really nicely here. That’s largely\, as I understand it\, to the shape of the system\, but that’s expected to reach an equilibrium\, and the sedimentation is not expected to keep up with sea level rise\, and so restoring a marsh here where there was not one previously\, and where it wouldn’t have room to grow up to move up slope just doesn’t seem like a worthwhile exercise. \nI think. supporting this area by just improving the habitat for the short birds which are known to love. The South Bay mud flats as it is. is A is a really great option\, and as I referenced when I spoke previously\, this area is currently too shallow for illegraph. It’s possible that by mid century that that’s a different story. But this is not too shallow for subtitle vegetation as well\, and eel grass is really the only \nsubtitle vegetation that that’s known in the direct region. I’ll add one more thing to that I forgot to mention earlier\, which is that lower trail that Chuck presented is intended to give people a better viewing opportunity of this lagoon to have better bird watching opportunities. \nSo so those birds that you’re showing they’re using the site now\, or some portion of them. Yes. These birds are based on local observations\, personal experience from Wre’s staff biologists\, as well as data collected on I naturalists. So yes\, these are known to occur either locally to the lagoon or in within a mile known to forage and mud flat. I \nwould expect it only a couple of the more common species\, likely frequent area in its current form\, because it’s has a bunch of infrastructure that attracts predators that dissuades a lot of these \nbirds from showing up as well as the nuisance activities that have been prevalent out there. It’s we’re focused more on the fact that these birds are expected to be more prevalent once the lagoon is a more naturalized system. \nOkay? So in summary\, is it fair to say that in order to do what the board was suggesting\, it would take a massive amount of fill which is beyond the \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. There’s one other thing I would add to that\, too\, which is that when it comes to the other agencies as currently designed\, the project is expected to be self mitigating\, and not need compensatory mitigation. \nTo bring in the fill that would be required to soften these slopes would require compensatory mitigation\, which is upwards of a million dollars an acre for cost. So it’s it’s just a it’s a massive burden for a project that’s not whose primary goal is not to restore tidal habitat\, but it could be a great opportunity for a future project proponent or the scientific community to look into. \nOkay\, thank you. I think there is great education for board. okay\, one other thing. And then I’m going to open up to others here. the that one of the early diagrams\, you know\, showed the single family home area. \nyou know\, severely impacted by flooding at mid-century. so I just wanted to. I think that’s something that is coming up more and more when there’s privately owned property in an area like that which is endangered where this may be beyond their capability to mitigate as Homeers Association. are there guidelines\, or for the development of that property? That will? \nOkay\, yes\, the the developer has agreed in writing in the Development Agreement\, and as the project is entitled with the city\, that all of the residential units that you see here are going to be raised to 2\,070 levels\, just like everything we’re doing on the Park as well as the Hotel and multi-family. \nDRB Meeting Room: So they will be addressing \nanyone else\, please. \nDRB Meeting Room: I have a just a couple of questions\, and thank you very much for the presentation\, and \nI remember going to see the site with Gary in 2\,016\, and I really appreciate all of the efforts that you’re making. \nDRB Meeting Room: 2 questions. One was about maintenance \nand about what the city is. \nDRB Meeting Room: how the city is expecting to kind of maintain this area\, especially with this sort of new approach to landscaping\, it’ll be helpful to understand. Are there other parts of your \npark system where there’s similar stuff that you’re dealing with? Or is this kind of a new venture? And then the other one was something that you brought up\, which was crime prevention. \nso sort of natural surveillance in the site. I’m curious about lighting. and if you could sort of speak to those 2 things which seem to be intertwined \nthank you. sure. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I’ll start with the maintenance. \nSo as part of this project\, the city has\, pardon me. put together a community facilities district to fund and finance the maintenance required for this project. \nWe’ve also worked very closely with the city’s Public Works Department\, who maintains their own projects. And so this project has been designed to be as efficient as possible for the maintenance of the project. \nIt’s specifically designed to be able to facilitate their vehicles\, their tools\, their contractors\, and that central node area where the restroom is\, is designed to also function as a maintenance facility where they can have real time\, access\, and immediate presence. To be able to maintain this. This facility. They have a lot of lessons learned from projects in the direct\, the city just to the south \nas well as across town\, and so this will be utilizing some of the the most late up to date\, latest and maintenance technology that we’ll be working closely with them to implement on the project. \nAnd there’s and there’s funding already in place to finance it in perpetuity. \nRelated to the septed principles and lighting. So generally. The park is lit\, you know\, within the hotels and the apartments areas. These areas are lit. \nbut everything within past this parking lot\, down into this area would close at dusk support to all the other park facilities in the city. These would only have. \nyou know\, possibly some ambient lighting as needed\, like around around the buildings. But there’s not intended to be full lighting at night through the park. \nDRB Meeting Room: some of the the vandalism issues don’t even occur at night. It’s middle of the day out here right now. So it’s not the night time. Only element. One of our things we are doing is providing vehicular gates. \nSo when the park does close\, these areas can be closed off to prevent\, you know\, after hours Rvs and side shows from happening out here. \nDRB Meeting Room: And we also have been working closely with the San Diego police department to design this park so that has maximum visibility. So \nNot only do the the the viewing goals that this body has for the public those same goals hold true for public safety\, so that they can have good sight lines throughout the park. That’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to minimize the amount of obstructions and keep it as as low profile as possible\, because that facilitates law enforcement. The gates have been located with their guidance in mind. And and and of course\, then in the areas where there’s parking lots\, there’ll be \nThe code requires that there’s continuous lighting there. So where we need the lighting for crime prevention\, we will have it\, and where we’ve been advised by public safety to close off the park at certain hours we’ve followed their guidance. \nDRB Meeting Room: I have a couple of questions. One. Could you speak a little bit to the eastern edge of the the marina and the connectivity of the \npublic access areas to that interface. And then second. and this is this is on buildings. So I don’t know how much of this is within the jurisdiction. But \ndid you have any consideration of providing \nDRB Meeting Room: retail or areas that would be accessible to the public \nin either the hotel or the apartment building\, and I’m particularly looking at some of those interfaces that are at the entry points of the apartment in the northeast corner of the northwest instead of \nedges that are kind of treated as buffered from public. If they could be enhanced through some kind of program at the ground floor of the building that can make it a little bit more inviting. So \nany any thinking behind the location of retail and public uses. \nI think \nDRB Meeting Room: I think you’re asking about the area right in the middle of the project. Right? That’s that’s grayed out that we’re not touching right \nfor the first question. \nDRB Meeting Room: On the upper edge of that is a restaurant called Horatios\, on the southern edge of that is an existing hotel called the Marina end \nthat is currently not a part of this project. There are\, however\, existing acts of public access permits in place that will remain in place continuously throughout the project. \nthose are under current ground lease agreements with the city that last for a number of years. and so for us to make improvements at that stage. At this stage it would delay the project as much as a decade or more. \nSo what we’re doing in this project is basically focusing on the areas that we can improve. the city is currently in negotiations of those ground leases to put conditions in place\, to be able to make sure that those areas themselves mitigate against sea level rise\, and the existing public access permits and requirements will remain intact throughout the duration of both the construction and and continuous\, so the existing condition will remain unchanged. \nDRB Meeting Room: as it relates to or retail. \nSo if you look on there\, you’ll see \nI’m wondering with the regrading of the public access improvements that are happening to the north and south of that area. How how would that connect? And it’s tricky? And and we have our civil engineer to explain it. But there’s going to be some unusual contours where you’re going to be a little bit higher and have to slope down into the parking lots right? There might even be there might even need to be a retaining wall. I don’t know but it there might be a situation where we have to raise the grade and then contour down to land where they are. \nThe good news is in in in certain areas here. They’re actually higher there than where we need to build or where the developer is building the hotel. So we believe that there are \nsolutions that are Ada accessible that allow for continuous pedestrian interaction in there. But it’s something that it does have to be further studied because we’re going to have some interesting driveway approaches to make sure that we are still maintaining the existing grades where we’re not raising the sea level\, right or mitigating sea level rise while also addressing areas where we’re not or where we are\, I should say. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \nDRB Meeting Room: retail. And other access. If you go to the other. \nthat that \nDRB Meeting Room: go to the one that shows all the buildings\, the whole\, the whole set. There you go perfect. \nSo number 3 is the hotel\, as you know. Number 4 is a restaurant open to the public like any other restaurant. There’s a El Torrido there now. So we’re essentially providing a new restaurant where an old one exists\, it’ll be open to the public. It won’t be restricted by the hotel in any way. The Associated parking for that is open to the public. \nNumber 5 is a market. So as part of the development agreement\, the city\, like like you’ve wondered as as is requiring that the developer build a market\, it’ll probably be a place where. \nYeah. it might be like a trader. Joe’sish kind of place. You see where you where we that we that the city\, believe that it. It’s it’s the kind of place a family can go to and get snacks and sandwiches in a picnic basket\, and then go to the park. \nor you can stop on your way as you’re riding your bike on the bay trail. Get a drink\, have something to eat\, so there’s a retail component at both of those. And then\, of course\, the hotel is open to the public. But it’s a hotel. \nOkay? \nDRB Meeting Room: And the hotel will also have a restaurant as well. \nYeah. \nwell\, first of all\, thank you for the presentation. Very detailed. And it’s great that you brought a team with with experts with you. It really helps us understand and have confidence in what’s being shared with us today. \ncouple of questions. One is. Well\, first of all\, I’d say\, I think. What’s I appreciate about the approach here is that it’s not your traditional. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, nineteenth century Park. It’s really looking to naturalize as much of this \nhistoric piece of infrastructure as possible. So I think that’s really wonderful. And it stands in contrast to perhaps some of this open spaces nearby. as such as kind of. It’s kind of a little piece of ecology unto itself. And \nDRB Meeting Room: I think you’ve answered a lot of my questions regarding your grass and mud flats and and things like that. So that’s that’s great. \nOne question I did have\, though\, was with the shore birds\, and the proximity to airport is that perceived as any potential conflict. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s not expected to create any additional conflict beyond what I already exist\, and that’s mainly because larger concerns happen \nI should back up. The mudflat. Specialist species are not typically the same species as what creates conflict with airports. That’s typically typically what we see is marsh habitat. And the actually\, it’s actually a good point that it’s another reason the creation of true marsh habitat could become the problem. \nwe’re far enough away from the airport that it’s not a direct constraint on the project\, and that the airport doesn’t have say over it\, and that also goes to the fact that this project sequence document is already complete. Where they would have the opportunity to comment. But no\, the increase in foraging habitat that already exists is not expected to create any new conflicts. \nand then maybe this is more\, for landscape is Has there been a study of the prevailing winds\, as you mentioned firms being put up. and how the prevailing\, how those respond to prevailing when? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So a lot of the prevailing winds come from the west. \nit’s typical in the bay\, headed towards the east in this direction. So where we’re looking at placing firms is primarily on the western side of the park\, so that the \nrecreation zones\, ie. The native ones. Areas are protected from the wind. somewhat. It is when I’ve been out on the site. It is usually very windy. and \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, short of building a wall\, there’s not going to be a lot we can do to it. And then we’re also trying to mitigate the pay attention to the Sept as well\, and not creating very tall burns. We’re looking at 3 foot high burns on that western edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: Can you go to the section that shows the \nokay. \nthe lower tier \nDRB Meeting Room: or the \nyeah. Oh\, you were. You were close. \nOkay\, if you look at the section there\, at the bottom there is about a 5 foot. elevation difference between the lower tier and the upper tier. \nWe anticipate placing benches up against backing up against that tier. Now we know wind has a way of getting around\, but we’re doing our best to kind of create a bit of a wind shelter\, so that the folks that are on that lower tier that want to take a break do some bird watching and sit on a bench\, do have some protection from the wind at their back. \nPerfect thanks. \nAnd this is probably a question comment which you start to address\, which is that? I think it was mentioned about the seating areas on the west side of \nthe Peninsula for fishing being every 150 feet. I was curious. There’s there’s a extensive other system of paths where there’s no seating or other kinds of amenities indicated at this point is that something that is part of future development of the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: we can definitely look into it. A lot of the circulation pathways inside was more about producing or or providing for movement. Throughout the park \nwe placed the benches where we think they maximize the views\, maximize interaction with the water\, and specifically on the west side of of the Mufer point. There\, where Number 2 is. \nwe have found\, at the city\, and just a personal observation as well as the city’s years of observing the existing fishing pier\, that folks don’t use it for fishing. They \nscramble out on the on the western side of the edge and fish out into the open bay. So rather than fight nature\, we want to place the benches in place the fishing availability where it’s best for fishing. That said we did it. Extend the docks at the launching the boat launch. \nSo if there was someone out there that loved to fish in that spot. They still can. But it’s our understanding that it’s not ideal fishing right there. Given the siltation and the in the lack of movement. \nYeah. And if I might follow up with that\, I think. But there’s other reasons for seating along the trail you mentioned the bird watching. So I was just curious if there was other. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’ve placed some where where we where we think they make sense benches are easy to add right? And I mean\, I can even see a scenario where the city observes the usage and realizes that certain areas might deserve a bench where we’re not \nA lot of it is observing how it gets used. We want to be able to allow people to enjoy the grasses and have a picnic and lay down a blanket. we also want to allow them an opportunity to maximize these to the views and the bird watching them. So \nthat’s kind of at this early stage. That’s that’s kind of our decision point or our our direct. \nthe and the way we’re headed\, I guess. But we’re open\, you know. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further questions from the board. Yeah\, just one more \nback to the water. I totally understand what you’ve explained. \nDRB Meeting Room: kind of morphologically\, I guess. so. My\, so my question is. \nis there going to be active management of this mud flat. or could anything happen? And are there bad things that could happen there would need to be fixed or mitigate\, or something like that. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m having trouble thinking of what bad things could happen. I think that what will happen\, as I said previously is that the depths will increase here\, and eventually\, mid century or late century. There \nmay not. It’ll might be deep enough for other vegetation or other habitats to develop like you. I can’t think of any concerns or management needs \nfor what you would manage\, for in this space\, and other than just making sure people\, I I guess\, because you mentioned about invasive species\, oh\, and and trying to encourage something that made me think that there was going to be active management. \nDRB Meeting Room: The invasive Spartina is really the only \nspecies I can think of. And there’s it’s extent in this location is limited enough that it should be reasonable to get rid of it here at this time. That’s not the case in other parts of the bay\, where it’s become intertwined in existing marshes. \nOther invasive species it’s really the only one I can think of that would take advantage of this area and those Mars species. Part of why we’re not proposing the vegetation is because even if they do arrive they won’t last. But the Spartan is really the the only marsh invasive species. That’s it. More of a generalist than the species it competes with that I could see arriving here. And I would imagine that if we’re removing it as part of the project\, that the city would see that through and make sure that if it shows up again it’s taken care of. But the invasive for China project is a great \nnonprofit partner on all those efforts throughout the bay to help make sure that it’s managed and eradicated. Where possible. \nis there? \nI mean\, mitigation project would have monitored and stuff like that. But we’re not in that category right? \nRight? typically\, the removal of vegetation. It’s possible that other agencies\, namely\, the waterboard and the army core of engineers\, particularly the water board in this case\, may ask for some \nmonitoring to make sure that if the Spartan is removed\, that it’s truly removed\, but that would be done in coordination with the invasive part time\, a project\, and may even be led by them as this part of the project. We’re not at that stage\, since we don’t even know if this is the invasive or not\, but we will be working with them to determine that I again\, I think it’s likely that it is. But since this is the only plant species that’s out there\, and it’s very limited. \nThat’s a pretty straightforward eradication project compared to what they usually contend with. It’s don’t have to discriminate between other plants. You can just go in and get it out of there\, and there’s enough. It’s there’s just not that much of it compared to other projects. I work on that deal with it in a much more challenging capacity. \nSo just to make sure I understand. dear an invasive maybe coming in. other species may come in after that\, as saltation builds up. \nand then\, as sea level rises\, they may go away\, and they may get back to open water with the R \nDRB Meeting Room: in a point like a 2030\, 40 years from now. \nAre you asking if it would become open water? Yeah\, would it be return to open water. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know someone\, I would say the first part to your question. Yes\, there will be some management. There will be management or debris at the very minimum. There’s going to be management of floats and and debris that is in the bay. \nthat the city would be\, you know. as part of their maintenance function here. \nDRB Meeting Room: in terms of sedimentation and and the progressive build up of vegetation. It’s \npossible that \nDRB Meeting Room: that the good variety of chordgrass. \nif it can be encouraged. not planted\, but encouraged. \nDRB Meeting Room: can lend itself to better retention of sediment from the suspended water column when tides come in in the future\, and so it could build its way out further. \nthat would be the goal. And then\, I think\, at some point \nDRB Meeting Room: just like with Bunker Marsh\, and just like with the other marshes on. You know\, this side of the bay itself. there will be collaboration with regional efforts. You know\, the invasive part on our project is a large project that is\, coastal conservancy\, sponsored and funded. Easter. A park district pays into it. \nIt’s possible that the city\, you know\, would become a partner in that also. This is not the only mar they have Bunker Marsh\, which is a very large one\, just out of here. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, I think that’s the adaptation at this point. It is not a \ndeliberate action to bring material in and create marshes\, because I think that itself is getting to be a pretty large action. That one was not covered in sqa to the Restoration Agency is really lash on to something like that and say\, if you’re building something\, you need to monitor it. \nand then\, you know\, there are \nDRB Meeting Room: our success criteria and goals\, and if you don’t meet those\, you know you get dinged for doing something good. \nCould there be odors from the mudflat that could be offensive? \nYes\, I think in the existing condition it would be the same as the proposed condition\, and that yes\, there are likely existing low tide odors from the exposed mud flat. But again\, with sea level rise. This mud flat is not expected to last to \npast till when do you think it will? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. But I would say the order issue is associated with with outfalls and discharge and things like that. There isn’t \na historic marsh here that generates hydrogen sulfide\, which really is\, you know\, the issue with many of these historic \nDRB Meeting Room: this is sediment that’s coming in. \nIt’s \nDRB Meeting Room: words and sediment that you know\, falling out of the water column itself. with the Bmps \nwith all the other stormwater treatment that is planned. \nDRB Meeting Room: The rest from outfalls\, I think\, are going back to the source system itself. There’s no so in general\, it would be far better than the Marina. The marina itself\, I think\, is probably the biggest source of condemnance right now \nDRB Meeting Room: within the basin\, so removing that. \nyou know\, it’s going to help with water quality improvements. \nDRB Meeting Room: And generally\, I think\, with the use an attraction by the local\, you know\, feel birds. \nand I want to make sure you caught what Dill Up said about the hydrogen sulfide\, because it’s a really good point that the rotten egg smell you typically think of with exposed areas at low tide comes from the sulfide that’s released by vegetation. So that’s why marshy areas tend to think more. It’s it’s a direct chemical. \nThat’s where it comes from. So he’s right to say that it’s I can’t say directly how what what the current state is. I don’t expect it to change. And yeah\, the vegetation is actually the main reason for that odor. All other odors are the man-made variety. \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s it’s a great opportunity. I’ll tell you this. If I had\, it’s a great restoration opportunity. I would love to do what I’ve done at Bear Island\, and what I’m doing in Hamilton and at Belmar and Keys and others\, you know\, there’s a lot of you know. There’s there’s a \na a complete set of different agencies and goals that come in with the Restoration project\, and I think bringing the 2 together at this point might offset the schedule for this project substantially. \nWhat? But I think we can still keep it open\, and I think that’s what we would recommend in the city that you know they stay open\, and. you know\, pursue \nDRB Meeting Room: double a grants pursue other sort of\, you know\, opportunities with agencies to see if there is someone who would like to create a wetland here. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I might add\, I mean\, the city school is to solve a problem now as soon as possible. \nand restore an area that right now is an attractive nuisance for crime\, and make it into a place that the entire community can enjoy\, while at the same time not doing anything that precludes us from doing something in the future that could restore this project. So what we’re trying to do is do the most we can right now\, and leaving the most available options for the future. \nGreat! Thank you so much for all that. That was one of the more extensive question and answer periods with that. so let’s see\, I think that concludes the board questions. Unless anyone has anything else. \nwe can open the meeting to the public public comment. If there’s any member of the public attending in person. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to comment. \nand if you’re attending online please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nDRB Meeting Room: There’s no public comment\, but we did receive a letter from Bay Trail staff that I will summarize at the moment. The comments have been forwarded to the board and will be included in the meeting summary. But to summarize the Mtc. Staff recommendations. \nthe Bay trail provided\, or should provide more of a loop experience than the out and back elements. Alignments that are currently shown with the high potential use at the site designing the bay trail consistently at 26 feet wide. \nwould be recommended\, the 18 feet being the minimum width per vital guidelines. \nDRB Meeting Room: all Betra are all proposed. Betrayal. Improvements be completed in phase one\, and not split between the 2 phases \nand the addition of the other trail amenities\, such as drinking fountains with bottle\, fill stations and bicycle repair stations would be much appreciated. \nDRB Meeting Room: And that concludes patrol comments \nDRB Meeting Room: right? And the letter was proposing essentially a trail on the inside of the basin right? Going around pretty much the entire basin. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, they. They wanted a loop experience. Not just the out and back. Yeah. Facing inward to the basement basin. \nOkay\, great. Thank you. If there’s no other comments we can move on to the board discussion for the board discussion. I’d like to ask everyone except the Board members to turn off their cameras so there could be a focus discussion. \nClarification is necessary during the discussion the representative of the project team may speak briefly to the clarification at the discretion of the board chair. So \nagain. I’ll just summarize The 7 objectives for public access\, make public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: feel public\, make public access usable. \nprovide\, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and shoreline. maintain and enhance the visual quality of the bay\, shoreline and adjacent developments. \nDRB Meeting Room: provide connections to and continuity along the shoreline. \nTake advantage of the base setting. \nDRB Meeting Room: ensure that public access is compatible with a wildlife through citing design and management strategies. \nAnd then \nDRB Meeting Room: staff questions specific to this project. \nDoes the Peninsula feel public and allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people space inviting with sufficient facilities to support public use. \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s concern about making the space feel usable and welcoming before the project is fully completed. \nDRB Meeting Room: are there clear connections and way finding to the shoreline from the Community and Monarch Bay Drive? Does the proposed bay trail alignment\, a long monarch\, drive Monarch Bay\, drive\, complement the current and planned \npedestrian and bicycle circulation networks. Does the phase one design adequately provide for southbound Bay trail of traffic? \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed shoreline protection approach \nenhance the experience of the shoreline? How could the design improve these physical and visual connections? \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed design provide adequate opportunities for fishing without creating points of conflict with other users? Is the design of Pescador Point and the boat dock adequate to accommodate current and anticipated user groups. \nincluding public recreational use and a commercial water taxi service. \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think \nI hope that works generally to consider all those factors\, and for each board member to provide their provide their their comments\, and then I don’t know. Ashley May\, if you feel like we haven’t addressed some of these adequately. Maybe at the end we can do a wrap up\, or something. \nDRB Meeting Room: Would anyone like to kick off? \nDRB Meeting Room: well\, I I listen to the whole presentation\, and and I thought \nI didn’t hear any part of it that seemed to have big holes or flaws honestly in terms of the basic landscape design circulation. I was not really in favor of what \nthe patriarchal folks were saying about ringing every single shoreline with \nDRB Meeting Room: the trail\, because I’m always more concerned about \nbikes and dogs and kids conflicts. so \nto support with some of those things coming up there. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t know. I I I just think that there was a you know\, a good good faith\, effort here to to address everything we brought up. \nI was awesomely impressed that Dill and and \nfrom Wsa. yeah. really thought this through\, and I was expecting to be like. No\, you just can’t just say nothing. Nature take its course. This is just back during it\, but I I am convinced now. \nfinally\, about the proper taking the part\, of course. So personally\, I’m generally satisfied. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, Tom. \nCan a building what? Tom? Saying? just thinking about this betrayal access issue. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m a little torn\, because. \nI think\, thinking about the Bay trail as a sort of recreational access versus something that would encourage all users all multimodal users to basically access the site. \nthe attention that you made to sort of orienting the market and the restaurant to Mulford Point drive and having that sort of be a new \nDRB Meeting Room: entrance on into the site\, I think is really good. \nthere’s a class 3 by claim there. But I wonder about that piece\, and about sort of making that \nDRB Meeting Room: it you sort of a multimodal usable front door for everybody. \nAnd that feels in many ways sort of more important than the \nDRB Meeting Room: Pascad or Point drive \nconnection in terms of closing that loop. particularly if that’s just a residential building in that location. This idea about sort of putting the public access on the parameter is \nmore in keeping with the way you think about the bay trail in this part of the same the intro But So here’s a question that I’d like to think about is \nDRB Meeting Room: in the next phase. \nor when in the adaptation strategy that you sort of think about down the line when Horatio is on the hotel\, basically turn over. Does it make sense to you actually shift the bay trail \nto the west side of Monarch Bay\, drive onto the shorter line in that location. and when you do that\, then is that when you actually want to get a loop created. So instead of bringing the bay trail \nall the way to Monarch B Drive\, now\, where the connectivity in that location may not be the best thing. Do you do it in the future when you actually can complete that loop \naround? the entire \nformer Marina. But does that mean that you want to think about again that multi-point drive connection a little bit differently. because \nDRB Meeting Room: right now it does make sense to sort of push people to the edge. But in the future \nyou actually might want to get people across Multiple Point\, drive along sort of a newly activated front door. Once ratios goes away once\, you know\, once that’s it turns over \nAnd if I follow through getting to the point that the maybe that makes the northwest corner of the apartment building more important than \nthe northeast corner in terms of activating that for future public use. \nWell\, while we’re on that subject? Can we bring up a an image so that we can see? So we can look at some monarch day drive. And some of these circulation issues easier to visualize. And and then I just wanted to ask \nstuff on \nDRB Meeting Room: You know\, they’ve they’ve addressed the issue of crosswalks that we that we brought up\, and at the same time the Bay trail issue that you’re mentioning requires a criss crossing of Monarch Bay to get to the shoreline\, because it’s on the east side of the road. \nSo I understand that the they all these driveway curb cuts to provide a conflict. There’s a there’s a diagram that has the little red dots showing all. Yeah\, if you go to page 18\, I think that’s probably the most useful \nsort of regional diagram\, or it’s page 18 in the lower right hand corner. Yeah\, that one. Yeah. Yeah. So I want to focus. And I think the other question there\, too\, is that there’s this breaking up of the big block. \nwe on the the hotel site\, and I think that’s beneficial. But then. \nDRB Meeting Room: trying to sort of understand? \nDRB Meeting Room: how that actually would be used. \nYou know the pedestrian access from the roundabout getting to the shoreline\, getting around sort of the front edge of those buildings. And so another way to sort of think about making that \nDRB Meeting Room: increasing the multi-modal access in that area would just be to rethink that section of of multi-point drive. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, beyond just a class 3 facility. on that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m looking at it through the lens of. \nyou know. \nDRB Meeting Room: if I took my kids to the shoreline on my extra cycle. \nand we needed to make that stop because they were hungry. \nI would just go to. I would. I would take Mo. 4 point drive on my bicycle because there is a portion of that where it needs to be a non recreational experience. but I know that\, you know. \nthere’s a great variety of sort of public that actually needs to access that point. \nDRB Meeting Room: How about it? Yeah. \nWell\, I I think you raised a good point\, and I think for me\, one of the the big questions on the bay trail was less the question of the loop and more the the continuity along the shoreline \nnorth of this project and south of this project\, as you can see from understanding this correctly. \nDRB Meeting Room: the bay trail north and south of us is on the west side. \nand so I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: I didn’t hear if there was any reason other than the driveways for not locating it on the West side\, because it just. It just seems to me that \nDRB Meeting Room: for reasons of continuity\, the reasons of not having to cross Monarch Bay Drive\, which is going to be busier than any of the driveways\, I would imagine\, because it’s cumulative traffic. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then all the public amenities are on the West Side as well\, so I think it would be worth considering and and seeing\, because I think it will feel more public\, Frank. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then I think the other comment I would have\, and this was related to my question about seating \nis right now. It seems like \nDRB Meeting Room: The trails south and west of the apartment. \nthe trails between \nDRB Meeting Room: the the the fishing\, the west edge of Mullfer Point and the hotel\, and from the hotel back up to the access point on Monarch Bay. \nDRB Meeting Room: They see all of those walkways seem very much at the scale of the car. There is the street\, there’s occasional trees \nand the amenities. The places for people to actually enjoy that space are very far apart\, and they feel like what they were described as which was kind of like through put places and connections. And I think that really the reality is that when you’re on foot \nDRB Meeting Room: people tend to move at a different pace. They look for interest and activity at a different interval than one might find in a car. So I think \nin the next phase\, I think it’d be great to see some more talks about that. It may be seating. It may be amenities. and I also think that there is opportunities for more cross connectivity \nfrom the \nDRB Meeting Room: the bayside to the \nI guess the the cove the question for both days. So the small bay on the east side to the the but the San Francisco Bay that there’s these parallel trails\, and it just seems like there’s more opportunity to provide connectivity back and forth. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then the last detail on that is \nin my understanding it correctly. It looks like on the south side of Pescador Point that there’s no trail there which? Yeah\, so and that’s that’s actually where \npedestrians are getting out of cars and buses. It looks like. And so\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: boat trailers. And so it just seems like\, that’s where people are arriving at the site. There should be a trail along that southern edge to connect everything. \nThank you. Thank you. Good evening. \nYeah\, I \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m \nI’m torn on the loop. But I guess just to start. Thank you for the presentation\, and it’s really\, I think\, amendable to see the before and after with the aerial\, how much gray and asphalt as kind of being turned over to soft space and usable public \nspace. The outlier is a little bit. You know\, the area that Leo is just talking about Southern piece does feel like it’s still pretty vehicular in its focus. And I wonder about \nDRB Meeting Room: plaza moment at the toes of \nthe southern trail\, and if there’s a softer a space that is made to be softer and more generous\, paired with that as \nmore usable area. And on the loop\, I think \nit’s \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m getting caught up on where the gray dash line is shown. I understand the re-grading and the challenges to connect \nBut I also think\, as pedestrians\, if there was\, if there were attaining walls or things that felt like they were cutting off access. It would make some of these great improvements that you are doing. \nbecause you would be forced as a pedestrian to then walk all the way up or find other routes. that are less convenient\, or make you feel like you should just get in a car and drive \nout into those areas. And so if there is a way for the lower trail\, forget what it was called the Lower Basin trail\, I believe\, on the northern side. If there is a way for that to connect \neven if not the higher ground\, and all of the extent\, I think\, that could go a long way in making that feel more seamless. and \nDRB Meeting Room: to the extent that \nthere may I\, you mentioned \nDRB Meeting Room: bike\, repair facility? Or if there’s consideration of those types of programming. I think the apartment building having one of the corners. \nand I’m kind of going back and forth now between\, is it the Northwestern. Is it kind of one of the other on the southern\, where you have already have the lobby and courtyard areas? just to help make more usable that space that is quite generous with seeding and planting paired with the apartment building. \nSo those would be my 2 kind of focal areas of. \nDRB Meeting Room: but really great and very \nreally inspiring to see with all the constraints\, and thank you for explaining all those challenges as well. \nOkay\, so I I have a comment about this bike lane on on Monarch\, and I I don’t know if this is a valid comment or not\, but it just seems like one \n2 smaller bike lanes\, one on each side of Monarch Bay instead of the 18 footer\, would be more. What’s that? A a class\, 2 facility instead of a class 3. \nYeah\, yeah\, I mean\, it seems important to have something over there for the scenario you describe stuff on. I mean\, I I \nDRB Meeting Room: I do. I would be concerned about trying to cross that that road on bicycle. \nIt’s hard enough for an adult. If you have kids. you know it seems like it can lead a problem. Anyway. I I don’t know how you arrived at that\, and whose jurisdiction it is to determine \nthose things. But that’s one thing. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then I think a lot of the other comments that I \nhad it been covered. Well\, I just wanted to say there was one comment about the single family homes would comply with the 2\,070 guidelines for sea level rise. \nand just wondering if that’s\, you know\, 50 years is an adequate lifespan\, you know\, for a single family home\, you know. I don’t. I don’t know if it would. It would ratch it up as the guidelines change\, or if that’s locked in it. \nBut you know\, by the time it’s built\, you know\, you’ll be pretty close to a lot closer to 2\,070 \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m not sure how. How\, again\, out of our purview. But it’s something that comes to mind\, you know\, building on sensitive sites that are influenced by the bay. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay. Are there any other comments? Or Ashley? Do you have anything that you want to \naddress? \nDRB Meeting Room: If you could speak more to possible user conflicts\, or if the Shoreline Bay trail\, the exterior Bay trail is meeting those needs with the notes for anglers. \nDRB Meeting Room: and pedestrians and bikes. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: oh\, And the \nboat\, Doc. \nDRB Meeting Room: If it’s adequate to provide for \nrecreation users and water taxi. \nand what that might trigger on the lands. \nI don’t. I don’t know if I I’ve seen enough detail and understand the scale enough to really be able to address that I mean\, we’re looking at this thing very globally at the moment and not. And these are \nDRB Meeting Room: questions about whether something is scaled or scaled appropriately. I’m not sure \nthat I can cover that\, that I would be that I have a \nDRB Meeting Room: valid thoughts on that at this moment. \nDRB Meeting Room: hmm! \nWhat about the land side services that would be associated with those 2 different user groups. Is there adequate passenger loading? What facilities might be needed on the land side to accommodate those different uses. If you have any recommendations for that. \nDRB Meeting Room: just to clarify what different uses are you talking? This is the water taxi plus the boat launch users. So the contemplated uses at the boat ramp \nare non-motorized small boats. Kaya. there is the Outrigger Club. There’s motorized boat ramp. There is a proposed or a contemplated water taxi. \nsmall water shuttles. and fishing. \nDRB Meeting Room: Got it? Okay\, thank you. \nIs it possible to see a detail of that area. \nI wonder if it might be the topic of a part of a subsequent presentation is helping us understand what the anticipated and intensity of uses for each of those different user groups are. \nit’s hard to say. You know\, water taxi is. it could be many different things. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think you know\, the specific design of that would be be helpful to understand what are the use groups and what the anticipated load from each of them is. \nDRB Meeting Room: on 1 point. I’m not an expert fisherman\, but I have to say I would imagine fish probably are not going to congregate around a boat. R. \nSo it’s there for recreation as was mentioned. So whether it’s fishing or recreation that \nit seems. Okay. \nDRB Meeting Room: there’s other \naccommodations of the meeting for fishing. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s valid point\, are there other areas? actually\, that we should focus on like this? Because I think when you see it at the scale and you have a minute to to to think about it\, that we can get better comments \nif there’s any way we can do this with without having the proponent come back for another presentation\, and they could work with staff on those areas. I think that would be better for my point of view. But but I think if \nwith your recommendation\, we could probably go either way. \nDRB Meeting Room: So if we maybe we could identify areas that would require some further study \nwith Staff. \nDRB Meeting Room: you can direct them to work with staff further on these \nspecific areas. and we’ll work with them on that. Okay\, I think we’re all eager to to move it along. Yeah\, I think so. yeah\, I think it would be great. I I think it’s a really important point that’s being raised here. I just don’t feel like we’ve had the time or the detail and the scale to figure to really focus on that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I don’t know\, I think\, are there other \nchannels for soliciting board advice on isolated items. I think we’ve discussed that in the past. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. \nI think we can reach out unofficially. And you guys are always welcome to follow up with the follow up a board meeting with comments email to us and we’ll share them on. Okay\, great. Thank you. \nI just think on the water taxi question. we we we could identify. The applicant could identify what kind of both can fit in there\, and what kind cannot \nI mean. \nDRB Meeting Room: and which ones are likely to be used\, and which ones are seem unlikely? \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further comments? \nIf not\, then that would conclude our comments and recommendations. And if the proponent would like to speak on any of these issues\, please feel free. \nDRB Meeting Room: just a couple of things. Thank you for your offer. I hope everyone agrees that we can work with Staff to keep going\, because we’re anxious to to get this project built. So thank you for that. \nThese are all very good points. I know the city also wants to put the bay trail on the west side of Monarch Bay Drive\, and if that ends up being a condition for approval\, we’ll do it. I will say to the point about the bay trail loop \nif you. We don’t have to go back to this slide. But what we are proposing is about 100% more bay trail than what’s in the Bay trail plan now. So we are adding Bay trail around the hotel where the Bay trail currently is not envisioned. \nWe’re adding Bay trail around the apartment buildings\, and the evening is over\, you know. So we take. We definitely take their points to to heart. We care about bringing bikes to the market as well. We. I want to feed my kids when I’m out there\, too. \nbut we are trying to maximize the bay trail access more than what the bay trail guidelines have given us. so yeah\, we would. And and the the usage of the of the boat launch. It is a work in progress\, we expect it to be the majority of the used to be the non-motorized craft. It gets very little motorized boat used now very little \nthat will get very\, very rare training exercises for the county fire to to launch. and the city is currently negotiating the terms and conditions for a potential water taxi service. But we need time to flesh that out. And so your offer to let that work out with staff as we approach the the final stage would would help us a lot. \nSo those are our only comments. We very much take your comments to heart. We want to maximize access to this to the people and provide a safe biking environment as well as a safe pedestrian environment as well as a a scalable pedestrian experience. It’s a very large space. We’re doing everything we can with the resources we have\, and we thank you for your guidance. So thank you. \nYeah\, thank you so much for all your really hard work and all the people here who contributed. Yeah\, thank you. And if I have Ashley’s permission to adjourn this meeting. I can entertain a motion to do so. \nSecond. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, I believe. \nPardon. Tom has made a motion and move to adjourn somebody. Second. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, if there are no objections\, this meeting is adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-7-2023-design-review-board-meeting/
LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230508T050000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230508T050000
DTSTAMP:20260501T001033
CREATED:20230509T051935Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T224211Z
UID:10000057-1683522000-1683522000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 8\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meetings will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with  SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nYerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center 375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3657 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83638159063?pwd=YTl1LzNjcWQ1ekFFbXZ6SXdQTlVrdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID836 3815 9063 \nPasscode460758 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nStaff Update\nB9 Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County (First Pre-Application Review)The Design Review Board will hold their first pre-application review of the proposal by BioMed Realty Properties to develop a new life sciences campus at a mostly vacant 12.67-acre site at 300\, 400\, and 301 Island Parkway and 800 Clipper Drive with three 9 to 13-level office buildings and a new 12-story parking garage. The project would make improvements to the O’Neill Slough Trail and create a publicly accessible plaza with public art installations\, diverse seating areas\, and native gardens\, and provide public shore parking spaces.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654 shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.govPresentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				Draft Summary of the May 8\, 2023 BCDC Design Review Board Meeting \n\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review. Design Review Board (DRB) Chair Jacinta McCann called the hybrid meeting to order on Zoom\, at approximately 5:00 p.m.\nBCDC Board Members in atendance included Board Chair Jacinta McCann\, Board Vice Chair Gary Strang and Board Members Bob Batalio\, Kristen Hall\, Stephan Pellegrini. \nBCDC staff in atendance included Ashley Tomerlin\, Yuriko Jewet\, Shruti Sinha\, and Katharine Pan. \nB9 Island Parkway Project Team: Ethan Warsh\, BioMed Realty; Marcel Wilson\, Bionic Landscape Architects; Ellie Knecht\, WRA; Geoff Smick\, WRA; and Cecily Barclay\, Perkins Coie \n\nStaff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update to the Board Member Recruitment and announced the selection committee’s recommendations for appointment\, Leo Chow for the Architect Board Member\, Patricia Fonseca Flores\, for the Landscape Architect Alternate\, Guneet Anand for the Urban Design Alternate\, and Cody Anderson for the Engineer Alternate.\nB9 Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County (First Pre-Application Review). The first pre-application review of the proposal by BioMed Realty Properties to develop a new life sciences campus at a mostly vacant 12.67-acre site at 300\, 400\, and 301 Island Parkway and 800 Clipper Drive with three 9 to 13-level office buildings and a new 12-story parking garage. The project would make improvements to the O’Neill Slough Trail and create a publicly accessible plaza with public art installations\, diverse seating areas\, and native gardens\, and provide public shore parking spaces.\n\nStaff Presentation. Shruti Sinha provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.\nProject Presentation. Ethan Warsh and Marcel Wilson provided an overview\, with a slide presentation\, of project goals\, background\, local context\, existing site conditions\, and a detailed description of the proposed project.\nPublic Comment. Gita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter. Submited a leter in addition to calling in. The comments included concern for the site proximity to the Redwood Shores Nature Preserve; the facades seem very glossy so please apply bird safe design\, and minimize night lighting from building and exterior lighting as it’s adjacent to the slough. Additionally\, she expressed concerns with the bio safety levels of the development and wanted to make sure the building is not up to a level 3. She also stated she understood the large plate design needs\, but in light of OneShoreline and other requirements\, it’s important to respect the 100’ setback and have a gentler slope like 20:1.\nBoard Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation\n\nClarification on intensity of site development between existing authorizations and proposed project.\nClarification on risk levels and applicable building code requirements related to bio safety levels.\nClarification on site vehicular circulation including loading access\, passenger drop offs\, and parking.\nClarification on location of lobbies in relation to the roundabout and ground floor uses where adjacent to public access areas.\nClarification on the public access space required by the City and if there is distinction between green/gray spaces and does it include/exclude emergency vehicle access route.\nClarification on TMA/TDM requirements.\nClarification on existing flooding conditions on site.\nClarification on requirements for an emergency access plan related to flooding.\nClarification on designed life of project and buildings.\nClarification on extent of improvements along Concourse and Island Parkway; existing bicycle circulation and access from Oracle bridge.\nClarification on whether developer will hold or sell site.\nClarification on food and beverage services and tenants.\nClarification on phasing of development and when public access is constructed.\n\n\nBoard Discussion. The Board discussed how the project addresses the seven objectives for public access found in the Public Access Design Guidelines\, provided feedback on the proposed public access improvements with respect to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise\, and environmental justice and social equity\, and addressed the staff questions listed below.\nThe seven objectives for public access are: \n\nMake public access PUBLIC.\nMake public access USABLE.\nProvide\, maintain\, and enhance VISUAL ACCESS to the Bay and shoreline.\nMaintain and enhance the VISUAL QUALITY of the Bay\, shoreline\, and adjacent developments.\nProvide CONNECTIONS to and CONTINUITY along the shoreline.\nTake advantage of the BAY SETTING.\nEnsure that public access is COMPATIBLE WITH WILDLIFE through siting\, design\, and management strategies.\n\nStaff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration: \n\nHow does the project proposal result in public spaces that “feel public\,” and does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people?\nWhat additional improvements would improve the public access experience to and along the shoreline?\nAre the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adaptive to sea level rise in balance with ensuring high-quality public access opportunities?\nDoes the design provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike/pedestrian networks to draw users into and through the site to the O’Neill Slough Trail and shoreline?\n\n\nSummary of Key Issues\n\nSite Design\n\nThe site is located in a particularly ecologically interesting place with the nearby nature preserve and existing habitat value. It is hard to reconcile a much-loved recreation complex\, the ecological significance\, and the proposed massing and paving of the project immediately adjacent to those uses.\nThere is so much building on site that the vehicular circulation doubles as the public walkways. The Board questioned whether this would truly feel like a public space. The 25’ foot path is really adjacent to the building face. There needs to be a greater horizontal buffer and mediation between building mass and the public access area at the ground plane – use bigger trees to lower perception of adjacent buildings.\nThe project should be consistent with larger regional goals and ecological wellbeing of the area. The site is tight and developing a site so heavily doesn’t leave room for adaptation and creates a situation that will demand a future levee and there are already so many levees.\nThe Board understands the pressures\, complexity\, and numbers for development but it’s the DRB’s job to push back to maximize public benefit. Board recommends pulling Building 2 away from the shoreline to relieve the pinch point\, provide greater buffer for public spaces and habitat\, and provide greater capacity for future adaptation for sea level rise. Consider shifting building towards the road or changing configuration of drop off to create space. Until you have an adaptation strategy\, maintain the space and capacity for future adaptation.\nPublic Comment letter: Understand needs for large plate design\, but in consideration of the OneShoreline and other requirements – it’s important to respect the 100’ setback and have a gentler slope like 20:1. \n\nThere is a lot of parking\, it seems that there is 1 spot per employee (400 SF/employee). Explore opportunities to reduce number of parking spaces and define shared needs between Campus and City uses. Parking demands for the Campus and City uses don’t seem incompatible and could be better coordinated. For example\, can more City parking be accommodated within the garage outside of business hours?\nThe Public Access seems to be encroaching into the marsh where typically we want to give more buffer to sensitive areas.\nBuildings\n\nThe public frontage along the promenade needs animation and an active ground floor use seems unlikely as shown. Explore a layered approach or give more attention to ground plane and the building edges: create seating areas\, explore articulation of façade to provide depth\, and enhance areas of landscaping to make it a more interesting experience. A more permeable design could benefit the project in terms of complementary ground floor uses (cafes etc.) that may benefit the overall project.\nThe height of the buildings compared to what is immediately adjacent is concerning. What is happening with shadows and public space? There is good southern/western exposure\, but what happens with the wind? It is necessary to understand and design with the microclimates of public access areas.\nPublic Comment Letter: The facades seem very glossy. This site is adjacent to the Redwood Shores Nature Preserve; maintain bird safe design\, and minimize night lighting from building and exterior lighting as it’s adjacent to the slough.\n\n\n\n\nCirculation. The introduction of more connectivity along slough is welcome. This is not the Bay Trail but it directly connects into the trail network and is well used even as an unimproved trail.\nSite Arrival\n\nThe scale of the north vehicle drop off is not necessary and should not be used as the placemaking feature of the site. Central entry/drop off should be minimized.\nWhen driving to the site from Island Parkway\, the first entry you encounter is the entry into the parking structure and it doesn’t feel like an entry experience. With the size of the garage and the assumption that employees will be driving themselves\, explore reducing the size of the north drop off area and enhancing the south arrival point. There is a lot of current use at the existing surface lot; explore enhancing this arrival point.\n\n\nOnsite Circulation\n\nExplore the opportunities of reducing the surface lot and shrinking the north drop off to create more significant public spaces\, improve connections\, and allow for a softer slope at the shoreline. The city-owned parking lot should be a more significant connection to the Bay Trail at the south. The public access terminates at the garage.\nThere’s a clear opportunity with a 12-story garage to reduce the need for surface parking; project needs to identify the needs for all the site use. Explore reducing the size of the surface lot in order to provide better connections with the trail network and the Bay Trail.\nIt is strange to see a public walkway turn into the loading dock of buildings. Board questioned if approaching from the street\, does someone really want to cross the loading areas.\n\n\nStreet Circulation\n\nThe Board questioned why Island Parkway was so wide.\nThe Board noted the potential for conflict where cycle tracks cross vehicular areas\, explore moving track or going with conventional lanes on north side of Concourse.\n\n\nShoreline Protection\n\nA slope of 2:1 for a living shoreline is not something you would consider as a natural geomorphic slope for an edge and will limit ecological value. With sea level rise. the higher marsh plants may migrate up\, but the lower portions may not facilitate lower marsh migration.\nThe plant palette does not seem to be native or appropriate for marsh.\nThe Board wanted clarification on whether the elevations shown accounted for settlement.\nThe Board recommends consideration of other flooding sources beyond shoreline overtopping\, ensure higher water levels are being studied.\nThe Board stated it is important to frame plans in the context of bigger adaptation strategies for the sloughs.\nThe Board wants to see the plans and sections. Water comes in from all directions.\n\n\nPublic Access\n\nThe Board supported the opportunity of creating a more open and welcoming public access along the slough. There are a lot of amenities and opportunity for a good landscape.\nThe Plan is generally consistent with BCDC guidelines albeit scrunched up and tight. Ensure adaptative capacity.\nThe Board requested clarification on whether the Master Plan envisioned an EVA counting toward public access.\nThe deck is an effective focal point/terminus. As the frame/bird blind comes to life\, explore additional uses/animations to provide more justification. The precedent image of the bird blind is interesting\, but question whether the design is appropriate to this project.\n\n\nCommunity Engagement. No environmental groups listed on interested parties; since the Sierra Club wrote a leter\, we encourage reaching out to them.\nThe Design Review board directed the project to come back for a second review. \n\n\n\n\n\nMeeting Adjournment. Vice Chair Strand made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Member Hall. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 PM.\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Video Recording & Transcript\n				\n \nTranscript \nDRB Meeting Room: Board members. Please speak directly into the microphone in front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. \nAnd please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on\, but your audio is disabled. \nOkay\, thank you\, Ashley. \nDRB Meeting Room: So let’s start the meeting. Welcome everyone. My name is Jacinda Mccann and I’m. The chair of the B. Cdc’s Design Review Board \nI’m located here at the Metro Center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and those who may be participating online. Although I think we have everyone here \nwhich is terrific. Our first order of business is to call the role board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond\, and then mute yourselves again after responding. Can you call the rolls. Please \nchair\, Mccann. Present vice-chair string \nboard Member Battalion. Is it? Board? Member Hall present board Member Pellegrini right and staff attending tonight. Are myself Ashley\, Tamerlan. \nYeri Jewett Katherine Penn and Trouti-senha \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, very good. \nWe have a quorum. So we at the meeting up. \nSo thanks\, Ashley. \nDRB Meeting Room: Let’s \nstart with some instruction. and i’m going to read them\, because quite long. So I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible \nfor everyone who is participating online and in the meeting room. please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise for board members. If you have a webcam. Please make sure that it is on. So everyone can see you \nfor members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period this evening. You will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nDRB Meeting Room: for members of the public who are attending our meeting in person in our Headquarters building. Please complete a comment card found at the meeting room door. \nThe Board Secretary will call you up to the podium for public comments \nDRB Meeting Room: wearing masks is optional\, but recommended in this building. \nyou will be asked to come up to the podium one at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nIf you are new to zoom and you join our meeting. The zoom application\, click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised. If you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. \nWe will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are raised during the public comment period for each process. \nDRB Meeting Room: After you are called on you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nPlease state your name. An affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. but everyone has a responsibility to add in a civil Atlanta. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abuse its language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission for online public comments. Please note that we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled \nDRB Meeting Room: if you are attending the meeting in person on the Zoom. If excuse me if you’re intending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists \naudio. For in-person Panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced to individual panelists videos. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties. List to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects. \nplease call or email Ashley\, Tommy and his contact information the screen\, and can also be found on the \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, every now and again you’ll hear me refer to the meeting host. \nYuri. you’re use our B Cdc. And up Bcbc. Staff are acting as hosts for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us needed. And now the Board secretary will provide us staff. \nThank you\, Chair Mccan. I do have a couple of updates tonight. First\, an update on the board member recruitment. The selection committee has been busy over the last few months working on identifying candidates to recommend for the board and alternate opening. \nWe received 17 sets of qualifications\, and interviewed 10 candidates for the 4 openings. The committee has the following recommendations for appointments. \nVo chao of som for the architect\, board member. Patricia Fonzeka Flores\, formerly with a calm Esa and Wendy for the landscape architect\, alternate \nthe neat amount of site lab for the urban design alternate. and Cody Anderson from Sherwood for the engineer alternate. You will be giving\, with the recommendations to the chair of the Commission \nfor concurrence at the May eighteenth meeting\, and the new appointees should begin their terms in June. \nDRB Meeting Room: Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, June Fifth. \nand will be a review of the Port of Oakland\, Middle Harbor\, Shoreline Park\, Seventh Street Connection. This was previously went to the Board last October \nDRB Meeting Room: for newly reopened public access. The breakwater trail at Loch Lom and Marina and Janathob has recently reopened \nthe project\, raised the elevation of the trail 2 and a half feet to 9.5\, and installed a 100 foot long boardwalk with bird viewing platform \nfor for project updates. We have 3 previously reviewed projects going to the Commission for permits in May and June. Oyster Point phases 3 and 4 in South San Francisco. 5 5 7\, Bashore and Redwood City\, and 7 7 7 airport Boulevard and Berlin game are scheduled to be presented to the Commission in the upcoming meeting. \nThat\, concludes the staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board\, and if there are none. then we can move on to the next item. \nI’m just going to jump in for a minute. So our board members and I first of all just want to say thank you to Ashley and Gary Gary for being on the interview committee with me and Ashley for organizing quite a series of \ncomplex scheduling to get everyone together for the interviews. and we had really high quality candidates. I just want to thank all of you for putting forward ideas \nit makes. And so I think you know\, we’ve got a \nDRB Meeting Room: a slate here of recommendation recommended candidates that are really going to see the Board through into the next era \nboard. Members \nthat of a sort of roll off in coming years roll off so to be able to have this \nany comments from anyone. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, anyway\, thanks for you to\, since it for \nthe charge\, and we’re super happy with how it turned out\, and as he said. we’ve got a couple of people who are going to really show up. you know\, are going to bring a lot. \nThis conversation. looking forward to that being a deeper in. \nYeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: very happy about that. \nAnd so actually\, these will be likely approved\, and the candidates will be\, or these recommended candidates are being notified. Yes. not yet. They have been notified. They stated that they were still interested in serving\, and so we brought the recommendations here\, and then the recommendations will go to the Commission \non the administrative listing or the chairs report\, so it’s \nthere. There will not be a vote on it. \nAnd so\, just thinking in terms of timeline\, we might be able to see the architect at our \nDRB Meeting Room: July\, June\, July\, possibly June\, but certainly July \nfor meetings. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, the terms are supposed to start in June\, and the June Drb. Is June sixth\, so that might be a tight turnaround. That’s what July meeting. I would definitely want to have the architect on board. Yeah. \nExcellent. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: good. \nSo we’ll move to the next item on the agenda\, which is public comment on what on the board Secretary’s report. If anyone attending \nyeah online would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak and remember all of the guidelines that I just said before\, is there anyone raising their hands for public comments? \nWe have no public comments. Okay\, thanks very much. Good. Okay\, that gets all of the administrative things out of the way\, and we can move to the next agenda item\, which is the first review of B. 9 Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project in Belmont. \nand really appreciate being the team here in person. \nDRB Meeting Room: and we will begin our review on the gender item. For now it’s this: it’s the \nfirst review correct correct \nDRB Meeting Room: of B. 9 Island Parkway development in San Mateo County. So we will be doing the following here in terms of the review. There’ll be a staffer introduction\, followed by the project proponent presentation. \nfollowed by board\, clarifying questions in public comments. then board\, discussion and summary. and then a project proponent respond to brief response optional. But \nyou know\, always welcome. And with that the B Cdc. Permanent analyst\, shudy Sinha will introduce to\, thanks to thanks a shreddy. Go ahead. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Chair Mccain. \nWe just need a couple of more minutes. \nBeen a while. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you again. Chair\, Mcken\, and Good Evening Design Review Board Members. \nMy name is Shrizi Sinha\, and I am a shoreline development analyst. At Dcdc. Before I present the staff introduction. I would like to remind the project team and staff to please turn on your video when you are speaking or answering questions. \nWhen you are not actively engaged with the board. Please turn off your video and mute your microphone so that you minimize distractions on screen. \nDRB Meeting Room: And now i’d like to introduce the project for tonight’s review\, which is the redevelopment of a 12.6 acre\, former oracle campus\, located at 300 301 \nand 400 island pathway\, and 800 Clifford drives. \nDRB Meeting Room: This project is proposed by developer \nbiomed realty. Biomed realty has submitted its application to the the city of Belmont\, received comments and just recently resubmitted an update to their application. \nThe city of Dumont will commence the Sqla Environmental Review process this spring \nDRB Meeting Room: Tonight is the project’s first Drb Review. \nDRB Meeting Room: We would like to begin by acknowledging that the project area was once \nwater and historic tidal flats located near Lampson. The unseeded ancestral homeland of the Ramitosh Boloni. we offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples \nwho are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the bay area. \nDRB Meeting Room: The project is located in the city of Belmont\, just outside of the redwood shore’s waterfront community. \nIt sits at the confluence of Foster City\, Belmont and Redwood City. It also sits at the confluence of the O’neal and Belmont sleeves. The 2 schools wrap around the properties surrounding the project site such that they create a moat-like enclosure of the area\, within. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this area is called Island Park\, by the project that developed the area in the Mid 80 S. \nDRB Meeting Room: The site is surrounded by office campuses\, a Hotel\, and a residential community. \nTo the north\, to the southwest is the Belmont Sports Complex\, owned by the city of belmont \nDRB Meeting Room: pedestrian and bicycle access to this so-called island is provided \nby 3 foot bridges\, circled in yellow along the south of Islands Park. also circled in yellow\, is the land bridge to the northwest of Island Park and the Bay trail at the northeast. \nDRB Meeting Room: The only vehicular access to Island Park is provided \nvia Island Parkway. A pile supported 5 Lane Bridge. \nDRB Meeting Room: which crosses over O’neal’s food from the south\, and terminates at the project site. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here’s some regional context for public parks and trails. \nThis map is taken from the Bay Trail Division of the Metropolitan Transportation. The Bay Trail is shown in dark green. Note that no portion of the bay trail lies within the project site. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map doesn’t show it\, but there is a short line pedestrian path within the project limits \nit. It is an approximately 500 linear foot segment of what is locally called the O’neal Flu Trail. \nDRB Meeting Room: This slide contains\, if you cite photos taken by the applicant. \nDRB Meeting Room: except for the public streets and a parking lot owned by the city of Beaumont. The project site is unimproved for public use. \nExisting use of the site includes pedestrian traffic along the Project’s northwestern Shoreline via the O’neal Free Trail\, and parking on the 400 Island Parkway parcel. \nAssociated with events at the Sports complex. \nDRB Meeting Room: the existing permit was issued to the Oracle Corporation. \nDRB Meeting Room: Although Oracle built out the buildings that exist today \nat 3 0 1 4\, one and 501 Island Parkway\, it did not construct the buildings authorized for 300 400 islands. Approximately half of \nthe authorized project was never built out. \nDRB Meeting Room: Likewise\, the public access conditions required by the permit \nseem to have only been partially fulfilled. based on recent satellite imagery. It appears that some of the above-mentioned public access requirements were implemented and exist today some were implemented and later abandoned\, and others \nwere never implemented. \nJust \nDRB Meeting Room: slide. \nI’ll try to go through the several \nDRB Meeting Room: public access requirements in the existing permit to give you a sense of \nwhat the Commission thought was commensurate with the type of development that would cover this area. \nSo \nDRB Meeting Room: so these are the addresses. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the \nthe shoreline band. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the trail. \nIt’s a pedestrian path that was supposed to go all around the island. \nDRB Meeting Room: and it’s mostly built out \nin one way in one form or another. \nDRB Meeting Room: over a 100\,000 square feet of landscaping was also required. \nA raised turf area at the the Cul de Sacs. a on either side of Concourse Place. \nDRB Meeting Room: 5 foot wide\, bike lanes on Concourse and Island parkways. \nDRB Meeting Room: If I put wide access path to the Bridge plaza. \nDRB Meeting Room: public shore\, parking along \nConcourse Place and \n80 evening and weekend parking spaces in the 400 Island park\, wait lot for \nDRB Meeting Room: for events associated with the sports complex \nDRB Meeting Room: 2 foot bridges \nacross Onio\, Flu and Delamont flu \nDRB Meeting Room: 10 foot wide and 8 foot wide. \nDRB Meeting Room: and that appears to be it. \nand then \nDRB Meeting Room: off to the side. There’s \nsee that there’s signage lighting. picnic tables\, benches. trash with obstacles and restrooms. minimum numbers for those required. \nSo \nDRB Meeting Room: that was for the project was that was only half built. \nDRB Meeting Room: Pcbc’s community vulnerability mapping tool shows the majority of the project site as having moderate \nsocial vulnerability based on based upon the 2\,014 to 2\,018 census data gathered by Bcd. In 2\,020. The social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile for this census block include children under 5 years of age. \nsingle-parent household people who are not us citizens and people who are severely housing costs burdened \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding the potential sea level rise. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding potential sea level\, sea level rise and using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nwe use the medium to high risk aversion scenario for the public access improvements. The bottom row shows what equivalent future total water level. This map corresponds to for each risk. Scenario \nfor the medium to high-risk aversion. Scenario 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean high high water level along with 2050 sea level rise\, which would also not cause \nflooding on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site if it remained unchanged. \nI shaded the project site in yellow because red represents overtopping. according to this key for the medium to high-risk aversion scenario. 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent \nto mean higher high water in the year 2\,090 or the 100 year storm events at mid-century. \nDRB Meeting Room: the San Francisco estuary and institute adaptation mapping tool recommends existing and potential tidal marsh \nand hold your management as nature based as nature-based adaptation opportunities. \nDRB Meeting Room: Lastly\, i’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff report that \nyou’d like the Board to consider in your in its review. First\, please consider how this project meets the public access objectives provided in B. Cbc’s public access design guidelines. \nthen staff has that it identified some specific questions. We would like to ask the Board about the design at this stage. These are \none. \nDRB Meeting Room: How does the project propose a result in public spaces that feel public? \nAnd does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people? \nDRB Meeting Room: What additional improvements would improve the public access experience to and along the shoreline \n3 are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adapted to sea level\, rise and balance with ensuring high quality\, public access opportunities. and 4. \nDoes the design provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike and pedestrian networks to draw users into and through the site to the O’neal food trail and shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: At this point I would like to check to see if the Board has any clarifying questions for me on anything presented in this introduction. \nYeah\, I I do. Could you go back to the the diagram that shows the permit or the permit requirements? Can you switch back to that \nthat you I just want to double check. So when the permit was originally given to oracle for a development of this site. the green area up on the list that \nit says 40\,000 47\,000 square feet of landscape was that part of the permit. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, that that is required in the permit that’s in the public. \nAnd then the second thing I wanted to ask was the line that delineates the 100 foot shoreline band was that in the permit. Originally \nDRB Meeting Room: I \nDRB Meeting Room: it might have been in the exhibits\, but that that’s an approximate that we put in. Okay. \nbut it would have been discussed at the time. The 100 foot shoreline band was clearly in place at the time the person was Yeah. So it would be understood that any development approach. Proposal needs to \nfollows the requirements for the 100 foot shoreline band and provide that 47\,000. It is green space. Is that correct. correct. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Any other clarifying questions. \nThank you for the presentation. I was wondering. \nDRB Meeting Room: The boundary on the exhibits \ndoes it? It seems\, to include sometimes the parcel linking all the way to the Belmont flu \nDRB Meeting Room: Is that part of the site\, or is that not included? \nDRB Meeting Room: So this is the extent of the project \nthat’s being proposed today. \nDRB Meeting Room: Biomed realty actually owns \nYou can’t see my cursor\, but where it says 301 Islands Parkway\, that’s part of the project. But biomed realty owns the the the area\, the campus south of that also \nat \nDRB Meeting Room: it doesn’t show the the \nI believe it’s 401 and 501. Yeah. but that’s not part of this project within the scope of this project\, but all the areas shaded in red are \npart of the project\, including the there’s this little section\, this parking lot at the South. next to the sports complex that’s a city-owned parking lot. \nand the applicant is part of their. It’s part of their project at. I I believe\, as a part of their agreement with the city to \nredevelop that do some like surface redevelopment to that parking area. In some of the exhibits it shows building. One included in the boundaries \nand some of these good T-shirt. I just want to confirm. That’s not part of the \nDRB Meeting Room: so if you flip forward a few slides \nDRB Meeting Room: it it going all the way to \nDRB Meeting Room: oh. \none more \nDRB Meeting Room: like in this one. \nso that that building is not part of it. Okay\, just one \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the other question. \nNever mind that’s it. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I have one question. Can you go back to the \nto the permit drawing that you have at previously? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s the one \nso \non the right it shows a 10 foot wide\, oracle footbridge across Belmont. With \nDRB Meeting Room: that that doesn’t exist. Oh\, it does. \nOkay. \nThat’s already been constructed. \nYes\, 3 foot bridges have been constructed. The pro this shows what required in the permit\, but so you’ll see one \nat on on the onial side of the the slew. which is required to be 8 foot. Wide wooden pile supported foot bridge that’s been built\, and then there’s another one \non that side. so that 2 on the O’neal flu side\, and then the oracle footbridge have all been constructed. \nOkay\, Thank you. \nYeah. I have a question. The sea level rise diagram\, what we showed. I just want to clarify. I understood that at the 100 years storm \nat mid century the this entire area in blue would be underwater. It would be over time. \nDRB Meeting Room: No that \nno \nDRB Meeting Room: 66 inches. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, maybe you could just run run me \nby that one more time. What is the condition? Mid-century? 100 years so \nDRB Meeting Room: 2050 \nsea level rise plus 100 years storm. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, thank you. \nThis is if the site remains unchanged. Right? So i’m looking at the surrounding areas. Yeah. I know we’ll hear about the site. Surely I was kind of just wondering about the access. \nDRB Meeting Room: the \nsorry to backtrack. But can you go back to the permitting diagrams? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, I. I just wanted to clarify those picked to Grants down the left hand side. Were they part of the permit as well? 24 benches\, etc.\, etc.\, \nand 2 toilets that that that indicate some sort of restroom. Yes. \nokay. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. Any other clarifying questions. \nall good. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, it’s really thanks very much for providing that information \nvery helpful. So we’ll go to the next item on the agenda\, which is the project proponent presentation. So we’ll hand to \nthank you. \nHello. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Good evening. \nEveryone can hear me. Okay. My name is Ethan Warsh. I’m. A director of development with biomed realt \njust to one sentence on biomed biomed realty is a leading provider of real estate solutions. For the \nwe focus. We focus exclusively on the \nSo I want to take a moment and introduce my team. I’m. Joined here tonight by Marcel Wilson\, with Bionic landscape architects. Jeff Smith and Ellie Nekt\, with \nCecily Barkley\, our Land use Council with Perkins\, Kui \nespecially. and my colleagues solely and actually hear me both with biomed Marcel and I are going to be presenting our Island Park project to you this evening\, and others on the team will be available to answer questions. And so with that i’d like to hand things over to myself. \nDRB Meeting Room: Good evening to be here \nDRB Meeting Room: just to orient everyone the Island Parkway life\, science campus \nin in Belmont. So\, Jason to the one to one freeway. You may recognize the in the oracle towers. \nsurrounded to the north by a hotel and a dealership. There is a residential community close by\, and then to the and then existing segments of the annual slew trail run to the new. \nDRB Meeting Room: The project say it’s generally flat. \nof mostly disturbed disturbed area and compacted gravel. It’s developed portions of the project includes existing office space and parking areas. \n3 street trees and land. \nDRB Meeting Room: and aside from the public streets\, city owns \nparking lot. At the south end of the project site. The project location is currently not open to the public. However\, people informally use the area to traverse the western edge of the to connect the O’neal slew trail. \nand it’s through the through a gap through the site. If you look at the image on the lower left\, you can see the there’s some carpeting that’s been put down there by users to \ntraverses. So this is A. And then there’s another part of the site which is a parking area to the south end. and that is also in the in the\, in the \nDRB Meeting Room: a variety of trails and infrastructure. The bridges there’s \nto tunnel converge on this site. and their the conditions of those trails are all. \nDRB Meeting Room: The bay trail is located on the east side of the island. That’s the \nyou know. New O’neal slew trail is in green. It’s not designated as Bay trail\, but it surrounds the rest of the perimeter of the island. With the exception of the trail gap that crosses the 800 \nclipper property\, the Dash. \nThis. This is an identified gap\, and you can see the 100 foot set back is indicated in blue. and so along the slew. That’s in the upper part of the drawing\, and then on the lower part of the drawing you see the area shaded in blue. That’s the \nsports complex parking lot which I supports \nDRB Meeting Room: the \nthe future circulation. Here will be bicycles and pedestrians\, which are will move along with kind of orange lines. The larger pink lines are for primary access to the to the shoreline. \nThese circulation routes connect existing trail networks and provide users with site accesses to Delmont and Redwood shores in the greater bay area. So this is a this site can really act. \nIt’s kind of like a a trail head for a much larger\, wider trail that. although it is \nDRB Meeting Room: even is going to walk through the building. \nSo before Marcel walks you through the details of the shoreline design. I wanted to provide a broader overview of the project. So the project i’m about to describe is what’s included in our to the city of Belmont\, and reflects months of close enough. \nDRB Meeting Room: So Bmr. Is proposing approximately 860\,000 square feet of life. Sciences. Space \nspread across 3 different buildings and one parking structure with ground ground floor amenity programming as well. We call our buildings\, building one in the middle there building 2 planned north and building 3 planned east \nbuilding\, 3 includes podium parking. So is self-sufficient. From that perspective\, and the parking structure will serve buildings one and 2\, and also includes ground floor. Amenity programming directly adjacent \nsports complex. All of our buildings are shorter than the the highest point of the \nand one detail I wanted to highlight is that the parking structure also includes 80 parking spaces available to the sports\, complexes\, sports\, complex users. and we are proposing an additional 6 spaces that are specifically designated for users. \nand one other item I wanted to pause on that I wasn’t planning on just because our the rest of the presentation doesn’t cover it\, and I saw it come up earlier is the the bike lanes. And so we are proposing significant bike lane infrastructure as part of the project\, so that includes \nprotected class 2 bike lanes all the way down Island Parkway\, and then on Concourse Place\, sort of connecting the both sides of the island. We’re proposing a protected for a bike lane\, as well as \njust painted class 2 around the \nso filling in all of the you know. would be a very robust. \nDRB Meeting Room: So this was covered briefly by Marcel\, but this slide shows the BC. DC. Shoreline band in relation to our proposed project in blue. You can see that there are 2 areas of overlap\, one which is the primary subject of this project \nadjacent to our building to plan north. The other is within the surface parking lot plan set The this parking lot is existing\, owned by the city of Belmont\, and associated with their sports complex. \nWe are not proposing a new use here\, but the city has asked that we reconfigure their lot in order to streamline the access from the street. and so it interfaces more coherently with our lot\, which\, if you recall\, they will \nto\, and so they really will in many ways operate\, you know\, for the for the same users you can’t find a spot in the surface parking lot. You may want to to jump over parking lot. \nDRB Meeting Room: As a result of the reconfiguration the city will also gain an additional 15 spaces on the surface. Parking lot. They’ll also \nwill benefit from a much improved \ncity and sports complex. \nDRB Meeting Room: So before I hand things back over. I would like to focus for one moment on the portion of the shoreline band that is adjacent to our building\, too. \nthis area of the project\, and specifically the interface and proposed overlap between building 2 and the shoreline band is something that the team has spent a lot of time talking and thinking about. \nwhile our proposal to include a portion of building to within the shoreline band is an allowable use. We also understand the importance of balancing that placement with the need to provide meaningful\, attractive\, inviting\, and adaptable shoreline. \nAnd so with that in mind we approach this site specifically\, this building to site. But you know broadly as well with\, and all of its constraints with a few objectives. So one is that you know \nwe have an objective to build a building that is viable for our tenants. You know our ability to build a campus that attracts high-quality life. Science\, tenants is at the core of our business. and is also what allows us to make the all of these proposals \nto place making and access. We believe that strong place making will make our project a success for our tenants\, for trail users. for nearby residents and users of sports\, complex and clear trail and sports. Complex access is central to our place\, making. \nand 3 harmony with adjacent. So we we do seek to build a project with an interface that makes sense. Given the diverse other nearby uses\, including \nso the proposed building to design. we think\, achieves those objectives in the following ways. \nDRB Meeting Room: The building design is viable for our tenants by providing a floor\, plate\, size\, core design\, and layout and ground floor loading plan that supports their needs. \nOur proposal supports place basic place\, making by focusing on a well-designed ground plane and strong access to the shoreline trail and the sports complex for pedestrians\, bicycles\, and vehicles\, and we do that a couple of ways. \nOne is that we locate. We’ve located building to loading plan north\, so along that eastern that top property line on the on the map there. rather than between buildings\, one and by doing that \nthe area between building one and 2 becomes a central access point for the shoreline sports complex and our buildings and taken together with adjacent spaces\, becomes a dynamic\, multi-purpose open space that really is \nthe central plaza. \nDRB Meeting Room: And lastly\, to create harmony between uses. We’ve ensured with this design that trucks can access the loading area of building 2 without having to loop around the island through the resident. \nwhich is is important to us from the get go. So with that i’ll hand things back over \nDRB Meeting Room: to \ntalk about the improvements. It makes sense to zoom way back and talk about them from outside the and it first. \nCurrently there are views to the slew you can see on the lower left corner of from Concourse Place. There’s big\, wide\, open view aligned to Concourse place\, and and to the \nnew buildings. One and 2 are going to be cited\, as you can see\, in the bottom right corner\, so that there’s a very wide aperture in a sense of the bay Beyond is \nwill be telegraph to people passively. They use the sidewalks. crosswalks to to access the trail. proposed improvements of sidewalks\, crosswalks\, pedestrian safety bike lanes will kind of be aligned \nalso to these buildings\, just sort of reinforcing a the kind of intuitive way finding for the access. \nDRB Meeting Room: These drawings illustrate a a kind of a a visitor or sequence \nto the trail. You’d be able to access the trail from the north\, the east and the south. So so\, and O’neal slew is sort of interesting in its own right as a vestige of a much larger system. There’s a lot there to explore. \nI want to Also\, just point out to you in the plan. Drawing on the left\, you can see that there’s a bend in the trail. and and we’ll talk about that bandit\, how it the sequence. \nSo in in the view one you’re all the way back down down the this kind of multi-purpose trail. It’s at least 26 feet wide\, paves the entire way ada accessible \nand the sports complex is on. and as you move more closely in in. In the second view that you see this trail consistency \nas wide. There’s amendments along the sides of the trail view. 3 actually looks at it from approaching on Concourse Place. big\, wide view to the bay and view 4 looks back at the sports complex. \nwhere again you can see certain the nature-based solutions to sea level rise on the bank. I’ll talk about a little bit more about that later\, and amenities to kind of stop and pause. \nIt’s at this point that you can in view 5 that you can see this kind of vertical element that we created at that turning point. It’s a large frame. It’s meant to in a in a big deck. There’ll be an observation point there\, and it’s really a vertical marker to indicate that the trail does move on from \neither perspective from north or south\, and it’s kind of an invitation to continue through the trail and make it very clear that it’s it’s. \nDRB Meeting Room: This next set of views are\, Show a little bit more of the architectural character\, and give you a \nof what the experience might be. So this is is demonstrating just the the kind of generosity of the street. and the kind of planting and massing of the buildings. \nthe big\, wider views as you. This is on Concourse place\, looking west. the building on the corner building one have a more kind of an iconic presence. you know\, and it it sort of announces itself as the \nI can’t answer. And then the you look at them. The relationship between building one and 2 big\, wide opening. I would say. \nthis is looking from kind of the slew back to the east. This is the plaza where you would arrive. This is where sidewalks and a vehicle drop off All arrive at a kind of public ceiling. Plaza. \nyou’ll notice on the slew edge. There are decks. kind of areas that will welcome people as they arrive to walk right out to that edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then this is a view from from the sports complex doing a pretty good job of showing how\, between the sports complex and \nthe parking garage. There’ll be a very active edge there. and it’s a long continuous connector closing that gap in the system. And then this is at eye level along \nalong the parking garage on the right and the sports complex on the left\, so people would be able to come here\, park. unload and go to the sports complex or continue on \nthe trail. There will be some amenities in the base of the garage activating \nand the sports complex is very popular\, and you \nDRB Meeting Room: and then finally of you. Looking back from this observation deck to the Sports complex \nbuilding 2\, unless you can just see there’s a generous set back at least 26 feet of of trail width there\, and in addition to some. then the the slope of the bank. \nDRB Meeting Room: There’s been some conversation already about the adaptation to sea level rise\, the project will be adapted to or designed initially\, to meet\, projections to 2\,080\, \nand then there are death. Adaptation approaches in scenarios allow us to adapt up till 2\,100\, and this is also sort of pegged to the life of \nbuilding. of of the buildings. \nDRB Meeting Room: It it might be helpful to know that towards the top of the drawing that’s lower and towards the bottom of the drawing that’s higher. The average site elevation right now \non the low side is about 13. That’ll be real 2 to 15. There’s a variety of \nDRB Meeting Room: our our team has developed various options that \nkeep the public shoreline accessible through your 2\,100\, with a couple of different adaptations. scenarios. I’ll show you in in sections later how those \nwork! And it’s anticipated that that potential flooding from other off-site properties could occur in the future there’s a bypass. It’s a bypass to the north\, with a levy only on one side and not the other. \nAnd so these are beyond the control of the project\, but it’s anticipated that this project will be able to respond to any improvements that are made along that edge. In the diagrams that were shown \nDRB Meeting Room: shows that there’s no over topping there\, because there is no ready to. \nIt’s an anomaly in the \nDRB Meeting Room: These next slides show typical sections. I won’t talk through them all. But these 2 are important to note just the general nature-based approach to elevating the site and the existing bank. \nThis project does not do any work in the bay. We have no in water work. but we will be raising the site and planting that edge with with natives and adaptive species. \nAnd then\, if you see at the top of in each of those sections it shows a band that’s approximately 5 feet wide\, and that is a zone where in the future\, if \nadaptation scenarios called for something even taller than what we’ve projected. We can accommodate within that. But right now would would be a a \nkind of future proofing the site through 2\,080. These are other sections in the drawing package I won’t speak to them much more than to say\, Notice the sort of flatness and the ease of transition \nfrom the public streets drop off areas as you go towards the towards the slew on the left. Very easy to get there. Not a lot of visual instructions. \nDRB Meeting Room: Again a couple of additional sections of the condition. \nI will \nDRB Meeting Room: happy to come back to \nDRB Meeting Room: to summarize this. The drawing on the top shows today’s conditions and what we’re proposing to build initially. The drawing on the bottom shows \nhow all of the access and the amenities that are being built will be but I a future proofs through 2\,100. That’s the 2\,100 scenario on that. \nBut \nDRB Meeting Room: the the the decks\, the trail\, the seating areas. \nthe access to the access all be adapted to \nDRB Meeting Room: this is going to be a great place to \nto sort of transition out of a vehicle and onto a bike or your feet to explore the trail system. being sort of gracious to all the visitors that we’re anticipating\, though we’re planning on a variety of amenities. This is where you might \npump up your tires\, fill your water bottle\, get some orientation or information. and then set out on on the trail \nDRB Meeting Room: the surfacing will be on the on. The main alignment of the trail is going to be cast concrete \nin other sort of special areas or off to the sides there will be cast con or concrete pairs\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: and then along the \nblue edge of the trail. The the idea is that that has a variety of different areas to stop and pause. They’re all sort of different for different shaped sort of bodies and in sizes and ages and and just experience \nexperiences to kind of observe. Observe the slew and all that’s going panorama. So. \nand then the nature-based Adaptation. Approach of raising that bank and replanting with natives and adaptives. is\, we refer to it as the kind of native garden. In addition to that\, there will be some interpretation. Opportunities \nabout about the about the flora\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: and there is a a preliminary plant\, palette of adaptive and native \nspecies. This is not. This is for the whole project. but I would maybe point out that we’re fully anticipated paying that aquatic species might migrate up to bank\, and the \nslopes and species that we’re choosing are are all well sued for. \nDRB Meeting Room: and I will now pass back to even \ntalk about the public outreach. \nSo just one note on the amenities that I wanted to add is that you know we are proposing at the ground floor of that parking structure 15\,000 of the that would be open to the public. You know where we envision it now is \nbeverage like amenity in talks with the city and talks with complex users. is what they’re most about. You know \na lot of us at that sports complex. If you go there any given weekday evening\, you know there’s hundreds of people different fields\, and so. the idea being asset to them\, you know. \nYou know\, after a game. etc.\, you know. \nand celebrated. get back together. Talk about the game \nwe’re also providing we’re also proposing a small cafe space \nuse and build 3\, which we also \nthere really is no. except for the hotel and \ndealership on the one. And so we \nand i’ll talk more\, you know. That’s a good segue for me to talk about. \nAnd so to date we’ve hosted an informational session with development. Belmont sports complex users\, and that really kicked off our community outreach this week. We’ll be sending a mailer out to all residential addresses on the island advertising and open house that we’ll be hosting at the sports complex on J. \n7. Following that meeting we’ll also be reaching out to 2 communities on the other side of one on one from our project sterling Downs and home View\, and we will seek to present at their regular fea meetings. But if we need to\, we will also \nspecifically to present our project. And lastly\, we’ll also complete outreach to Residents shores\, although a different jurisdiction\, obviously extremely close to this project\, and we’ll either reach out \nto their Hoa or a separate community organization. \nIn all cases we’ll be providing an email address and other contact information likely my personal email now in phone number\, so individuals can convey their comments or concerns to the project team\, and we will \nconduct additional meetings where follow up is right. \nDRB Meeting Room: So with that i’ll wrap it up. Thank you so much for your time and consideration tonight\, and the whole team is available to answer any questions. \nOkay\, thank you very much. Eton and myself very clear. I’m sure we have a few clarifying questions \nlike to go through this fault. Go ahead. \nThank you. \nSo let’s see. \nDRB Meeting Room: I was looking at the project summary and the exhibits\, and \nI think I calculated\, did I calculate\, 800 square feet of of space building space\, and whereas on the permit drawing it was something \nclose to really \nDRB Meeting Room: 200\,000. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we are proposing 860\,000 square feet. I think the original permit for these \nsites was closer to 235\,000 very different look and feel and quality of \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah\, I Just wanted to make sure I had that. I mean it’s it’s a \nkind of an upgrade\, I guess you would say. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then i’m not super familiar with what is involved in \nbiomedical facilities\, or whatever the term is. But does that mean that you handle\, or whoever on the tenants would handle contagious \nthings like Covid and and the like. And and is there a risk of \nDRB Meeting Room: of that like any kind of a release or anything? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So the types of tenants that we work with handle a wide \nactivities. You know\, that fits under sort of the very broad umbrella. \nSo you know\, we have tenants like lucid motors or \nresearch all the way to the \nyou know\, curing \nDRB Meeting Room: generally\, we’re. Our tenants are regulated by something called biosafety levels\, of which there are for bio safety level\, one being those \nsort of the least risk to human health and safety and bio for being things like that. Ebola. \nDRB Meeting Room: but that are really only dealt with \nin government \nright now. There are discussions going on at the county level about. and if the local on the peninsula about which bio safety levels to allow\, and so we’re closely tracking that\, and obviously we’ll comply with the \nput in place here. Typically\, you know\, we see the majority of our tenants within the bio safety level. We \nDRB Meeting Room: and I’ll just add to that they are also a highly regulated industry. And so there are a number of Federal and State \nagencies that do you know\, ensure that. \nYeah\, Thank you for that answer. And I appreciate the education it’s not something i’m\, that familiar with. But I am familiar with what’s somewhat familiar with the building codes based on \nthe level of life safety risk. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I was wondering what level this building\, being a biomedical\, potentially biomedical activities. \nlocation. Is is there a significant risk to life safety that would raise the risk level to a 3 or 4? The critical facility in the \nengineering architectural Jordan. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, this Isn’t on my area of expertise. But i’ll typically say\, I will say typically\, no. You know the one area that we are\, You know\, sort of you’ll see \ntypically how the building code will interact with us is for lab space and chemical storage. And so that is dealt with in the California building code. And again\, it’s \nlife safety. like how many chemicals can elevation\, you know\, just risk to hazard. And so we comply. We we comply with all. Yeah\, the reason why i’m asking is because \nwe haven’t. I didn’t see a Ge a technical report. But the area is\, you know\, in in the Bay\, and the soils that are typically weak bay Mods and bill. And so if there’s a seismic of that. \nyou know\, that could cause a a structural load that more critical facilities that are associated with life\, safety\, or high density would require \na more conservative or strong\, or more capable of being able to handle an event like that and not collapse. let’s say. And likewise there’s it brings in the risk of a tsunami like flood. \nwhich would penetrate the site if there was one. So that’s why i’m wondering what what level of facility would be from an engineering building code standpoint. And \nit’s okay. If you don’t have the answer for that\, because I I I think it’s just. It’s probably a special case that i’m not familiar with. But that’s why I’m asking\, and I think it’s. It’s important. I think we’re all a little sensitive to the. \nto the virus issue\, and also these are big buildings that may have enough people that raise the risk level. I’m not sure. \nDRB Meeting Room: We are a seismic importance Level \n2. So which is the your typical commercial building. When we have an assembly space increased it. 3. Okay. But we would very rarely in no cases. \nunless you know\, we do have a case for this. \nthat elevator. \nDRB Meeting Room: Oh\, typically we’re it\, too\, and I will also just note that this is a very proven asset class. San Francisco is the \nbehind the bait behind the Boston Bridge area the largest science cluster in the world\, I think. And so and certainly in the country. And so there are a lot of \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. No\, I appreciate that. Thank you for educating me on that. I I sorry to take so much time. \nNot sure. I’m totally comfortable with us\, being in the lead\, and in terms of all that. But I think it’s great that that I have a better understanding. Now\, Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, I have a clarifying question. \nThank you for the presentation\, and the extra background\, too\, on the bike. LAN. I think that was helpful. And I was wondering\, Can you kind of just describe the vehicular circulation on site \nand like\, where is the parking and loading access for the buildings? And then how does the drop off work with parking like? Do you drop off and then go drive to the parking garage or just helping us understand where where cars are and where pedestrians are. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, please \nDRB Meeting Room: always control. \nYeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: especially page 8 is probably a good place to be. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So Island Park is one way in and one way out which is planned south there. So you cross the bridge over \non Island Parkway\, across the bridge. \nheaded Plan North \nDRB Meeting Room: Building one and building 2 are both served by parking by the main parking structure on your left there. \nAnd so the majority of of us \nwould take I first\, or \ninto the \nto access that parking structure. That’s also how you access. The loading area for building \nbetween the parking structure and the \nDRB Meeting Room: users of the sports complex would use that same \nfirst entrance to the parking structure as \nto where access \nDRB Meeting Room: users of building 3 would make the first right \nDRB Meeting Room: off of Island Parkway before getting to concourse onto this \ncoding and parking structure. Loading is located in that same so occurring in building \nby taking a look off the bylaw \nbefore getting to \nbuilding 2\, is really the only \nDRB Meeting Room: site that requires people to \npenetrates the the residential area at all. And so you’d come up to the section of concourse the left. If you were a truck loading\, you would make that first right to clipper and then a left into the \nyou\, and to building two’s loads like I mentioned before. What we really wanted to avoid was a truck. You is required a truck to make a right on concourse\, and a left and circle of \nclipper to access the the rear of building \nfor folks getting dropped off. \nDRB Meeting Room: you would. Each building has a drop off a designated drop off area. \nSo for building 3 you would pull up past that first right for parking\, and the drop off area is located on Island Parkway. On that planned west \nto be dropped off at building 2. You would go up to concourse\, make a left. and enter into that roundabout and drop off there\, and we’ve made sure that that that roundabout is generously \nthe confluence of the different types. Users can\, if need be\, stacked 2 or 3 cars. So folks using building 2 and and likely building\, one also would get dropped off there. Additionally\, there is a drop off area for building a. \nIf you were to go back around that roundabout head back on Island Parkway and pull off to the right to be \nthe right Turn on. \nso there’s no cars going from the round about to the parking structure along the sort of slew front along the slew front. No\, you cannot access like the roundabout and the pathway that circles the parking structure\, or can’t be accessed. \nThat’s good. And then the it is a \nso \nDRB Meeting Room: for building one loading\, so we do show \nthe entire parking structure circled by\, you know\, vehicle access. However\, the vehicle access on the planned west of the parking structure is only Eva\, and very occasional \nloading traffic for trucks that you know\, are bolt gas delivery for building occasional and that loop\, but otherwise that area adjacent to the parking structure and and and \nsports complex is really imagined as a multi-purpose. So it will be designed with the materiality signals shared space. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, Thank you for that. And then for buildings\, one and 2 \nthere. Do they have lobbies directly. I imagine\, on that round about the drop off \nDRB Meeting Room: building 2\, does the building. One lobby is \nright now\, I mean\, these are preliminary designs. But right now the building one lobby is imagined \nDRB Meeting Room: for the in the center of the building a long \nOkay. And can you just kind of describe\, like the ground floor active uses on buildings\, one and 2 \nDRB Meeting Room: for building\, one and 2. So typically our buildings are. Our ground floor or a ground up building \nare 18 feet \nforward\, feeling on the first floor\, and then 6 to feet above that for every other floor. That’s one of the unique aspects building \non the ground floor. The the uses are taken up largely by the lobby and by area\, and potentially by utility areas like interior transfer transformer. leaving limited tenant space or \nthe ground floor. But there is some tendency \nfor building 2 and building one. We currently don’t\, have planned any in any space\, or we typically don’t. Put retail space on the ground floor of our buildings. I’m. Building 3. We do have that \nso like building one has this plaza out front. Is that sort of a plaza in front of a blank wall\, or what sort of nature of that. So i’ll be glazing. I think you want to go back to some. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then it was mentioned that the \nthe whole master plan for this area had a certain amount of public space square footage that was required. Do you know how much public square footage space you’re required to provide\, and how much this \nis proposing. I believe the number that was. What do you something 1\,000 in here? We’re we’re proposing\, I think 1.8\, \n40\, somebody. Okay. just a follow up clarification. Yeah. But can you break that down? What’s the breakdown between green space and \nbut that \nDRB Meeting Room: approximately. \nDRB Meeting Room: I mean looking at the drawing. What would you? Your \nright? \nBut let’s not include that\, because it \nit’d be good to clarify that \nalso. Just wondering. \nDRB Meeting Room: Is there any kind of Tdm required\, or Tma that you have to participate in with the shuttle that’s in the area\, or anything like that? \nThere is a Tdm required will be submitted with the. you know\, for our sequel documentation. and that obviously \nforward. And we get tenants\, etc. One of the measures is. Yeah\, I know that \narea called \non our rate. Okay? And then do you know what the Tbm requirement is? The percent reduction required? \nWe don’t have the exact number\, but we we know that we meet requirement. Yeah. So you don’t know what the number is\, but you know you’re below it. We targeted to be both. I know that\, like \nit’s better than \nGood afternoon evening. I’m Cesley Barkley and I wanted to clarify. We have hired a company called hexagon to do all of our transportation. They’ve prepared a local transportation analysis. \na vehicle\, miles traveled analysis and a separate Tdm program that looks at 25 ways points that we could earn to get \nthat are viable for this project we need to have at least 18 to meet the city’s requirements. I don’t remember right now\, if it’s like 2025. But there is a number. and we have plenty of opportunities \nto meet that number. And One of them is to Okay\, and the shuttle is even mentioned. So we’ve submitted that to the city in our most recent on April nineteenth\, and \nMexican works a lot with the city and their traffic engineers. \nJason said. As this develops\, we’ll have a little more detail\, and we can get you this production. Okay\, but that’s helpful to 20 to 25. Yes\, thank you. \nLast question. I’m. Just looking at the B Cdc’s adapting your eyes inside maps\, and it it looks like this whole area is probably experiencing some flooding today. Do you know\, if there’s any flooding happening in the neighborhood that you’re aware of \nit’s by the neighborhood. You mean. Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: they’re certainly flooding risks. \nand to the north they just finish widening culverts raising the \nthey built a the seawall on top of the Di. \nIt wouldn’t\, because that below. \non the southern edge of the \nDRB Meeting Room: bypass \nthere’s a things levy \nin there \nDRB Meeting Room: so \nthere could be \ninto the \nin today’s. \nAnd to the that one day \nby passes \nproves we don’t know what now. But \nthis project has. \nor whatever that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So there’s no sort of adaptation strategy \narea at a higher level. That would probably I believe that the flight control district question. \nAnd it happens just off of this. \nYeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay. \nOne shoreline is that \nwhole region \nanecdotal. \nI know that ours encounter any flooding. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, Well\, it’s just it’s all connected right? So if you guys raise everything\, but nobody else does it doesn’t \nhelp you so just wondering if you’re kind of aware of a larger or not\, or if there is a one. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t know that. There\, I I think that there I mean I I don’t. I will say I don’t know \naffirmatively\, but I think that there are a lot of people looking. \nbut are looking at this whole region\, and and I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the levy\, the the \nit’s along this \nplanned north. \nDRB Meeting Room: but increase whether or not Belmont right now \nit’s set aside to do it that I don’t know. \nGo ahead. \nI wanted to mention a couple of things just if you saw the if we go back. Don’t need to go back to the flooding\, but when you do\, Island Park itself is out and the sports complex and much of the parking structure. I can’t remember how much you 501 \nas you come up on the island. It’s actually and we don’t ever have a problem until you get up closer to where the shoreline band is\, and then we’ll raise that. And \njust right outside this picture Foster City is putting in a levy for just now. So when you listen a little bit to this talk. there does need to be a levy of some sort or raising of the edge of the island \naround\, and there is a connection between the reservoir in the middle. and there’s a \nDRB Meeting Room: underground culvert that goes out\, and there are ways to manage that covert with gates. \nThe islands so well. This doesn’t\, because our whole site will be high enough. happens to be where the site is\, and then these improvements are on the edge of the high. That’s good\, but I think there will be lots that \nbeing paid but to kind of get the whole park\, and then\, as everybody is noting that Blue went a lot. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, further than just the island. It goes quite broadly\, and \nyou mentioned one shoreline and and other agencies \nnecessarily paying a lot of \nDRB Meeting Room: to this as our \nyou and your entire \nthanks? No more question. \nOther questions. Sorry\, yes. \nIs there any accommodation for like a emergency access plan in the event of flooding\, since seems like that could happen in 2\,050\, some regularity. So \nsomething that would happen. Is there a way to evacuate? Or if you are\, you required to deal with that\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: we have? We are not\, as far as I know\, required to. \nI think the one thing that we are doing is raving the not only the line area that \nthe floor level of all of \n28\, 100 years level. So we do think that residents in the bill \nwe don’t anticipate. We we hope that we are anticipated condition that \nfor our participants firm \ncannot be saved on site. \nAnd then there was a mention about the life cycle of the project as tied to the projected sea level like now. Okay. \nDRB Meeting Room: i’m not sure that we have like a \nspecific. I think I don’t think we have a \nI don’t think we have a very specific license \nmore broad. L. \nIt’s curious. What is that in in this? In your in terms of \nfuture planning? What do you? How far ahead do you look before you is out. It’s. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. I mean it’s extremely hard to tell\, but obviously like I said. \nwe’re we’re we’re adapting to a 28 \n60 years from now\, you know\, because we’re dealing with life\, sign \nthe cutting edge of technology that intermittently with have to make upgrades to it to make sure that \nDRB Meeting Room: for them. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, it’s not a perfect question\, but it’s \nnot a perfect answer. No\, it it’s not a your question. I’m just trying to to educate myself on that. Thank you. \nOther questions. \nand because you \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe briefly just \ndescribe the extent of the improvements along Concourse and Island Parkway that are essentially offsite. You mentioned at 1 point a class for Bike Lane \nand I’m. Trying to read the drawings. I believe it’s on the south side of concourse. Is that correct? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So we’re proposing so our our so typically the streets will work the same way. But we are proposing I’ll just start from the bottom of the plan. So when you come on dial in Parkway \nwe are proposing a hawk signal in order for existing existing bike lanes\, existing bike pads adjacent to the you can see sort of the gray outsport field at the very bottom of the plan. There \nthe bike lane that circles that and cuts across for people who want to access between. We’re proposing a hawk signal for that crossing. We’re proposing protected class 2 bike lanes\, more or less from the edge of the plan on the bottom of the plan there\, all the way up to Concourse Place \nat Concourse Place\, like you mentioned\, we are proposing a class for Bike Lane. So essentially a you know\, protected 2 way cycle track planned north. So if you would cross the street. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry you’re right. Plan plants out so on that side of the street that would connect essentially folks who have access to bay trail from that oracle bridge \nand want a short cut across to the area. And then for the loop that goes on clipper drive. So if you go\, you know\, to the right of the plan\, through the residential area and back around to our building\, too. \nWe’re proposing class 2 typical class 2. \nAnd then essentially\, if you’re on the I guess it’s an extension of the bay trail or the Flew trail. You can pass under Island Parkway if you’re traveling from east to west. \nCorrect. If you were to cross the Oracle Bridge and hook a left. you would go under under Island Parkway. And can you just sort of describe to me sort of if you were coming from that direction\, or from the Oracle direction on a bicycle \ntrying to reach building one or building to you that system along the western side basically would come onto the new promenade. Sure\, if you so\, if you were coming\, let’s say\, from the oracle campus. Now \nyou cross over that bridge to get to building one or building 2. You can make a right and then jump on to that class for a psychopath\, the the cycle track that we were just discussing\, or you can make a left and take the path that exists. \nGo under Island Parkway. You would end up at the sports complex surface parking area at that point right after you pass their parking lot\, and you see a small building that’s they call that the Sports Complex Conference Center. \nYou could make a right there\, and there is a path that travels on the Belmont sports complex site\, more or less following the line of our property line\, to connect with \nwith our proposed path more or less. We’re\, you know\, adjacent to building one or right\, we see that blue shoreline band pick up. That would be a mixed youth mixed. Use path\, or you could circle around \nthe the complex and pick it up in Exactly. \nI believe the city has. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, Thank you for the clarification. \nOkay\, and just a couple more questions for me. Sorry to wrap up. Could we go back actually? Could you just go back to the rendering for building to the ground level. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: I just want to make sure I understand \nyou \nthe \nDRB Meeting Room: that that that’s \nwe could probably discuss it here. So you can see this one was little. This is \nyeah in the \nDRB Meeting Room: but it this would be okay. \nPause here for a minute. So inside there\, that’s the space you refer to. That would be a some type of \nIs that correct and just question\, do you? I’m not familiar with your company. Do you hold the assets when you develop these projects. Or do you sell them on? \nWe are typically long-term owners. We are developers long-term owners. Operators. It’s part of a sure key component of our brand. \nSo would you manage the tenancies? It’s like a ground for it\, or cafe or yeah. So for for ground floor space in this market\, Typically\, because we we know that these are amenities that our tenants require \nmarket to our tenants going to be at. We don’t take a risk with making me like 4 leads retail space. Rather\, we enter into a contract with \namenity\, food\, and beverage operator\, and so we can guarantee that the services that were telling them will be there are there. \nAnd \nDRB Meeting Room: could you comment on\, just have you thought about how the project would be faced? Where would you start? \nYeah\, right now\, I mean. Obviously\, everything is somewhat subject to market forces. But right now we imagine that phase one building\, what we’re calling\, building one and the parking structure phase 2 would probably include building 2\, because it’s \nby the same parking structure that we bills. And then phase 3 would be building 3. And typically you know\, things like these. \nDRB Meeting Room: We are proposing to build these \npublic amenities\, including amenities as part of phase. One. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. And just I. I just want to check. Is there a ground level rendering similar to that for building 2? \nThe package there is on the \nDRB Meeting Room: more focused on the trail experience. But you can see building 2 to the left. \nmaybe goes rendering. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know\, the other one \nwith high quality. \nNow that these are \nDRB Meeting Room: you towards the end\, like right past the \nmoving to \nso on the list there\, and I know it’s early days in design. But on the list we see. Can you describe what that is we’re seeing in at ground level\, and \nI mean\, or something. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So here we’re I mean\, this is really sort of a renderers interpretation of something that a tenant could be doing in there. We are corn shell developers\, and so we don’t program. \nYou know all of the space except that in core building space. So lobbies. you know\, elevate \nlike this. So we would. We would have to. That. Would that would be at the \nDRB Meeting Room: the tenant would get \nExactly. Okay. So the umbrellas and the outdoor representation for the sorry I missed I misinterpreted that I thought so. Interior would be at the tenants \non the exterior\, and we haven’t gotten to the level of programming yet of Carrier Ss: and you things like this. But you know we could and typically do with the ground floor program things like \nfurniture. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. But there isn’t a cafe. \nNo\, the cafe would be farther up at the right when you hit the corner of the parking structure. Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, that concludes clarifying questions \nfrom the Board. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ll move to public comment \non the presentation of presentation. So we’ll open up the meeting to public comment. Any members of the public attending the meeting in person. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to make a comment. \nany comments. \nOkay. And if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual head to speak. \nDRB Meeting Room: We do have one public comment. \nDRB Meeting Room: Kita des i’m going to unmute you. \nand you will have 3 min. \nGita Dev: Good Evening Board members. My name is Peter Dev. I’m with the Sierra Cloud\, and I did send in a short letter \nGita Dev: on Friday\, which I hope you had a chance to take a look at. \nGita Dev: I I want to thank everyone for a wonderful presentation. and as an architect myself I can appreciate a lot of the work that’s gone into it. \nGita Dev: I do have a few comments \nGita Dev: that I hope that the Board will consider. \nGita Dev: and I hope that the that the owner will consider\, too. \nGita Dev: One of them is that this is very close to the Redwood shores\, ecological reserve\, which is all along Redwood shores\, and all along Belmont slew it’s a Federal reserve. It’s a very rich bird watching area. It has a lot of species. You should see the website. It’s really fun. \nGita Dev: So bird\, safe design is a really important issue\, and in looking at the facades they are extremely glassy about the parking. \nGita Dev: and it is very important that we do bird safe design\, and that we \nGita Dev: maintain the lighting\, so that I know that biotech labs often stay up all night. They steal it all night. \nGita Dev: however\, where they are facing onto the slew it’s really important that we have automatic shades that come down. So we do get nocturnal creatures that \nGita Dev: can feed at night. and also for exterior lighting to be sensitive to the purge safe design standards. We’d be happy to provide you more information on that. \nGita Dev: I do want to thank someone for raising the issue of fire\, safety. Life sciences\, labs are bio hazardous. and these are not issues that our codes have caught up with As an architect. I’m very familiar with the codes. \nGita Dev: and even with the State Fire Marshall’s office. \nGita Dev: They are very familiar for a 100 years of chemical hazards and radiological hazards\, but bio hazards are so new that they have not caught up with them. They don’t maintain a database. \nGita Dev: So the 4 bio safety levels. as the client pointed out by a safety level\, 3 and 4 deal with very infectious agents \nGita Dev: and most of the labs do not deal with by a safety level 3. \nGita Dev: But we would like to make sure that \nGita Dev: in such a hazardous area we Don’t get involved in such a serious biohazard that cannot be contained in the event of you know\, serious seismic events flooding events\, interruption of power. \nGita Dev: I just want to let you know. \nThank you. Okay. \nGita Dev: 1 min left. Very good. \nGita Dev: The the last point i’d like to make is that while truly understanding the issue of a large plate design for for tenants. \nGita Dev: I do feel it’s really important from one shoreline’s policy point of view\, and from a safety point of view to maintain the 100 feet of setback. \nGita Dev: and to provide a much gentleness\, slope on the water side. \nGita Dev: The one shoreline recommends a 100 feet set back from the water’s edge. \nand to keep the trail at the land side of that 100 foot\, so as to allow it very gentle slope \nGita Dev: to allow migration of species upland on a gentleness. Look\, then 2 to one\, an eco-tone slope is 20 to one\, but something more than 2 to one would be a much much desirable. I think there may be a way to \nGita Dev: thank you. \nGita Dev: I appreciate your efforts\, and \nGita Dev: and from the Board to manage the design process. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, Thank you very much for that comment. We appreciate it. They are important issues. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, is that the end of public comments? \nDRB Meeting Room: There are no more public comments. Okay\, thank you. \nGood. Okay. We’ll move to the next item on the agenda\, which is for discussion and advice. And so the stage where of the meeting with the Board \nDiscuss with this\, amongst ourselves\, we have been given 4 questions by the staff to consider in our discussion. and the first one is just to make sure that we have maximum sense of feeling of publicness along the shoreline\, so \non that. and commenting the second area just to comment on anything that we could see that might improve public access along the shore. The third one is \nDRB Meeting Room: to make sure\, yeah to our thoughts on the public areas and \nresidency and adaptation. Given what lies ahead. the sea level rise. And then the fourth area was really focused more on connections and adequacy and legibility of quick connections for bikes. \npedestrians from the adjacent by pedestrian networks\, and from the so we’re all very familiar with those \nareas. And so we can build \nDRB Meeting Room: the dialogue around \nthese 4 questions and other things that we think are important. So \nDRB Meeting Room: we set. \nI don’t think we’ll Well\, we we could stop by \nDRB Meeting Room: going down the questions\, if you like\, for 4 questions\, or we could just go by person and have a \npeople come in on what they Thank you important in. But \nI think we might do it that way today. This project. So who would like to lead off? Well. yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: thank you. \nYeah\, thanks for the presentation and and and the answers to our questions really appreciate that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I will may have a list of \nthoughts \nDRB Meeting Room: for our Board discussion \nthat cover \nseveral of the questions. \nMy first comment is a slope with 2 to one\, which I think is the slope where the living shoreline is not something that you would consider a geographically natural slope on a \na wetland \nin the inner title. So I I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, as sea level rises the \nhigher marsh plants could migrate up\, but I think the lower part of the slope would be steep. unvegetated slope\, you know. Once they got to the depth. That core dress couldn’t grow like I see you have. Wra\, so I think they’re going to get on that \nand and work with you on that. But I think the bottom line is a flatter slope would be better. and if it’s not a flatter slope\, i’m not really sure it’s a live in shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: even though they may\, it may have some benefit at the upper part of the \nslow in terms of you know\, some up when habitat. \nDRB Meeting Room: my next comment is. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. The exhibits on page 7 and 8 show the building to encroaching into the shoreline band. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: that\, combined with the the massive \nsquare footage\, makes me wonder if that building could \nDRB Meeting Room: back out of the shoreline\, Dan\, to provide room again for \nflattening the slope on that living shoreline\, and providing kind of more space \nDRB Meeting Room: for adaptation\, but also just for people within. The \nMy next question comment is. this is kind of a funny one. Exhibit 27 be \nDRB Meeting Room: that bird blind looks really interesting\, but I just \nI guess that’s just a generic bird blind it. It didn’t look like the ones I normally see around here. I don’t know. \nLook like you could see people through it which so I \nDRB Meeting Room: not an expert on bird blinds \nit looked. It looked cool\, though. Let’s see the exhibit. 26 A. It shows a boardwalk with people sitting on the edge over the water. \nwhich is something that I think you know people like to sit on the edge of the board walk around the day. I’ve heard \nDRB Meeting Room: that was an engineering joke. I don’t know if you remember this all \nsitting at the dog. Okay\, so. but I have to explain it so. But I don’t know it. Just seems like you might want to have railings or have maybe have that floating\, or have some sort of down ramp. \nyou know\, or something\, just because you don’t really want people to stumble off of that at night\, so I I guess that’s an artistic kind of thing. It isn’t necessarily what you’re going to do. \nLet’s see. \nTalked about the 2 to one slope. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, I think the question about \nother than they water level flood sources. whether it be direct precipitation. run off groundwater. I don’t think groundwater is going to be an issue with your \nhigh grades\, but I think all those factors will probably be considered later in the design\, and I would assume that the applicant would be responsible to \nupgrade there elevation criteria to conform to any additional higher water levels. \nDRB Meeting Room: Exhibit 28 marsh plants \ndidn’t seem to be \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah\, i’m not a botanist\, but they just didn’t seem to be quite the \nnative plants to me. So I assume that’s going to change \nexhibit 29. I didn’t see any environmental groups mentioned\, and the Sierra Club provided some comments\, so I suggest it might be worth reaching out to some broader than just the residents \nand neighbors in the city. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then you know again\, this Hasn’t been under engineering your view. If this is new\, fill \nit would go to the engineering Criteria Review board. But I don’t think it is\, and so \nDRB Meeting Room: there is a question as to whether or not the fill elevations or post settlement. \nbecause you’re adding a lot of hill\, and then\, of course\, around here the certainly the \nDRB Meeting Room: they mud below the fill consolidates with the extra overburden. \nYou get some settlement that can be substantial. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know it could be 2030% of the fill thickness. I don’t know. I mean it’s possible. \nSo I think that’s something that I I would suggest that staff have you check as you move on into your work. So those are all my comments. I guess the main one is\, I like the idea of the living living shoreline. \nI I do think you could move the shore back and flatten that slope. but it might require you to reduce your building footprint on building 2. I think it is\, and maybe some other ones. \nYeah\, thanks\, Bob\, and we will\, as we continue through\, and we’ll probably come back to some of those points of very helpful Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: Do you want to \ncomment on some of the questions or other things? \nDRB Meeting Room: Sure\, I think \nyou know\, welcome others to sort of build on this. I think \nyou know. \nDRB Meeting Room: I I want to say that I I like the opportunity of \ncreating a \nDRB Meeting Room: more open welcoming public access along this blue. \nand that’s you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s the western side of the project. It’s got good solar access. \nIt’s sort of \nDRB Meeting Room: makes a lot of sense to me. I’m \ntrying to figure out why you wouldn’t make a stronger public connection to the Bay trail. with the understanding that the \nDRB Meeting Room: majority of the public accesses with the southern portion of \nthis conference. And there’s this really strong statement that’s being made in front of this project. and it sort of stops \nat the southern edge. You can know that \nDRB Meeting Room: the way it we’re understanding is that the \ncity parking lot is being repaved. So it seems like there’s a really strong opportunity there. It seems crazy to \nDRB Meeting Room: invest in a twelve-level parking garage\, and not figure out how to \nDRB Meeting Room: share that ability with \na \nDRB Meeting Room: as a as this boot field. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t understand why \nthere’s why we still need a surface lot. \nDRB Meeting Room: and it’s I don’t know. \nMaybe there’s enough demand on weekends\, but I can imagine that the majority of the \nDRB Meeting Room: like that there’s got to be sort of a perfect demand relationship between when \na sports facility means parking\, and when people are actually working \nI don’t know it Just even if you could actually make the parking lot a little smaller and create a more significant public space where the patrol comes into \nthis new promenade that’s being created. It seems like there’s a real opportunity there\, and that’s like the fourth point. I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: the staff mentioned \nthe \nin the letter. \nand then I I I I I like the attention to the sort of \nDRB Meeting Room: public frontage and the experience against along this promenade \nthe \nDRB Meeting Room: the like animation of that space. \nIt’s a to be a sort of active. unlikely. \nDRB Meeting Room: since i’m wondering if there’s \nlike sort of another more layered approach. I could sort of imagine a little bit of retail or restaurant activity\, but it also seems like \nDRB Meeting Room: more attention to the ground plane. \nWhether it’s. You know. edges of the building that can sort of become seeding areas\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, some articulation of the depth of the building of the ground plane \nDRB Meeting Room: areas of landscaping on the building side\, just things that can sort of make that more an interesting 2 sized experience for pedestrians. \nI think I would \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe appreciate some attention to that. \nAnd then \nDRB Meeting Room: I I I always have a concern with you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Life\, Science buildings actually are really tall. \nor their their. \nDRB Meeting Room: They really talk \ncompared to what’s around. They’re less significantly taller. And so I would always sort of want to sort of understand \nwhat’s happening \nDRB Meeting Room: with shadow and public space. I think we have good again. \ngood Southern and Western exposure on here. But i’m curious about what happens with the wind. and if there are \nissue with orientation to the bay\, and sort of significant down drafts that would be occurring on the public spaces that are occurring that sometimes that’s sort of a \nI think important thing to think about when we’re thinking about the quality of the public experience in these cases. \ni’ll stop there. Thank you. Thanks. Everyone \nDRB Meeting Room: some really good points right there. I think we’ll keep going along. Everyone can get their key points on the table\, and then we can \nbuild on that. \nYeah\, go ahead. \nYeah. Good point. And I think I think it’s important to put these plans into the kind of bigger picture or planning context. And it seems like we don’t necessarily know exactly what the bigger picture is in terms of the adaptation strategies \nfor the slues. I think that’s helpful to kind of get that understanding of kind of conceptually what’s happening so lacking that\, you know\, if we look at the master plan\, the whole island has\, like a 100 foot set back. \nand this would be the first place on the island to break it. That sort of gives an opportunity to create those levies and have more room for adaptation. and we’ve seen this. \nyou know\, on a number of projects where \nI completely understand the R. And D. Buildings have a very inflexible floor\, plate and dimensions\, and all of that. And then you combine that with the 100 Footstep Academy\, and then the setbacks on the streets and the grade to be able to get up to the higher level and all that\, and I understand it. It becomes constrained \nparticularly for that building\, one building\, 2. It’s just it’s really. It’s kind of jammed in there. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I wonder if \nI just seems like that’s a a big pinch point\, and I wonder if there’s opportunities to minimize that pinch point as much as possible. \nso that there could be more room for more adaptation areas. And maybe you just have one place where it’s sort of pinched. But there’s a lot more other space where you can be more generous with this kind of ecotone levy idea\, and I don’t know if the If B. Cdc. Has \nguidance on exactly what in cotton Levy needs to look like\, or what slope dimensions should be one to one\, or whatever to the one\, whatever it is. But I think that would be helpful. \nDRB Meeting Room: and it just \nDRB Meeting Room: it it Everything’s getting so jammed that\, like public access\, is now kind of encroaching into this March marsh area\, and the slope is really steep. And \nyou know\, when we talk about habitat areas\, we’re generally wanting to create more of a buffer between the kind of the public access and the wetland. And those are things that require space. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I don’t know if there’s something to do there around pushing the building close to the road\, or minimizing the drop off area\, or something that could give you more space to kind of minimize that pinch point \nDRB Meeting Room: i’ll. I’ll also just say \nthe I agree with Stefan’s comments about the access to the bay trail at the southern end being sort of lost in this parking lot\, and then an entrance into the parking structure. \nAnd besides the sort of bay trail there’s not a clear. \nThere’s not a very big\, clear kind of public access entry into this trail system. \nso I think that could be improved. and I also \nDRB Meeting Room: I I don’t know it. \nI don’t think you can consider this Eva area that has loading access on it part of a trail. Specifically\, if there are vehicles coming through there. I don’t know if that counts as public access \nin the way the master Plan conceptualizes it \nDRB Meeting Room: also. Just say cycle tracks are really good for t intersections where they they can be not interrupted\, but where cycle tracks are crossed by roads. \nit creates like a 6 way intersection that can be dangerous for the cyclists\, so I don’t know. Maybe move the cycle track to the north side of that street where you can manage those intersections a little more cleanly\, or just do \na bike lane that’s more kind of a typical condition\, maybe. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then the last thing i’ll say is. \nthere’s just there’s just a lot of parking. A lot of like the arrival to the site is just going to be a lot K. A huge parking structure\, and then building 3 with the however\, many levels of parking below it\, and \nI I \nDRB Meeting Room: I know that those aren’t areas aren’t in the B Cdc. Jurisdiction and all that. But \nI would just encourage you to try to reduce parking if you can\, by using some of those Tma Tdm measures. It looks like you have one space per employee offered right now if I do my math about 400 square feet per employee. \nso I don’t know if there’s some ways to reduce that\, but I think it just. It’s a very to step on’s point. There’s just so much density here\, and I love density. but a lot of the density is in the parking mass. \nwhich \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think sort of. \nyou know\, impacts the public ground experience quite a bit. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, these are. These are all great comments. I’m going to try hard not to be redundant\, but I I agree with so much of what has been said. \nThe West \nexperience\, you know. I think there’s an opportunity for a really wonderful landscape. And you know\, I think\, that you know that’s been demonstrated in this presentation. There are a lot of amenities\, and that are put forward\, and the connection to the trail system\, I think\, is also\, you know\, a big benefit. \nWhat What i’m concerned about a little bit is that you know\, when you when you do get to the West it is. It was a nice experience\, and i’m glad you brought up Stephen with the idea of the South \nfocal point\, because\, you know\, you really have to go deep into the site to get to the turnaround entry plaza. You know where you really have a point of arrival. and the you know the entry experience \ncoming up Island Parkway\, I mean. This is a tremendously wide road\, like an arterial serving the side\, and I I kind of have a question about why why it’s so wide\, and even in the renders \nit seems like I could use more mediating elements\, something between the scale of the very tall buildings and the rather flat ground planes. You know\, more large trees\, or some kind of architectural gesture to make a more human scale experience on your way \nto the the shoreline area. and when you do get to the point of arrival\, you know it’s described as a plaza. There’s a tremendous amount of paving in order to get to the plaza\, and then\, when you get there. \nyou know\, I think there’s a question about whether maybe the plaza is better as a you know as the magnetism. the green burden space\, which is the gateway to the you know\, to the to the water print. \nDRB Meeting Room: I like the you know the deck as a as a kind of a terminus and a focal point at the north end of the \nthe open space. I think that’s really nice\, I think\, is that maybe Bobble\, you’re referring to as the bird blind\, or whatever\, which I think is actually a side sculpture\, you know. \nof sorts\, and and it’s interesting that you were wondering what that was\, and I and I was thinking. Maybe there’s a way of. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, as that thing comes to life that it maybe has a. \nyou know\, sheltering function and starts to do a whole bunch of different things. you know\, for people to pause there. so I I like having a focal point there. It just seems like maybe \nto be. i’m sure it will become more justified as as it goes on. \nYou know the there’s just a lot of paving throughout\, and the and I think the 2 to one slope has been mentioned\, you know\, as an indication that the site is tight. and you know I don’t. I don’t think that \nDRB Meeting Room: the Design Review Board should make a habit of of. \nYou know. endorsing buildings which are inside the shoreline band\, and there are so many converging site\, condition. and sea level rise issues and access issues that I\, I agree with Christine and others that there needs to be \nmore space. you know\, to adapt in the future\, given that there is no future adaptive adaptation plan in place. and i’m sure you know\, something will happen. But \nyou know we really don’t know what economic conditions and timelines. you know\, is is ahead of us. So you know\, it seems very\, you know\, very helpful\, very optimistic\, that that will be solved. I think that \nyou know to date the way those problems are being solved on the bay is with levees. and I need to see more levies around the bay. We’ve seen some really big ones in Foster City and burling game and \nbuilding\, you know\, building a site like this so so happily\, I think it creates more demand for. So \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, given given the times that that it would be great if this if the project had a narrative which was all about. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think i’ll just. I’ll just send it to that. \nThank you. \nIt looks thanks\, Gary\, and I just put a few ideas forward. \nreally stemming from. I think you know one of the early comments in the presentation. I don’t think Staff have made this point as well is\, You know this site located in a particularly interesting ecological area with the confluence of these 2. \nAnd \nyou know you. The \npublic comment and their submission made some very strong points \nhow to And so \nDRB Meeting Room: and when we looked at the permitting diagram. \ngreen spaces. 47\,000 seat\, I think\, in the original permit the there was probably it was envisaged. I’m sure that it’s the green space. \nYou know this is not bay trails per se that connects into a network of trails that connect to the Bay trail. So it’s got some significance. And when I was down \non site the weekend before that. and walking\, there is no question\, as the proponents said\, but this is well used\, and you know the magic on the unformed trail \nbeing tested outside. I was walking along\, and there are cyclists trying to cycle through there and and then. You know the sports park very well used\, in fact. \non the plan. The little white rectangles. It’s a little white square there\, that’s the the small brick building where the volunteer parents serve the hot dogs \nbaseball there in the afternoon\, and and it was just\, you know. I was looking at the site plan on site next to the bleaches where I sat and ate my hot dog and \ncontemplated the drawings\, and and it just. It’s very hard to reconcile a much loved recreation area. \nDRB Meeting Room: and the environmental significance of the adjacent sleuths with the amount of hardscape that’s immediately adjacent\, and and \nif you we’ve got 25 feet right \nDRB Meeting Room: I mean it’s within probably 8 to 10 feet of that little brick building where \nand I was going to hop down and and you know. And so the age to to the point about. you know\, raised in those questions. You know how public this public space field. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know. I think there needs to be more down to just green\, more green space. \nthe site softening the interface with the building talking structure. I mean\, we’ve all worked on many\, many projects over the years space as a promised \nthe ground floor. That will be welcoming\, and uses that \nDRB Meeting Room: may not materialize. \nor it’s originally envisaged. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I do\, you know\, just on building 2\, I \nI just. \nDRB Meeting Room: I really struggle to lift away the \nentry. You know the the loop around the the tree and the green in the middle. I I think that should be absolutely minimized to the minimum amount needed to come in \ndrop set down. You know we see all sorts of configurations and projects \nnecessarily like that. I think the challenge in this project is\, there is so much \nDRB Meeting Room: building on the site that you know the Eda access and truck access really has to \ncircle encircled all of these buildings. So you end up with. you know. basically\, all circulation \nDRB Meeting Room: doubling\, as you know\, the the public \nwalkways. So you know\, I struggle with this proposal as it is currently presenting to really feel public. I you know I struggle\, I I just. \nI think they need to. If you\, if you on question. \nyou know\, if you are improving public experience along the shoreline. I think it’s very hard to see how you can do match with the the current. You know where the 25 \nhuh? \nBasically adjacent to the even with start building too right? \nI think we’ve talked about resiliency and adaptation. \nand I think \nDRB Meeting Room: the point is really well made\, particularly about on the southern entrance. \nYou know there are really 2 entry points here. There’s like \npredominantly. Staff entries to the parking structure 31\, and then there’s the building to drop off that it just seems that the area to the south did you see \nthe city parking lot is. \nDRB Meeting Room: and and there are plenty of people parking there on the weekends. \nSome of probably the neighbors may be great. Go. but there’s definitely uses talking. So you know the city parking lot. I get it. but putting it\, you know\, as you. \nif I\, you know\, right next to really big parking garage. you know. Can there be more synergy between the 2\, and it’s it’s just sort of strange to see the the public \nwalkway sort of turning back into to to \nDRB Meeting Room: it. I find that hard\, you know\, if you’re coming in from the stream. \nwould you really intuitively feel that\, you know. \nacross the \ndelivery area to get to the walking trails? It seems \nSo \nso that sort of where. I think\, if what I’m hearing you say is that that tightness of the sort of promenade and the limitation of the \nyou know \nthe \nDRB Meeting Room: buildings coming right up to that line\, that there’s sort of a real limited \nspace. That is sort of linear that you just described 2 spaces where that could actually broaden out into the larger public space that might be more appropriate for gathering and testing\, and not be so dependent on ground for activity\, and one would be \nreconfiguring at least a portion of the \nDRB Meeting Room: the cities \nparking lot\, a surface lot of the South. But the other one would be shrinking the drop off and looking for a larger public space to emerge at that end. \nYou could be thinking about that. proud to add more sort of a connector between 2 larger\, more significant public spaces. and those are both connecting back \nto the primary access point into the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: not to mention that just the idea of \nDRB Meeting Room: softening the prominent and giving some relief to that space still seems to be desirable. \nAnd can I jump in on that? I mean\, I think there is some space around the turnaround \nDRB Meeting Room: which I think is what you’re referring to when you \nyou can say the plaza and and to flatten the slope without impacting the building. and I think that would still be in the 100 foot band. But I do \nthink I understand all this this isn’t what I do\, but I understand that there’s a need to have or turn around there for vehicular access. I understand it is. but it does seem like they’re \nall along that west side of left side of building 2 \ndown to the turnaround promenade area. There is a space for. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, flattening the slope\, and and providing\, you know\, maybe letting the water in a little bit \nas the whole rises. maybe doing something interesting. so that you can still have the trails that apply. Then maybe you can get down to the water \nin there\, or just passively observed \nWildlife \ndown there\, and then provide more space. And and I think you have more of an Ec tone because below the emergent marsh vegetation is typically mud flat\, and you have a 2 to one slow and \nthe water level. So \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, midslope or higher\, you just have \nwhat their but right\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s not a high energy area\, so it might not a road\, but I just don’t think it’s really. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, for the long term. I don’t think it’s going to be \nall that attractive. \nYou know. We review lots of campus projects. and it is interesting that you know most to see here on the plan on \nIsland Parkway\, which is developed. \nIt is right now. But the first entry you’re going to arrive to is the entry to the parking structure and building one\, and there are lots of campuses where that might be the only entry and building\, too. \nwould walk to building 2 from that first entry point. \nDRB Meeting Room: And so you could imagine \nanother scenario where you actually downplay that Northern circular. But you might. \nand loading access if you have to. but really play down that so that you. you know\, not just trying to think creatively\, how do you catch it \nback? Because we also see lots of sit down with. Nobody ever uses it\, because the staff all park in the garage\, and so \nDRB Meeting Room: there could be some \npotential A with the \ndown to modified \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, it. And i’m still interested in this idea that the \nbuilding square footage is over 80\,000. Where is the the permit? 800? I’m. Sorry. 800. Yes\, I should know that \n800\,000 over 800\,000 square feet versus the old permit drawing to something like 200 and 30\,000 your feet. I was well. and then I realized\, oh\, yeah\, the buildings are a lot bigger. \nbut it does seem like there should be some \nDRB Meeting Room: room economically to move the buildings out of the \nthe line band and create some space. I don’t i’m not a developer\, but it just. My intuition is that that’s something that’s not unreasonable for us to ask for. \nor at least to be considered. especially if it provides \nDRB Meeting Room: ecological benefits\, adaptation\, benefits\, and public access. And you know all the things that \nVc. DC’s. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: I mean\, I can imagine that \nwhen that permit was approved\, however long ago\, that that probably was a feasible project and cost of construction have gone way up and probably all of the geo-technical stuff you talked about\, like I don’t know how many piles you’re going to have to put into this ground\, and i’m sure that makes it \nvery expensively in the develop. Just the fact of the vulnerability\, sea level rise\, vulnerability\, and having to add surplus weighed on on top\, you know more so. And that’s all very expensive. \nand i’m sure that’s one of the things that’s driving you to try to seek water\, square footage to be able to pay for the horizontal stuff that’s happening. I mean the the building. and I know to like \nthese R. And D. Buildings. They like they’re very rigid\, right? And and I think there’s a lot of factors here that are pushing these buildings. you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: into that shoreline band. \nbut it’s our job to push back on that. And it’s our job to be looking out for future adaptation strategies for these areas and ensuring that there’s enough room for those adaptation strategies to happen \nand ensuring that it’s happening in a way that is \nconsistent with kind of larger regional goals and visions and the the ecological Well\, being of these areas. So I think\, Understand? \nI I think it’s safe to say that we understand the pressures. And also there’s there are these other pressures. Hmm. Sort of have to look out for on this board\, so I think \nDRB Meeting Room: that’s sort of a bigger picture view of it. I also think some of these ideas about like\, do you have to have a big automobile drop off as the place making idea for \nyour campus. I think you’re hearing from us that that may not be the best place making idea\, and that would also allow you to have some opportunities to give more space to the \nthe levy and the resilience strategies within the campus. \nDRB Meeting Room: Look\, I think we’ve \nwe’re all in pretty close agreement in terms of the concerns we have. I don’t. I think it’s fairly clear\, so I don’t think I need to go back and recap. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is our first review\, and obviously we’re getting to know the project. And and I just want to echo. What Kristen said. You know we completely understand the complexity of developing \nin the bay area. and we understand the factors that are driving the amount of square foot each. You. you know\, to you would like on the side \nright? \nI think we’ve given you just \nDRB Meeting Room: clear as clearer feedback as we can on the the issues that are of interest to us \nand of interested Ecdc. So. But I think you know we we can end the Board at this point. and \nI think. but the next step is \nsome response from the proponents. \nYou know there’s there’s a lot but looks very good in the project. It sounds like. you know\, phrase a lot of concerns. But there is a lot that looks really good\, and I think some of the positives. But \nclearly there is\, you know\, introducing some greatly enhanced and much-needed connectivity along the sleuths of the history in cycles \nDRB Meeting Room: really applaud you on a number of the things you’re doing. \nBut we are really concerned about. but issues people I Middle East shoot \ngoing to be facing every project we’re reviewing. Now\, that is new development. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, when we talk about mid century we are in 2023 now. So you know\, this is not \nsomething that really off South Eastern it’s something that everyone will be. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. \nProbably everyone at the table now will still be \nDRB Meeting Room: around in mid-century\, you know. So it’s it’s these\, are. \nyou know\, very \nDRB Meeting Room: immediate. \nSo it’s \nsuch seriousness. \nYes. so normally. I’m. I’m. Asking for more accommodation and and and I should have mentioned this. I think your plan is consistent with \nDRB Meeting Room: the Pcbc guidelines. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’ll be at the you know\, scrunched up and tight on that side\, and and with the \nkind of \nDRB Meeting Room: anyway the other comments we already have\, but I but I think that you know\, filling the side as much as you are planning to. \nand raising the the floor elevations for 28 \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: 100 year event\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: having some adaptation. \nplan and capacity. is consistent with the guidelines. especially at the medium high risk\, a version level so. \nand then\, as far as yeah. One of the comments I was going to make as an engineer was what happens to the drainage that comes off the site as you raise it. You know the kind of floor plane management stuff we think about\, but the site’s already higher than the other ones\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: so I don’t know that that applies here. And then also we \nthis is something I don’t think any of us have quite figured out\, and\, as you point out\, one shoreline is looking at. How do you put all this together? You know? How do you make an integrated plan with a bunch of private parcels and \nand over. I think you know I kind of feel like your civil rise Plan is is pretty reasonable. It must be pretty expensive to \nI just follow that for a second. Yeah. Does it follow DC. DC. Guidelines? I mean\, I I see the adaptation strategies put forward\, which is \na couple of typical sections of how they would be adapted. But I I think that we always should ask for a plan of the adaptation plan as well as the section\, because. \nyou know. I think it’s mentioned. You know water comes in from everywhere. and although I think it’s a suggest here\, it’s the best we can do with the information we have. I don’t think that that \nis an effective plan without others\, you know\, stepping in and making some major move\, so I don’t know. I just want to say\, but I just want to moderate your enthusiasm for the adaptation plan. I I didn’t realize I sounded enthusiastic\, but \nbut I I actually just here I just wanted to jump into. I really appreciate your earlier comment about how the I paraphrase the email\, so you can correct me. But \nit seemed like \nDRB Meeting Room: you felt like the development didn’t seem to quite necessarily fit in some ways \nin the bigger picture\, in terms of perhaps instigating more levies than the like\, and I think that’s a really good comment and valid comment. I just don’t know that we have \nfigured out how the hands \nDRB Meeting Room: at least\, I I haven’t figured out \nadaptation strategies. But until you really have an adaptation strategy\, I think you can do it with landscape\, and you can do it with the initial building. The you know\, the architecture that we have tomorrow. Not. \nyou know\, plan on something coming along to save the day and 20 years. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, good. I think that concludes our \ndiscussions. So the next item on the agenda is project proponent response\, and we the project. He like to respond to that call just into you know \nwe’re confirming they’re coming back\, or you’d like to see them again. I think we would. Yes. \ni’ll keep it brief\, just because there’s a lot to respond to\, and I was \nmuch more than \nfirst. I’ll just say thank you\, an extremely long list of thoughtful comments. I’m impressed by your guys as a board and as a bay area resident. even if it’s affecting me. Not necessarily \nthis moment\, and very. I heartened to see the level of sophistication that’s brought to me. \nYou’ve brought up a lot of of of of really good points\, and all of which we’ve we’ve talked about is \nthe hypothesis. you know\, for how we thought we might solve it\, while also that we want to build that we think is \nright. You know the right product for our tenants and the right ecosystem that they’re attracted to. But obviously we have a of work to do. And I think in all of these areas. You’ve had everything that there’s \nSo we’re happy to go back and and \nwith building 2\, I think you a few of you nailed it. I mean all of you brought it up\, and you know I think it was mentioned that this is a pretty constrained site\, and you know we do need to. We can’t. It’s harder to just shrink. It’s harder than just shrinking the floor plate right to shrink the building because the floor plate has to work\, you know. \nand so I can’t just make a smaller floor plane. \nIt’s a it’s a and so that’s what something we’ve been struggling with\, and we’ll bring that we’ll\, we’ll take another look at that\, and we’ll bring that back to the board for a potential system. I think we can with the the loading area\, too. I heard that as a \nthat we look at again. We had a hypothesis about how that might work and feedback from you guys that’s actionable. and we can come back with another. \nand then the southern end\, I think\, is a a different sort of challenge\, just because it is is not ours that interfaces the bay trail. \nIt’s something that we’ll take on hard. Look at to see what we can do with within our project bound. \nAnd then\, obviously\, there’s \nDRB Meeting Room: a lot of other comments. \nBut those are the big bullets that I took away is sort of central area on. and we’ll do it. So okay. thank you very much anything else \nbefore we adjust. \nThere’s nothing else. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay? \nWell\, that concludes our project review for the meeting. I would like to have a motion to adjourn the meeting. I will make a motion to adjourn. Thanks\, Gary. Second \nDRB Meeting Room: Second. \nThank you. Kristen. Okay. Any objections. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hearing none. The meeting is adjourned. Thanks\, everyone. Good night. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-8-2023-design-review-board-meeting/
LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230410T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230410T170000
DTSTAMP:20260501T001033
CREATED:20230411T051326Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T212150Z
UID:10000056-1681146000-1681146000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 10\, 2023 Design Review Board and Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meetings will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with  SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nYerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center 375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3657 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/86409335916?pwd=RmhaeGdwWEpxaFQ2R3BHbEF3WElWZz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID864 0933 5916 \nPasscode460758 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nStaff Update\nFerry Building and Ferry Plaza Alterations in the City of San Francisco\, San Francisco County (First Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board and Port Waterfront Advisory Committee will hold their first pre-application review of the proposal by Hudson Pacific Properties to make interior and exterior alterations to the San Francisco Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza at various locations along the ground floor and the building site.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650 katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit \nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				Meeting Summary \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Video Recording & Transcript\n				\n \nTranscript: \nOkay\, much delay. Thank you for joining us tonight\, for the joint. \nBcdc. Design\, review\, board and port\, waterfront Advisory Committee meeting. \nLike to remind board members to please\, speak directly into the microphone in front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. \nAnd please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on. \nBut your audio is disabled. \nOkay. Thank you\, Ashley. My name is Jacinda Mccann\, and I’m the chair of the Bcdc. \nDesign Review Board. I’m looking at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and also those who are participating online. \nAnd I do want to apologise. We’re a few minutes late\, because this is a a joint meeting\, and there have been lots of technical. \nBut we are getting started now for anyone who been patiently holding on and dialed in. \nSo thank you. So our first daughter of business is to call the Role Board members. \nPlease unmute yourselves\, and then mute yourselves again. \nAfter responding\, Ashley\, can you call the roll? \nChair\, Mccann\, Vice chair\, string board\, member Battalion. \nPresent Board\, Member Hall\, present Board\, Member Leader. \nPresent. \nBoard member Pellegrini. \nPresent. \nFor the waterfront Design Advisory Committee. \nThis is and ode I’m going to call role as well. \nLaura\, Crescento. \nPresent Catherine Moore\, present. \nPresent. Thank you. \nOkay\, thank you\, Dan\, and thank you. Ashley. We have a quorum present. \nSo we’re duly constituted to conduct business. I what share some instructions\, how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible for everyone online and in the meeting room\, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise for board\, members if you have \na webcam. Please make sure it is on\, so everyone can see you for members of the public. \nIf you would like to speak during a public comment period. That is part of an agenda item\, you will need to do. \nFirst\, if you are here with us in person\, we will ask you to form a line near the podium. \nIf you. \nSpeaker cards are available at the door\, and you will be asked to come up to the podium. \nOne at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your conversation. \nFor members of the public attending our meeting in person in our headquarters building. \nI will ask you to maintain social distance during the meeting wearing masks is optional\, but recommended in this building. \nAfter all\, the individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely. \nThe second way\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nIf you’re new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting using the zoom application\, and click the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nThe hand should turn blue when it’s raised. Finally\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and then press star 6 to mute or unmute\, we will call on individuals who have raised their hands in \nthe orders they are raised during the public. \nAfter you were called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nPlease stay your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks\, remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to. \nOkay. That everyone has the responsibility to act in a we will not tolerate hate. \nSpeech threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abuse of language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines or exceeds the established type. \nFor public comments. If you are attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voices\, your video will not be enabled. \nIf you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio synthesis and is not synced to the individual. \nIf you would like to add your cost information to the interested parties\, list to be notified of future meetings concerning this project\, please call or email Ashley Tomlin\, who’s contact information is on the screen in front of you or is found on the Bcdc finally\, every now and then you will hear me \nrefer to the meeting host Eurico\, Bcdc. \nStaff are acting as hosts for the meeting behind the scenes sure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nAnd now the Board Secretary will provide a start updates. \nThank you. Chair. Mccann\, I do have a couple quick updates for tonight. \nReminder. If you have not completed your form\, 700. \nIt was due April third\, so please do so soon. \nStaff updates\, I’d like to welcome our newly appointed Bay design Analyst yuriko Jewett Eureko has a background in urban design and planning\, and has been working at the principal waterfront planner for Bcdc and previously \npresented to this board during her time as the shoreline development permit. Analyst. \nComing up with the Commission. There will be a combined working group meeting for rising sea level and financing the future. \nAs the morning of May eighteenth\, the slide deck\, from A the April sixth meeting is available on our website. \nThe board is encouraged to join and ask questions. The zoom link is also available on the BCDC. \nWebsite. Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, May eighth\, and will be a hybrid meeting here at Metro Center. \nWe’ll be reviewing a proposal researching development site in Belmont\, and that concludes the Bcdc staff update. \nI’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board. \nThanks\, Ashley\, great report because I’m so excited that you is part of the team so welcome\, and we’re thrilled to have in the team. \nThe team? Does anyone have any questions? \nOkay. Hearing none iphone\, I will turn it over to Dan Hodup for the port staff update. \nThank you. Ashley and Chair Mccann to Rwdac members is great\, and DRB. \nMembers great to see you again in our waterfront design. \nReview\, the Wdas. Meets when a project reaches a level defined in the city code\, requiring review by this\, and due to many factors not occurred for nearly 3 years. \nThe longest break in the history. Of the committee. By far the port welcomes the new hybrid process for the public that we will be using today will encourage public participants more so than the past. \nPlease note that for city committees members are required to attend in person need for reasonable accommodation. \nThe Wdac waterfront design\, advisory may see other projects. \nThis here the piers. 33 proposal\, if it it moves forward and a waterfront resilience program presentation. \nSee wall adaptation. Please look forward to updates on these projects. \nAnd that concludes my comments at this. Are there any questions from? \nThank you. Chair\, Mckinnon. Thanks\, Dan. We’ll move to a public comment period. \nNow\, and that’s a public comment on what you’ve just heard today in the report. \nSo if there’s anyone in the room who has a comment on this part of the meeting\, form a line at the podium. \nAnd I don’t see a line at the podium\, so I think we’ll move on that. \nAnd if there’s anyone online who makes it to make a comment this time\, please do so. \nShow your hands. \nWe have no public comments online. Very good. And for anyone from the public attending online\, I just want to remind you there will be another point for public comment. \nReview of the project. Okay? So we now move on to the next agenda item\, which is the first review of proposed alterations at the Ferry Building and the Ferry plaza. \nThis is a gender. Item 4. And\, as I mentioned\, it is the first\, and we’re going to follow the following order of reviewing the project\, so we’ll start with introductions to the project. \nBy the Bcdc. Import staff. That will be followed by the project proponents. \nPresentation\, and then we’ll follow that with the Board and Committee clarifying questions on the presentation. We’ll then move to a public comment period\, and then we will move to the Board and committee discussion and summary\, and then we will conclude with the project proposed proponent and that’s a brief response. \nAnd so with that the BCDC. Permanent analysts. \nAnd is so I’ll head to cast. \nThank you. Chair Mccann\, and good evening board members. \nI’m Katherine Pan\, the shoreline development program manager\, and I’ll be introducing tonight’s project for BCDC. \nBefore I do\, I would like to remind the project\, team and staff to please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. \nWhen you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your video and mute your microphone so that we minimize distractions on screen. \nNow this is the first review of the Ferry building\, and very plaza alterations project in the city and county of San Francisco. \nThe\, the proposed project is likeated in the ferry building\, or at the ferry building\, a landmark on the San Francisco waterfront\, where Market Street meets the embarcadero just south of pier\, one the ferry building is an active ferry terminal \nand provides vary access to and from Angel Island and north and East Bay Destination. \nThis site is covered by BCDC. San Francisco waterfront. \nSpecial area plan and is part of the plant’s northeastern waterfront geographic area. \nThe ferry building is home to a variety of commercial and office uses\, and at the edge of the and at the edge of the Yacidis financial district\, in downtown area\, is surrounded by many similar uses as well as the waterfronts extensive public recreation and access\, in. \nWe’d like to acknowledge that the project site is in the ancestral territory. \nOf the Yaleamu people of the Ramatush Aloni\, we offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay area. \nThe area around a ferry building in Berry closet is covered by a number of existing BCDC. \nPermits\, each with its own public access\, conditions resulting in a layering of different access requirements I’ll summarize these briefly to provide contexts for some of the changes being proposed\, as well. \nAs some surrounding access connections\, as a disclaimer. \nWhat we’re about to show is our best understanding of where these access areas are located\, based on our review of permit files and exhibits in some cases there still may be some questions as to the exact extent of the access areas which will continue to research and work through with the project proponents. \nSo when we talk about the fairy plaza\, we’re referring to this open area on the bay side of the variable. \nWith open area on the bay side of the ferry building\, enclosed by the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal\, and this restaurant structure. \nAll of this is located on the ferry platform\, which is also known as the Bart Platform\, which is also authorized by permit 1\,967. \nThe permit required public access on the perimeter of the platform not required for any ferry operations\, but the area wasn’t specified in any permit. \nExist. \nPermit 1973010 authorize the Restaurant and the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal\, and required access around the restaurant building as well as on areas of the ferry terminal that could be used for public access consistent with very operations the area around the terminal is also not depicted in any permanent exhibit. \nPermit\, 1998 was for a number of roadway improvements along the Embarcadero and for the meeting. \nMetro. It required the dedication of public access area for the embarcadero promenade between Broadway and Harrison’s Amendment 6 approved in 2\,007 authorized the use of a portion of the dedicated access area to be used for outdoor dining\, and these are the 30 foot Wide Cafe market zone shown on either side of the entry portico. \nPermit\, 199707. Authorize additional fills for North and South Ferry portal. \nA publicly accessible sheep pile\, breakwater\, and the promenades around the ferry building\, as well as a demolition of pier. \nOne half the access area is required by the permit include the new northeast and south promenades. \nPr. 14. The Breakwater\, and a concourse through the ferry building. \nAs a legibility. Note\, exhibit A of the permit shows that there is a space between the ferry building and the wedge of public Access reserved along the southern side of the ferry building. \nIt’s not clear in this visual\, due to the end of the area. \nBut that’s the image there! \nSo permit 2\,000 0 one. Authorize the ferry building rehabilitation project and the use of the ferry plaza for the pharmacy. \nThe East promenade was expanded to provide continued uncovered access along the promenade. \nAs the rehab second floor expansion would cover the existing portion. \nThe required public access includes includes the east promenade space to 10 foot wide\, pass through through the ferry building improvements to the path through entrances\, ground floor\, public restrooms\, 24 bike parking spaces and a ferry closet. \nAnd then permit 201601\, authorize new gates for the Wida San Francisco Bay ferries south of the ferry Plaza\, and included public access conditions for the Embcadero Plaza\, or the Wida Paza and a Bayside Promenade connecting the new Farie \ngate. These areas are outside the scope of the current project. \nBut we’re including this information so that you’re aware of these closely connected uses. \nImmediately adjoining the project site. \nI’m sure most\, if not all\, of you\, are already quite familiar with the ferry building in Plaza. \nBut here’s some contextual photos to Orient. \nYou and help you visualize current conditions at the site. \nAnd these photos are all taken on a weekday morning\, actually. \nSo here’s the North Cafe Zone in ourcade\, and here you can see it’s very end got outdoor seating area. \nThe North pass through entrance\, and they’re in the process of setting up additional outdoor seating in the Cafe zone. \nThen the North Arcade here is used by a variety of commercial key. \nAnd then here’s the South Cafe Slash Market Zone\, with the wine merchant seating area and South Pass through\, and the South Arcade\, which is mainly used for storage and farmers. Market operation. \nAnd then here’s the area on the south side of the ferry building which provides access for both pedestrians and vehicles for the ferry plaza\, and here you can see the access or the area reserved for public access along the drive aisle that’s also used by delivery \nand service vehicles\, and these cones and barriers here are\, I believe\, used to control vehicle access in this area. \nAnd then here’s part of the East facade at the very building and you’re looking at is the exit from the central breezeway and the seating area below the cantilevered second floor. \nAnd this area would be part of the proposed Bay front kitchens concept. \nHere’s some additional views of the East Promenade. \nI can see it’s quite active this morning. \nAnd then here’s just 2 quick views of a crowd arriving at the plaza from the Golden Gate ferry. \nSo these are pedestrians in cyclists\, like a good number of cyclists\, all making their way to the south side of the building through the plaza. \nAnd then here are some views of the ferry plaza itself versus a view from the South promenade\, where you can see a lot of the existing furnishings\, including the 30 tables that were put in place during the pandemic this one up here is from the \nGandhi statue\, facing towards the south side of the building\, and then the bottom right is a view of the space on the north side of the plaza\, next to the Golden Gate Ferry terminal. \nWe’re facing east towards the restaurants. Sure. \nSo here’s where our community vulnerability mapping tool showed us about the area downtown. \nSan Francisco is a densely populated diverse community\, and the decreases of social and contamination. \nVulnerability indicated by the tool covered a really broad range\, generally speaking\, indicators associated with higher social\, vulnerability in the areas near the ferry building include renter\, occupancy\, and no vehicle ownership as well as some combination of limited English perficiency very \nlow income\, no high school degree\, disability\, individuals over 65 living alone\, non-us citizens and people of color. \nAnd then regarding potential C level rise\, using current site elevations. \nThis map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nUsing the Ocean Protection Council’s 2\,018 sea level rise guidance 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level under the medium to high-risk aversion. \nHigh emissions scenario at mid-century and at this level there is potential for some flooding. During a 100 year. Storm event. \nAnd then this shows what 66 inches this year the sea level rise would look like at the site if it was unchanged. \nThis roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level. \nAt 2\,090\, in the medium to high risk\, aversion\, high emissions\, scenario as well as 100 year storm\, condition in mid-century\, and in this scenario the project site and much of the waterfront would be inundated. \nSo before I pass this over to Port Staff\, I’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff. \nReport that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. \nFirst\, please consider how this project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcdc’s public access design guidelines\, and then staff has identified some specific questions we’d like to ask the Board about the design at this stage. \nThese are one. How does the project proposal result in public spaces that feel public? \nAnd does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people? \n2. Do the alteration sufficiently maintain or enhance connectivity\, and along the shoreline are the enhancements compatible with the existing structures and uses in the area. \nAnd are there any potential uses or concerns to be mindful of as the concept develops? \n3. Does the enclosure of the private dining areas on the east promenade for the bayfront kitchens and Hampsh activation and support inviting usable public access areas. \nAnd is it necessary to enclose a private dining area? \n4. Are the alterations of the ferry plaza\, sufficiently flexible to accommodate the variety of proposed programming while maintaining usable public access for existing user\, groups. \n5 are the improvements proposed for the ferry plaza likely to be successful in attracting additional visitors to the space during non-market days. \nAfternoons and evenings. 6. What additional details about the programming of the perimeter easement activation zone and the South Promenade are needed to understand the potential for use conflicts\, circulation issues\, and benefits for public access? \nAnd 7. Are there any additional improvements that could improve the public access? Experience? \nAlright. So I wanna take a moment to check to see if the Board has any clarifying questions for me on anything presented in this staff Introduction. \nAny questions? \nOh\, thank you. So I was reading the staff report\, and it says that the peer says the ground elevation is plus 11 feet and a Bd. \nWhich is the same as the base flood elevation. And that’s sounds about right. I thought the peer deck might have been a little higher than that. \nIs that correct? So that’s based on the elevation shown in the exhibits. \nAnd then also checking the base. What all elevation through the. \nSo that’s the best information we have. Thank you. \nThomas Stephan any questions\, clarifying questions\, no. \nGary. \nLook. I have one question I know it’s not part of this immediately. \nPlaza there are 2 buildings\, the building that has but vince\, and then the. \nYou remind me who is the who owns those buildings\, or who is landlord for those 2 buildings? \nBelieve? Is it the port? Yes\, alright\, Dan can be fine. Hi\, Dan! \nHowodap with the port of San Francisco. \nThose are controlled by the port they were previously leased out that they’ve been returned to the port. \nThe port plans actually going under contract with a broker to find a user. \nFor the restaurant site. The one story portion I’m hoping to do that this year for app. \nThe term on that\, not expecting large capital. \nSo that’s good to anticipate that use coming forward again\, and the circulation that might be a sort. \nAnd the other building is really a very active. There is a building just sits on the north side of it that contains some infrastructure on the ground level\, and it does contain a on the top level. \nA second story is a large dining\, somewhat of a banquet facility. \nCould also be lead. \nThat’s an option on that. \nOkay\, thank you\, Dan. While we’re on the subject\, it did mention somewhere there was mentioned structure upgrades in that area. \nCan you describe what those are? \nDan again Future Infrastructure upgrades are largely going to be about sea level rise\, adaptation\, and I think\, looking at of 11\, the impacts at 24 inches were not significant. \nUnless you. \nThat really the low spot on the waterfront. So the future infrastructure would have to do. \nHow do we protect the ferry Building ferry building? \nWas to be a very high cultural value\, and and the waterfront resilience program went through very extensive outreach. \nAddaptation measures are being developed. \nThe peer enjoys being one of the possibly the last meeting your peer construct out on the same. \nCisco waterfront better condition that many of that are part of the historical. \nThe peer behind the building is not part of the. \nGreat. Thank you. No more questions. \nThank you. So now I pass it back over to Dan Hodap from the port of San Francisco to present the port staff report. \nDan Hodap again regarding the Ferry building project before you this evening\, Hudson\, the leaseholder\, of the ferry building and site area\, will be represented by Carl Cade\, who will introduce the project and design team and then the proposed. \nProject the waterfront Design Advisory Committee staff report includes a waterfront. \nExcuse me. A waterfront plan policy analysis as appendix\, A\, of which staff provided an assessment of those policies. \nPlease observe the presentation\, and ask questions regarding the proposal\, and or of any of the policies Committee is not obligated to re review the many policies\, but may want to focus on policies where you want clarification proposal meets. \nDoes. In addition to the questions that Catherine just went through\, examples of questions could include\, how the collection of improvements\, respect and contribute to the character of the ferry building and its environs\, how the proposal enhances or impacts pedestrian circulation and views of the building. \nDo the improvements enhance the historic\, very building. \nDo the improvements work together as a cohesive collection. \nWe welcome your input and recommendation\, which\, following conclusion of the review process\, are forward to the Port Commission and City Planning Commission. \nThat concludes my comments. Are there any questions on those before I introduce? \nSeeing none. I’d like to introduce Carl Cade. \nOh\, I’m sorry! \nI had a question. My question is\, see a certain amount of public access being we commission for other users. \nDo we have any numbers to see your what’s being taken? \nSecond part of my question is as good I personally observe a significant increase in ferry building riders that Hazel could in the last 4 or 5 years. \nThere’s actually almost congestion on the common promenade people rushing with their bicycle. \nSo by foot to catch a ferry\, including seeing fairies being reassigned to a different booth\, while you’re expecting to depart or arrive on one\, you have to rush over to another\, one which creates additional confusion and takes a lot of space relative to people rushing back and \nforth do we have any metrics? The intensity of failure\, use are we anticipating further increase in use as Treasury Island is being realized\, and other uses along the bay? \nA villain themselves toward a taxi\, and for the water craft youth! \nThose are both great questions. The public access quantity. Once I’m going to refer that to the development team to address that as they go through their presentation regarding us\, the ferry system. \nMy numbers are a little bit old\, but 5 years ago they were saying\, looking at a tripling of ferry ridership. \nOkay. \nTreasure Island capacity bridges\, and the improvements overall to the. \nI don’t have the exact numbers\, but your observation are. \nOf course\, put a real damper and ferry rider ship. \nRunning now I don’t have. \nAs to where they are compared to before the pandemic\, but I know that. \nForecast being provided by the way. Emergency authority otherwise\, are for that very significant. \nWhich is why the whole down. \nIf I may\, my second group of questions speaks to open space as we are assigning specific functions to the parts of the around. The fare building. \nNow\, as the Plaza alteration suggests\, I am wondering if we are adding additional base someplace\, else\, in order to uphold the principle of social and racial equity\, because not everybody will be able to partake in the assigned spaces\, as they are currently being. \nDan Hodap again. That’s a great perspective\, to use when analyzing or evaluating the proposal that you are about to hear. \nThere are no offsite\, public space\, improvements being offered. \nIt’s all within the area. Another\, slightly more deeper reaching question is a dialogue about urban design. \nAs we’re speaking about a more privatized use of what is basically a civic building\, I have always perceived even the transformation of this of the ferry building as an effort to keep the civic nature of this building intact when it was historically a full-fledged transportation terminal \nof ferry building. It was only bought transportation. \nThe incredibly fabulous historic of preservation. \nA number of years ago created a public market out of it\, and what is proposed today seems to shift a little bit more into the restaurant role food hall imageway. \nAnd I’d be curious to hear how we are going to be able to uphold the civic nature of the building that includes the use of the arcades becoming more private and indeed taking a very civic component\, as our arcade away. \nThe city city has few arcades. If you go to Bologna\, Italy\, or some of those places\, you can walk like 50 kilometers of public arcades\, which in certain types of weather is a wonderful experience\, and I personally always use the our cage as such so I’m kind of curious \nabout emphasis on civic meaning of the building as it transforms itself under the current proposal. \nI think that’s great input for our presenters. And I encourage Youtube address that as you go through. \nAnd I think any other types comments about the proposal. \nWe should wait until post public comments\, so that we don’t mix so. Thank you very much. \nAnd with that I conclude my remarks and I’m handing it over to and Connors here. \nCause. Carl Cade just pointed at her. She’s sitting right next to him. \nSo\, yeah\, thank you\, Dan\, for that. Well\, good evening\, board members. \nI’m Jane Connors. I’m the general manager of the Ferry building\, and it’s been an honor to have been part of the ferry building team since its opening in March 22\,003. \nSo it’s been almost. It’s been over 20 years. \nSo in the last 20 years we have learned that\, being nimble and staying relevant is key to the Ferry building’s success. \nThe support. Hudson Pacific properties has provided in the last 3 years is a testament to our stewardship of and dedication. \nTo such remarkable building\, and its diverse community of merchant office tenants and visitors throughout the pandemic. \nThe ferry building and ferry Plaza farmers\, market State opened every day and introduced improvements\, including opening the largest outdoor dining cafe in the city on the ferry plaza. \nDuring the pandemic we worked with merchants to keep them open\, through a generous rent relief program. \nAnd we added many new merchants in the last 3 years\, including reams\, Red Bay Coffee\, peaches\, patties\, and Chalita Linda. \nSome who you will hear from today. The presentation you see today lays the groundwork for the Ferry Building’s future success\, and I am pleased to introduce my colleague\, Carl Kade\, vice president of construction and development at Hansa Pacific who will introduce these Enhancements. \nThank you very much\, Jane\, as Jane mentioned\, I’m Carl Cade. \nI’m Vice President with Hudson Pacific here in our San Francisco office\, a few blocks from where we speak\, halfway to Jane’s office at the Ferry Building. \nI wanted to start off by saying that since Hudson purchased the leasehold in 2018\, with our partners at Allian’s\, we have been very committed to partnering with Jane and her team at the building to the stewards of the ferry building \nand it’s in its important role in this city and ensure the vitality in the vibrancy the city fabric of San Francisco today and in the future. \nToday\, the strong activity that we feel as we walk the Sunday market or shop in the nave during lunchtime is Testament to the resiliency of the merchants and the longtime patrons of the building. \nWe are pleased to announce that we are\, in the final phase of a lengthy\, significant restoration project\, whereby we repaired the sought have been referring to the size and painting. \nThe exterior back to the original color that many of us have never. \nSo until today\, finally today\, we can say that we are proud to announce that the ferry building was recently awarded. \nWeed 0 energy and 0 carbon certifications. \nOne of the first and only building to get both of those designs. \nIn the future\, and with the enhancements we will present today\, we will deliver a civic very plaza that draws people to experience this majestic and historic building. \nThe ferries and the waterfront. 7 days a week. \nMore merchant locations\, with added infrastructure to support the merchants. \nCooking preparation\, retail needs finally\, indoor and outdoor seating that addresses some of the light wind cold that can be discouraging of visitors late in the day. \nHudson\, San Francisco. Portfolio totals more than 2.5 million square feet. \nWe are fighting and investing in the urban life of this city. \nAnd this project is a testament to that commitment we have been pleased to see our city partners willing in a year to join us in finding solutions to the challenges facing the ferry building and our city. \nWe’d like to thank the Port and Bcdc. \nStaff for working with us. To prepare this presentation today. \nFinally\, it’s important to say that when we put together the team to even think about taking this on\, we thought out first of all\, a landscape architect in Einweller Keel\, which is locally based and has a long term commitment in working with shared public space around the \nBayfront\, and even more history with the building\, I would say\, would be Page in Turnbull\, who served as the historic architect in the 2\,003 renovation\, and is now in this guise both our historic architect and our Mayor architect for the project with that i’d like \nto introduce Lana Cochorovsky\, principal at to take us through the project. \nThank you very much. Appreciate it. Commissioners support. I appreciate being here today listening to our presence. \nI’m also proud to be part of the page internal team that has been involved with the ferry building since 1970. \nWhen we first wrote the design re for about the building\, and then continue. The work is preservation. \nThe approvals of the that turned this building into. \nI am too! \nWe think. \nContinue the legacy of the work today and invite. \nSo I would like to take you. \nA quick overview this of our view. A number of historic images. \nHow many changes occurred? \nSince it’s concerned. \nAnd it’s it’s from the time when it became the most\, the busiest transit. \nThe decline of that function in the 3\, it became something. \nAnd it will likely continue to change just to orient everyone with the work that we will be presented today. \nA quick overview. The diagram shows. \nOf the building alone in Barkende. The area that we called. \nThere is\, are improvements planned on the pay size\, with the. \nBoth interior and exterior\, and of course talking a lot today. But. \nSo next slide the site plan and. \nSarah\, Q. \nThank you\, Lana. It is a real pleasure to be here\, and I. \nA little humbled by this opportunity to tell you the truth\, this is a really important project. \nCisco\, but also really for the entire region. It is where I take my relatives when of town\, a lot of us view this as a civic destiny. \nGreat things to eat\, and so as we’ve thought about contributing to the legacy of the devout\, about a lot of the changes that’s happened in the last 20 years\, and there’s some obvious ones\, I think\, like Zoom mobility and Pandemic I also want to call attention. \nPlaza\, which used to be water. And so the relationship. \nThe water also used to be from a site planning perspective than it is today. \nAnd that’s really helps us to organize\, are thinking out where to work and what. \nThe project is a balancing act right? And so our work is primarily focused on Southend of the building and the ferry plaza. \nThere is a little bit of work that’s being done. \nAnd in some ways we started from what’s already working. \nAnd so so the farmers market that happens here on Saturdays is one of the times when very plausibly. \nMake your way from the embarcadero and find it. \nYou can get turned around or pathways to go. And so that became a way to sort of start thinking about what wasn’t working other days. \nAs we looked at the site circulation on Saturday there was a clear way to move along when you exited. \nThis building is the sort of obvious that there was a passage. \nThe south. It was also clear that they were an invitation\, and bcadero. And so\, as we thought about what we. \nBe sure\, the circulation of. \nTo work\, but also to solve this problem on where to go. \nNext slide. \nIn some ways this diagram\, which? \nA a layer over the tower itself. You arrive at the tower. \nEverything you there crossroads there! \nFor us\, adding\, this that happens Saturdays is a crossroads. \nThe water\, along the water’s edge\, linking the very terminal back to the center of the building. \nAnd we wanted to complete that circuit from the inside to the outside and welcome people from the ferry\, but also the ferry. \nReally thinking about this intersection? \nTogether next week? What? \nSo the site plan that I’ll present to you today. \nI’m going to give you a quick overview here. And then I’m gonna in because a lot of the moves that we’re making are small scale. And it’s hard to see. \nWhat you’re seeing is that we are drawing a line at the of the from the embarcadero out towards the water\, trying to adjust to people that there. \nThe Ferry Plaza a non-market day. \nThe water\, which is the new fairies. The South make that a bit like. \nThe water. \nAlongside there\, and there is a small effort being done on number where there is public dining\, that Lao will talk to what I’m gonna. \nThe space a lot. The south side of the building at the back of Very plaza itself. \nThe circulation that we’ve been thinking about building our design out has been continuing to draw all of the transit\, using that are happening here\, continuing to. \nPeople to\, as well as to rush when they need to get somewhere to give you an intuitive inside and outside of the building. And honestly\, one of the things I’ve learned while working on this\, the paza has a lot of. \nVery terminal\, one very plaza and part facility. \nVery pause. Those are all people who what’s happening outside work well for them about that\, too. \nZooming in a little bit\, so you can see the performance clearly. \nThis is along the south end\, the building with the new yeah plaza\, where we are proposing a line of lights from the embarcadero all the way on to the ferry plaza itself. \nIn this location side of the graphic paving and pattern that draws you out. \nAt Ferry Plaza. They’re on the south side\, but it’s one the to draw you from. \nBcadero all the way on to very plaza. \nIn addition to okay\, that’re seeing at Number One\, a new gateway sign that has both wayfinding to give an address. \nVery plausible as well as information. \nHere and some way finding element\, the embarcadero and the light. \nCornerstone Way\, finding. \nSo that’s where to go. \nThis is a light touch. In some ways\, I think there’s a lot that’s already working here. \nAnd we is already a great asset. But we’re trying. \nNext slide. \nThe palette of this is intended to the ferry building\, and to complement the existing gate. \nArchitecture\, but also. \nThe line and. \nWe know more conversations about exactly what color and exactly the. \nTo talk about those in. \nBut we also wanted to of clarify that the goal of this. \nA section taken from the ferry building itself out to Weed Plaza. \nYou can see how there’s a space. Immediately the outside of the ferry building and the light pole with the banners. \nThe way that the sign is allowed trucks to pass under. \nAnd fire trucks. The gateway and the walkway along. \nThe plaza\, and I can clarify that the light polls on the north side align with the light polls on the south side\, but are a different to do. \nThe program that we need them to in. \nWhat that section continues out past the ferry building. \nWater. \nLevel rise that was already present where we step down into the fire lane\, and there’s new site furnishing. \nThe water promote waterfront feeding and view. \nWe’ve rotated the seating\, instead of being south towards the ferry terminal. \nThe long view out to the water and to Treasure Island. \nThe poll lights and the edge of the plaza frame. Strong\, new. \nThese are some renderings to give you a the size of the element. \nThe colors are here are mostly to make things legible rendering. There’s a. \nThe final colors. You see\, is by adding the light poles and adding the signage. \nHere\, here\, there’s a kind of procession or rhythm that yes\, oh\, there’s something out there. \nThere’s somewhere to go layer on what’s already working here next slide. \nYou can also see what that looks like on a market date where the are layered in. And we been talking with food\, wise about how not to meet the location of light poles or other elements. \nBeing able to set up tents and no big tents are\, and how things. \nHave there\, but the goal is to have this be a seamless overlay. Next. \nAnd moving to the back plaza\, you can see the same line of lights banners moving along the south edge of the plaza. \nHere it’s pulling you back and making gesture. \nYou can furniture along the. \nWe’ve also clarified on the back plaza. There’s. \nGate\, ferry are hopefully crossing to a restaurant at one ferry plaza. \nSo we know there’s a lot of move here. There’s a new kiosk element show. \nWhich would outdoor establishment that would have outdoor seating on the We’re really in that as a way to have eyes on platforms. \nSome things that go on here. \nThat cause a lot of cleanup in the morning to have that element. The. \nMore about as a possibility. \nAnd we’re also adding a strong edge to the plaza and dressing up grid of stripes them back by grinding them. \nWe’re really rehabbing the old great\, partly of the carbon\, partly because what we all need about\, you know\, the sea level rise in infrastructure. \nThe balance of feel like the right amount for right now\, and a line of lights parallel to the and the colonnade along the ferry building gives that a strong edge as well. \nOkay. As I mentioned\, there are 3 possible sites that we studying for the Gandhi statue should have had on here a fourth\, which is the remain we’re talking to a lot of people. \nThe San Francisco Arts Commission will need to weigh in is a lot more. \nWe have just flag to you that. \nThe materials on the back plaza are retreatment of the existing concrete\, and a kind of texturization. \nGet a very strong edge. These polls\, a more modern kiosk to really cut the historic architecture\, and then the most important thing about these vendors. \nThat they will be perfect for an outdoor environment. \nSo they won’t rest\, and will be working\, I think\, with a lot of you. \nPortable\, but there’s a kind of gravitas palette that were proposed. \nForward place to feel that way. Next slide. \nSo these are some views of the proposal. This is a view south towards the bridge. \nWhen when we first started this\, the bay lights are up\, and it was. \nStay out of line of the Bay bridge. The quieter bridge compared. \nBut I have a fondness for it. Wanted it to be the show here in some ways\, and so the lights align\, and you can see how they work with the column. \nOne aid describe a walking path on a non-market day. \nAnd then how the market layers into the line of lights and the edge and the pathways that we have here next slide. \nThen for the overall view of the back plaza\, showing you how that new signage element\, says Sherry Plaza\, and there is some discussion\, should say on this that we will to talk about\, but gives you a threshold and a crossroads at that moment. \nCan see the benches along the edge there\, the graphic page you out towards the water\, the grid that we’ve added and the that we added for activation sort of eyes on the plaza. \nNext slide. You can see how we layer into market day\, and can begin to imagine how\, in addition. \nWonderful farmers. Other events to happen out here and have activation. \nThe other of the\, and with that I’m going to pass it back to latter for the rest of the. \nYou very much great overview of the. \nI’m gonna walk you quickly. \nAreas of alteration. \nSo we have images by that. \nRendering\, and really just building on with Sarah. \nWe’re proposing very light touch! \nKnowing that is a huge sorry with the with the entrance portico. \nAll we’re trying to do is enhance the lighting quality and improved lighting. \nYou can see how\, under the. \nImproving\, lighting\, and in theiding people into the. \nAnd moving along the embarcadero. This is the area that we’re calling the North. \nWe are expressing here in the rendering on the right the exterior structure for the being proposed there. \nThese are the lightweight metal structure that are very simple and completely independent. \nFrom the building. The purpose of them is to provide accommodations for that would be needed for the patrons of the restaurants in the and they are designed to transparency through them and into the building facades next stage. \nYou can see them up close inside. \nThey will contain movable furniture\, and that’s that’s for them to be utilized on market days. \nAccommodate market tenth within them. \nNothing fixed in them that cannot be moved. \nAnd we have some public seeing on onboard facing you. \nThe great activation strategy that we’re in. \nOf the key\, and the next image on the right gives you a peek into that area\, would look the inside. \nWhat is being proposed is glass in closure\, that is. \nWe are proposing be able to. \nMoveable glass will be completely moved and hidden behind the pilesters of the. \nOnly be closed in increment weather for a the restaurants are not upgrading\, so night time. \nThe purpose here is also. \nAnd be able. \nSee through\, and and the quality. \nOn the bay side. So we are looking at the bayfront. \nArea that planks the primary circulation. \nSee how we\, removing the non. \n3. By doing that\, we’re opening it up and engaging the public\, providing more training\, transparency\, and. \nOr tenants pieces\, opening up the view by taking the the storefront and moving it about 7 feet. \nClosed 2 base adjustments. \nTo the way on the on the north\, and one day on the right. \nSee. \nRendering in the purpose of this is to be able to maintain the same activity as today. \nBut be able to provide comfortable seating in inclement weather and. \nKnow in the last few months. \nUsual weather pattern when it’s not really comfortable. \nKeep outdoor. So you close the. \nProvide a level of comfort to. \nWould be otherwise\, they would be open and. \nThey are not approaching onto the the public. \nStay behind the relocated 3 columns. \nWith that conclude our. \nAnd let it just one thing. Just add\, I think it’s important\, because we cared deeply about it\, that this project endeavors to maintain the dedicated public access ways through the building. \nAnd so\, for\, like clarifications\, the arcade areas are not dedicated. \nPublic access\, they are subject to our port lease that allows visitors serving rather restaurants and retail uses\, and we also worked closely to make okay through those arcades in the plan that you’d have a view shed that would allow to continue to let’s look down the length of \nthe arcade through the multiple restaurants. And so we can talk more detail about that. \nThe Cafe Zone does. I think Katherine mentioned in her presentation. \nWe’re dedicated under that 1998 permit\, as a 30 foot wide portion. \nBut that promenade specifically called for outdoor dining and market use as an appropriate user. \nAreas. And so we’re following that precedent finally and not so much about access\, but about the historic standards. \nLotta and her colleagues have completed a Secretary of Interior Standards. \nAnalysis\, and find this to be. \nSo important details. I wanted to make sure everyone has thanks for that. \nThe very helpful clarifications. So look with that. \nWe’ll move to public comment. And so\, you know\, the presentations hang on. \nWe will move to clarifying questions from the project present. \nThese clarified questions both? \nThe boards of the committee. So look just to with a lot of people here and some online. \nSo we’re just gonna go down the line here just for clarity. \nSo Bob\, lead off any clarifying questions. \nNo no questions for me. Okay. \nYeah\, lot. I was wondering if you could clarify on the East side under the canopy there\, I noticed there are some pop-outs that are new. \nIs that correct that are enclosed? And then I also want to understand the dropdown from the software. \nThere! \nSure. Thank you. \nSo does that demonstrate? \nHere is the bay that is being. Yes\, there is a so I says\, down to for the. \nMovable panels. \nInside of the of the base. \nThat area. \nSo that would be enclosed to the corner if you had shown it in its closed form. \nThat’s office. This dropdown marks the alright. \nAnd then beyond\, there’s those glass areas that are that is correct. \nOne another. Question. Leave room for others here. The I just want to understand where the farmers market is located. So it’s on the south side of the very building that correct\, and it straddles the ferry buildings and is same amount of square footage. \nYeah\, it’s on the south driveway and the plaza area here\, near the sign that. \nIs? Is it inside and outside the ferry building sign? \nPardon me\, so it’s on the embarcadero side\, and then the market area\, and on the also on the same on the 2 front Embarcadero Plaza driveway\, and very pleasant great. Thank you. \nOkay. Yeah. Chris. \nThank you for that. In depth and very helpful presentation. \nJust a few questions\, Sarah\, is it you said that the plaza isn’t working well for some of the neighbors? \nCan you explain what some of those challenges are? \nI heard from people. A lot of things happen in the. \nYou arrived just that up for an event. \nIn class. There’s a lot of things to out there as well that as you get further away from the ferry building\, eyes on fall away. Okay? So. \nYou know\, really this person’s space\, and not? \nAnd then you mentioned the kiosk was a way to kind of help mitigate. \nPut some eyes on the street on the plaza. Would that be open at night\, or what would the kind of evening programming be? \nThat’s probably a better question. \nYeah\, I mean\, ideally\, we would have this and the whole building activated further into the evening I think you know\, there are stages of success in that. \nAnd if I think today\, you know\, the ferries actually go into the email\, if we could have something if you miss your very\, if we get back to a day of ferry traffic like the past where you might where the Golden Gate very may sell out\, and you have to wait for the next\, one it would be \nnice\, that that not be such a bad thing\, because you can sit and have\, you know\, a beverage or snack while you wait\, and look at one of the best views. \nThat it we have in the city. And so that’s sort of the idea. \nJust one last question was\, and I think it was Slide 28 that you had up before. \nI was wondering. I’m not sure what the nature of sort of public spaces inside the building building and around it. \nI think you know\, outside\, it’s fairly clear that those tables and shares are kind of spill out for the tenants\, except on the west side. \nThere’s some sort of public seating\, that’s popped up over time. \nAnd then inside the ferry building. I think this portion you have here that purple is that kind of public access through. \nBut the wings off to each side of it\, north and south\, kind of act like a pose right now. \nKind of an indoor space\, public space\, and I was wondering if there are any sort of requirements for public user space or square footages\, or anything like that\, or a way that you’re thinking about kind of that public space inside the building. \nYeah\, absolutely. I think\, I mean\, you’re right\, that the area dedicated is and purple on there. \nThe area is next to it have been used in different ways over time\, and our circulation. \nI’m seating. Our plan is to actually have. \nIf you think of a kind of 2 by 2 matrix of dedicated non dedicated indoor and outdoor\, seating more of all types of after this\, and I think that gets to your colleagues point of how people can use different ways is that there were \nbe more. Yes\, it will. \nRestaurants\, but there will also be. \nPlaces where I think that can actually be the at the end zone\, where you all were already experimenting with that. \nBecause once you’ve got your food from your merchant\, you will find a place that in the building that’s helping drive traffic to those areas that are actually. \nSo just to be clear\, is there sort of a commitment to a certain amount of square footage\, or how do you sort of quantify that the most specific quantification in the Bcdc. \nAbout outdoor seating\, and when we are increasing that commitment report\, we plan to exceed that beyond that. \nBut like having a little cushion\, so. \nChange. We still have a little\, you know\, as you know\, different operations happen. \nWe haven’t yet documented a commitment internal\, but. \nThank you. \nOkay. We’ll just move to our online. dB\, members. \nTom\, your hands up! Go ahead! \nHi! Do you have a map of the plaza? \nI just had kind of a overall question. \nJust a moment. \nYeah\, that backup one\, that one. Wait! Wait! I want to just see the whole thing. There. \nThere’s it shows it shows the whole peninsula. \nYeah\, here we go. So my question is probably not a helpful question\, because I’m sure this is not part of your scope. \nBut should there be some consideration for the continuation of the design of the peninsula out to one for a plaza\, very plasit email seems like we’re kind of setting up a precedent here along the south side. \nAnd is there any consideration\, or is there any body that is sort of engaged in thinking about the whole peninsula\, including the rest of it? \nThere are kind of a phase 2. Or when that building has got a tenant\, you know recommendation by this design con merge with what’s further to the east. \nSo yeah\, we think about it all the time. We are deep. \nI don’t think there’s anyone. Well\, we’ll see. \nMaybe there’s someone here more are invested in us and having a successful ferry plaza east. \nWhoever ends up taking over the leasehold\, and we will. \nWe look forward to being great partners\, and yes\, we do think that what we’re doing should extend and interact with that building. \nSome of the things that you heard about today that are driving that include partly the idea of moving the Gandhi statute potentially on site would be drawn a direct line of sight from the primary door that just next to bullet today\, right through the center of the plaza to the front \ndoor of the Pyramid section of Ferry Plaza. \nEast\, also allowing that’s one that’s that’s critically important. \nBut we also think that the placement of the kiosk which we are looking at various opportunities of where it can be to and from is so that it blocks the portion of the building that is\, the park infrastructure and doesn’t block critically the future that will need site lines. \nOkay\, who’s the who’s the lean lord of this whole thing right now? \nI guess I’m just curious who controls that. \nThe port of San Francisco\, the port of San Francisco. \nThe port is the landlord. \nYeah\, I guess the question kind of goes to the port. Then? \nBut I think I understand from standpoint of this applicant. \nThank you. \nThanks. Tom Stefan. \nThank you\, Justintha\, and thanks for all this helpful information tonight. \nMy first question was on regarding to page 33. \nAnd my apologies. If I missed this. But the in this image\, the delineation between the east west path in the plaza. \nSorry if you can go to Number 33\, and packet\, which is the. \nIs the view of the first market plaza. Looking back at the server. \nAre you referring to? Page 33 of the of the. \nI’m looking at the page number in the lower right hand corner. \nThis one is page 28. \nThank you. \nDefine. I think the numbering is the sequence. \nOh\, I see. Sorry I’m looking at that. Yeah\, very pleasant looking north on marketing. \nSorry for the confusion. \nLet’s see\, elevated aerial right\, that you. \nYeah. So I’m there. The drawing shows a red band between the walk and the plaza and I’m sorry if I missed that\, that I was. \nCould you just provide some additional information about that beyond? Is that actually a change in grade? \nIs it a demarcation? If it’s just a materials change. \nThat is an existing curve that is painting painted red because of the fire department requirements. \nOkay. And that’s the condition that it’s in today. \nYes. \nOkay. And then the delineation of the crossbox across this space. \nAre they actually there today? Or is this a proposal to continue to them across the service access? \nThere are 2 delineations there today\, one on center with the south end of the ferry building and one at the promenade. \nUhhuh. \nThere is not a crosswalk today on the foreground of this image\, where there is a ramp. \nOkay? And then my next question has to do with. \nThe. \nProposed canopy structures on the front face of the building. \nI was curious. If you could communicate how? \nTall. Those are intended to be. \nSure. Okay. Lot of customers. So I have the image right there. \nThat’s right. \nDesign to be approximately 15 foot so. But the primary criteria for us coming up with this. \nRight below the water. \nUhhuh. \nBut it is designed to not interfere with the architecture. \nAt about 16 cats. It’s right under there\, and it is tall enough to clear the view. \nOkay\, so type of the structures. \nGreat. Thank you. And then on this same page\, I just there’s couple of things I wanted to make sure I understood the treatment under the arcaded portion of the building. \nI understand that this is outside the public access\, as we sort of look at it. \nBut is the intent that all of that becomes controlled access by restaurants when we see sort of the dashed line or the operable openings on the plan? \nAre we to expect that the that entire logo could potentially be enclosed? \nSo the intent is that I couldn’t quite hear whether you were asking about the arcade or the space. \nThe Cafe Zone in front. \nThe Arcad. It’s. \nYeah. The intent is that the arcade is roughly to restaurants. \nThat the cafe zone in front of it has an area under the well. \nSome of the area under the trellis that would be dedicated outside of market days\, and then would be\, and then there would be additional public seating in various locations. \nOkay. But with regards to the list. Sorry. I’m sorry. \nYes. \nThat regards to the load just based itself\, where you’re showing the glass and the glass and closed spaces. \nYes. \nIs there? Is there any is okay? So none of that space\, understanding that it’s outside of the public access Eement. \nNone of that space where you could pass through today would be allowed in the future. \nIs\, that. \nThat’s that’s correct. I mean\, these are public establishment. \nOkay. \nBut yes\, I think the other thing we did preserve the view. \nCorridor down the front that you get down there. \nOkay. Dude. \nBut that was more of it. Good story! \nGot it. Thank you. And then my last question is related to that\, and just build on what? \nWhat Kristen brought up with regards to the east-west Passage through the central core of the building. \nI just I. It’s not clear from the renderings. \nThis is actually page 40 in the packet title\, Pay front kitchens\, I’m just curious about the the line that shown on the plans that is parallel to the public access email. \nIs that sort of an enclosable partition. A long line is that bar. \nSeating. What\, what\, what is proposed to delineate that space. \nIf anything\, other than a tables in the future. \nYes\, this is Lauda Katrowski. We’re looking at a number of options\, and as. \nSeparating the public promenade from the tenants basis. \nSo what you see in the rendering potentially doors that are similar to Nana walls and something that expands and gets closed in the evening where and we’re looking at various systems that can provide that purpose. \nBut for during the daytime hours it is intended that these opening. \nAnd have connectivity. The main circulation\, the corridor\, the design intent that we’re trying to solve. \nFor here\, if you look at the before picture on the left\, is that the heavy mullions and the glass systems are actually inhibiting the connection with the waterfront when you stand at this place\, which is not only over the water\, but actually quite close to the visibility\, and so the intent here\, is to \ncreate when they’re open to the I mean several open spaces that minimize the amount of surface\, be it glass or heavy mullion\, so that you can stand there at the main cross section within the building and see how close and how connected you are the water. \nThank you for that. And just to clarify the space today at at the back\, at the back is completely open to Kristin’s Point. Correct. \nThe last thing. \nThe the. The transfer does not extend across the back portion of the building today. \nThe Storyfront Module. \nSorry. Do you mean the transcend windows on either side\, on the left\, on the right? \nYeah\, cause the space at the end of the building is actually open right before you go outside to the plaza. \nThat is\, there is one day on. \nAnd so you I think you’re thinking about enclosing that last big and reducing the size potentially reducing the size of that space. \nUnderstanding that it would be a glass or transparent material. \nBut it would be introduced to that last bay. \nOkay. Just I don’t have any other questions. \nBut thank you very much. \nHi! Lotta! I had curiously on the arcade. \nDo you have any additional details on the North Arcade? \nAnd what that system will look like. And then the other question I would have is consistency along the facade. \nBoth the North and the South. Is this something that you’re envisioning across the entirety of the ferry building? \nAnd then a little bit more detail on that pieces. Great question! \nThank you for that. So we are envisioning\, and we’re very much in the early developments of the data. \nBut we’re envisioning this to be a lightweight metal tube system. \nThe size that we’re in. We’re actively working the structure with self. \nI would the\, as I said. You know\, toll structures. \nThe band. If you see their 2 structural members\, horizontal ones that are opportunities. \nIn the future. \nShading devices at the group level of that to provide for. \nIn the comfort control of the heaters for the rainy or not any cold days in San Francisco. \nThat’s about as far as we are the designs. \nIn terms of the North and South. I’m gonna move. \nHere that we are not intending to build out the South. \nBut. \nCan help me answer the question. Understand that the build? \nWhat matter? Yes\, that’s right. That’s under a current lease. \nAnd so with our partner. Food wise\, and that has some change on it. \nBut we’re already talking\, and they’re good tonight. \nWe’ll move on to Catherine. Catherine. \nAny clarifying questions. Yes\, I would like to pick up on the comment or the question asked by Tom Leader regarding the potential future. \nRelationship between one ferry plaza and Third Plaza\, east. \nAt this moment it looks as if beyond drawing there is No Man’s land and since this will be an act of tenant\, it would be nice\, since you are doing the majority of the work\, there will be some desire lines\, some ideas connect the front to the where the hard part\, this is not as much a question as \nan observational lecture chair share. The building is totally dated. \nIt’s looks like an obstruction at the end\, and we have all struggled with this for many\, many years\, asking the same questions and different contexts when we are dealing with the waterfront. \nThere is a technical component which I think is inspired by somewhere underneath that\, and to understand that together with desire lines which come from your project would be\, I think\, conceptually helpful. \nOh\, for the public\, including ourselves\, to understand the overall and overall intensive transformation! \nUltimately you have to vote somebody in to agree with you\, because these people will have realistic expectations. \nHow\, since a restaurant of this size will have to function in an already vari precarious position\, so I would personally like to ask or see conceptual sketches which raise the question that doesn’t mean that you are designing it. \nBut you are to ask questions to them as they are able to ask questions for you\, and sharing them from the get go\, would be very helpful. \nI’d like to leave it with that. That is one demising line I am. \nI would like to see some more ideas. The second question is\, I personally have spent a lot of time. \nDealing with the transcriptation transformation of the waterfront moving in southern direction\, particularly the design of the Vieta Plaza. \nThat took a long\, long time\, and I do personally not see any. \nWe’ll mention in your discussion or in your drawings\, and I’m sure you’ve thought about it. \nI’m not implying that you didn’t how do you deal with that transition? \nThat transition was designed with a lot of intention\, of a smooth flow from the existing building\, and to functions on the east as well as on the west side. \nInto this incredibly important plaza and transportation connections. \nCould you address that\, or have any additional other drawings? \nOf how you thought about it. You’re creating a very\, very highly detailed\, highly refined design approach. \nBut that is a demarcation line\, and together with the fire department\, you have another demarcation line. \nOne has to be there’s the other. One is intentional\, and you choose it. \nCould you please quickly speak to that? Sure we have\, of course\, thought a lot about Wida Plaza and about it. \nElevation\, and also about the microclimate on this side of the building which the sen exposure and felt like the addition of an element that took you from the embarcadero. \nAnd it’s sort of happening with Plaza\, but could be. And you all the way to very Plausa was adding to what was already happening there and building a. \nThat we already see happening now\, but takes a question one step further. \nWhat are your thoughts? I see a very rich material\, palette\, and a very large discussion on the South Promenade\, and the material summary over the years. \nHaving participated in a number of projects in the past. \nI’m not trying to date myself here from Jefferson Street all the way down to the ferry to the cruise terminal\, to the Exploratorium\, and on and on\, also going south. \nSo discussion was almost always stay simple\, hold back\, understate\, but emphasize the connecting character of maritime architecture\, maritime detailing. \nEtc.\, etc. I see a very rich\, very exciting kind of textured suggestion here. \nHow does that reflect on those previous mandates? I think we’re trying to be connecting between things. \nSo we have Wida Plaza\, which is a very\, very luscious palette of granite. \nWe have the existing concrete pavement at the front\, along the embarkidero\, and the ferry plaza\, which is a heavily use space and actually it’s kind of wonderfully\, heavily and you can spill things on it. \nAnd that’s okay. Okay. And we wanted to have a palette that was about texture rather than elevating material. \nIn order to allow that messy life to continue to happen\, I would say\, the pilot that we are proposing is about using using texture rather than using other things way to kind of. \nNumber of things. Mostly our palette is about working in small ways around the edge rather than making big news. \nCan I ask one comment? Are you sure sure that you’re not competing it on a small drawing? \nOne can do very little justice to what is really to be perceived at a significant larger scale. \nIn the drawing. It looks as have you thought about competition? \nI think there is a question about the Graphic\, particularly the wavy\, graphic. \nThat’s sort of representing an artist. Graphic has some question of merit around. \nHow showy should that be the other elements? I feel really confident\, are not competing. \nWe’re building on the existing grid that’s in the ferry plaza. \nWe’re grinding. We’re setting the palette mostly the materials that are already out there. \nIt’s the pavement graphic. That is the kind of unexpected element\, I would say. \nAnd there’s been a lot of talk about it. Should it have color\, should not have color? What should? \nRight now\, it’s really just to make it clear that what happened with pain and there’s play a lot more discussion about it. \nAnd then in terms of the palette for vertical materials\, there’s also been a lot of discussion about how does complement and match that’s already there. \nBut what’s interesting is the palette between things of match. What? \nAnd so been trying to find our own language\, some liberty that our line of late posts\, banners stand out against the yeah. \nJust thought on that side of a way. It is a conversation that. \nColor and material going\, and honestly from at all decided onsite with real materials and a lot of people standing around actually looking at things look different outside and that’s what we hope. \nI appreciate that answer because I do believe it can evolve over time together. \nWhen you find that balance with the existing family of materials and strengths of expression\, I have one comment\, if I may\, Katherine\, just to jump in\, we have a next segment where we are okay\, thank you. \nI will reserve that comfortable\, so we can move on to Laura. \nAlright Laura Kristimano. Thank you for the presentation. \nA couple specific questions. I guess maybe building on the conversation about the light post\, and I appreciate this dance between how much we accept what we see in a rendering and versus what it may be evolving to be. \nI know\, especially in very posa\, quite a few what will look like. \nActually the flash. Can you say\, maybe say anything about how the frequency or the plan for the intent around the number of them? \nYeah\, we’re working our back glass\, though\, and we’re trying to assess\, establishished pathways of light particularly at the edges that are feel comfortable\, particularly if sort of desk hours. \nAnd so there’s a height sort of maximum height that we was comfortable with the bridge. \nThat also worked. \nAround\, 24 feet on. \nAnd then I noticed in the drawings\, but I don’t think it was meant. \nThe loading\, the 9 loading spaces. Can you see to that? \nThere are so many things as you saw in the early permits\, and that happened on this plaza\, and there’s a lot of loading and things that occur today. \nAnd so there are 9 spaces and barriers that occur\, kind of at the edge of the fire lane. \nThat would be preserved in the final. These are existing. \nAnd do you have any images? This might be for a lot of any images when those so our friends are in close. \nDo you have any images? All the images show them open. Do you have any images? \nOf them. Okay. \nThank you. In that particular presentation. \nI’m not sure that they would render in this image much differently. \nIf that makes sense with this level of that\, one may be correct in this one. I think. \nThanks\, Laura. One more question. \nThis may be a question for you\, Dan. Do you know the level of expected traffic for the future potential tech out at the east end of the plaza? \nIs it sort of going to be would it be like vehicle drop off for people coming to and from a restaurant on a regular basis? \nOr is it just more kind of Eva access? \nDownload app with support. The how the restaurant at the east end of Ferry Pier would operate is not yet determined in the past. \nOf course it’s had vehicle access and it may very well happen without vehicle accessing. \nThat’s future\, but it’s not. It’s not set or final. \nSo is the idea around the kind of circulation dedication to enable\, like how much vehicle traffic is sort of being planned for that. \nYeah\, I’m an expert on the deliveries on the back plaza. \nYeah. So the 9 spaces on the back plaza. \nWe worked very closely with the Bcdc. In 2013 to establish the needs not just of the ferry building\, but of very plaza. \nEast Golden Gate very\, and Bart\, as well\, and all of those existing permits with the Bcdc. \nAnd leases with the port do mention particular needs\, you know\, drop offs and delivery. \nSo the compromise was to provide these 9 spaces that not only our tenants and merchants\, but also that the very plaza East Bart\, and Golden Gate very needed. \nAnd I’m actually\, you know\, I’ve been out there a number of times when a car is trying to go down the you know they’re trying to drop off\, and all the pedestrians think it’s a plaza and they’re like\, why\, and so it’s really difficult for \ncars to get through there. So I’m sort of wondering in terms of like how you know how much does that need to look like a driveway? \nSo that people know that it’s okay. If a car drives there versus if it should kind of be more plaza like\, and it doesn’t really need to look like a driveway\, and it can kind of mostly be inhabited by people. \nWell\, it’s definitely required for all of those buildings\, particularly the Bart structure\, and that was something that will\, I think\, always need to be made. \nWe actually probably in the last 6 months\, actually have posted our security at the towards the middle of the driveway\, in order to check people in to make sure they’re supposed to be there\, and they haven’t mistaken it\, you know\, for you know\, place to Park\, or drop off. \nIf they’re not doing something\, you know\, business like at the building. \nSo\, but I do think you know Sarah’s. You know ideas of that. \nYou know the signage and the planters in front with signage that say\, ferry plaza. \nI think it’s very much is messaging. \nThis is not a play\, and this is not a driveway. \nThis is a place. \nOkay. And I just wanna wrap up with a couple of questions. \nColin Jane. I just want to make sure that we have this completely clarified. \nSo that the board discussion stays on track\, but on the Northern colonnades I think I heard you say that the space under the colonnade is not. \nIt’s in your lease\, and it’s not included in the account for public. \nIs that correct? \nYes. Okay. So\, so I just wanna make sure a roll on the same page for that. \nAnd then the second question\, you know\, when you walk along the east. \nWell\, really\, all sides of the you see\, I see quite a variety in the way. \nThe seating and the security tape around the seats to people from wandering through the apple\, seating it. \nThere’s a lot of different approaches at present. Do you have standards\, or a sort of a basic approach that you’re taking\, or would like to take cause. \nI actually think some really don’t look for good\, and others will. \nQuite good. So how are you addressing that? There is standards to being 12 feet from the brick phase? \nYou know there’s standards that we give the tenants\, and one of the beauties of working with all these food artisans is their interpretation of those standards\, and you know\, and sometimes they hit it out of the ballpark. And other times. \nIt’s out of their lease line\, you know. You have to. \nI think\, one of my daily things is going around and putting things in place\, but I think you know\, that is\, you know\, just being more as design concepts progress as people improve their spaces like Hog Island did a big renovation. \n2013\, and they were at we were able to add a more formal barrier around their cafe zone that really enhanced their that experience\, and Glenador 2 has the great\, you know\, windscreen and the built in benches. \nSo you know\, as you know. You see things in renderings and in drawing plans. \nYou hope they come out as as nicely as they hope them to be. \nBut yeah\, I think the idea is to you know\, we work with our tenants very closely to make things better if they don’t come out as we planned\, and I would just add\, as James Co-pilot\, who’s done more tours of this building lately with alongside \nJane\, and sees how often she’s pushing back into their correct location. \nI think you mean having more of the permanent rescue. \nPermanent\, fixed. \nGood. Thing is\, it’s gonna give you a bunch of your week back to not have to tell. \nThe issue is where they have the movable Stan right? \nAnd then it kind of creased\, and sometimes it’s not even the rest of like a somebody’s got. \nOh\, I don’t! I can have more children here. \nI think our long term tenants have figured it out. \nSo there are standards\, but State get interpreted and look just a final question. \nI heard mention from both the designers about light touch to clarify. \nThat is that because of the civic importance of the building\, and we’ve already heard people reference it\, and. \nThe critical. \nWe heard a lot of. \nBut why are you making that like touch? Reference? \nGreat question for that\, I think\, on the we all recognize how important that will landmark. \nI refer to them as White Touch. \nImpact the building. \nTake away from the build. \nIndependent in clearly off today\, contemporary enough to. \nTo not interfere with the. \nStaying away from. \nMaking\, whether it’s the enclosure behind our. \nInsert within the arch\, or use. Stay away from the fabric. \nStructures. \nLayering new\, and that are of their own\, that. \nAn enhancement. \nMaybe I could just landscape architect. Okay\, excellent. \nI think the architecture is more obvious. I think I mean using it in 2. \nOne way is a light touch\, because\, as we’ve heard\, there’s a lot of program that already happened with the farmers market with vehicles. \nLot of people coming and going. And so we need really flexible\, empty space. \nSo we’re not trying to fill. And we’re not trying to reach so I think that’s one\, the meeting\, the other meaning\, I think\, is directly in relation to having read a lot of work about sea level rise. \nAnd things that are likely to happen here\, that there’s a bigger touch coming some infrastructure scale and wanting to kind of right size. \nWhat we’re doing as a way to test circulation. \nReally really usable sort of the near term of sea level rise\, but knowing that there will be. \nSo those are the 2 ways that I’ve been thinking. \nClarification. Okay\, that concludes the questions to clarify the presentation from the Drb. And the Wdac. \nWe’ll move now to public comment. And so we’ll open the meeting to public comment. \nAre there any members of the public attending the meeting in person? \nWho would like to speak\, and you need to notify the board. \nAnd we’ll move to the online. \nBefore we get to the in person comments. I did also wanna say\, Pcdc staff did receive 2 public comment letters that have been forwarded to the board and will be included in the minutes for the meeting. \nThe public comments was submitted from representatives of the Telegraph Hill dwellers and food wise\, the manager of the firm. \nYes\, so that’s very important to recognize both of those we appreciate\, those that quite detailed and. \nThank you so much. \nOkay\, we’ll move to public call. \nGood Evening Commissioners. Port staff project Sponsors. \nMy name is Katherine Patron. I’m here tonight representing San Francisco Architectural heritage. Thank you. \nSo much for the opportunity to comment on this project. I just wanted to give a little clearification about the heritage involvement. \nSo\, couple of weeks ago we had a presentation from the project. \nSponsor we followed up with a letter of our position and a couple of people in the room\, port\, staff and project side have interpreted as a letter of support. \nWe aren’t there yet\, really what it was we issued the letter asking for more clarification on a number of topics that have been discussed in a very interesting and full way. \nThis evening we appreciate that a lot. So it’s not yet a letter of support. \nWe very much look forward to the next conversations and meetings\, and the topics that are of highest priority to San Francisco heritage have to do with public access and public circulation\, and some of the things that we heard about up privateization of might not be the right word \nbut limitation of public space for space\, for people who are also\, we’re really concerned about the balance of uses\, the market hall\, purveyor aspect versus maybe an over abundance of restaurants. \nAnd obviously as a citywide organization\, that really advocates for our city’s historic resources. \nWe’re thinking a lot about the historic value of the ferry building as a historic building. \nAnd really of this special and unique quality that were introduced to reintroduce to the building in 2\,003\, when it became a market hall. \nAnd so we are\, you know\, would like to see that preservation of those characters. \nThank you very much. Thank you. \nGood evening. My name’s Christine Fahren. I’m the executive director for food. \nWise\, well\, formerly\, Quasa\, we’re best known for running the Ferry Plaza farmers\, market. \nWe also run the mission community market and a lot of youth education programs for Sfoc students\, primarily at the ferry building this summer. We’re celebrating our thirtieth year\, and I’ve had the pleasure of working with Jane for food wise for the last 20 years so I have physically \nbeen at the building for 20 years\, and have seen so many changes in those 2 decades of bringing food\, education\, and community and farmers\, markets. \nYou. I’m gonna share something that’s never really not new for any of you. \nWhich is that the market is really this dynamic assemblage of farmers\, food crafters\, chefs\, residents\, and we all come together 3 times a week to really transform this space and turn it into an economic engine community connections. \nIt’s really where the urban and the rule connect and where a lot of climate change solutions take place\, especially in agriculture. \nAnd we consider our job in running the farmers market to be about promoting those changes. \nAnd it’s a huge public community\, and I love seeing at the very building it’s such a gift to work there every day. \nSo I wanna show that we’re largely in support of the concepts. \nBehind the project with our landlord\, Tatson\, and we’ve been in lots and lots of conversations. \nI feel like I’m on a first name with everybody over here at this point. \nWe understand. They want to bring the vitality that we bring 3 days a week already to the ferry building\, and we appreciate that they want to do that. \nAnd I really want this body to carefully consider some of the elements of the projects that are being put forth\, and asked specifically for some more time. \nWe don’t feel that we have enough information to understand the impacts to our market operating. \nI shared it in my written comments. It’s clear that there’s going to be a lot of temporary\, significant\, but temporary changes\, and the impacts relocating sellers. \nThey’ll have to come back once that front North canopy is erected. \nBut we don’t actually know how well the structures going to work for us in the long term we have real needs to understand what the roofing structure\, the ventilation flag\, what the polls\, where they’re going to be placed\, one of the things about farmers marketing everyone thinks they’re \ninfinitely flexible\, but the more fixed structures you have in an element harder it is for us to operate. \nOkay. Thanks. The permanent retail kiosk in the back is our greatest concern\, because the size and the scope and the placement of that is going to significantly. \nOur ability to have a cohesive farmers market with them\, to find more ideal placement. And we also have concerns about the desired proposal for the and when we’re operating it. \nSo there’s a lot of changes\, and that we’re concerned about. \nAnd we just wanted to say that like to have more information\, so that we can assess the permanent. \nWith all of those. If you look at them\, singularly\, we’re totally adaptable. \nWhen you look at them all together and stacks\, it’s not possible for us to have the same number of vendors\, the same robust farmers market that. \nWell\, thank you very much\, and I just want to commend you for your good work. \nThere are many years\, I mean\, what’s your honor? What you? \nYeah\, what you’re in charge of. There is a big distance. \nWe’ll move to online comment. Now\, if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nRemember\, if you are joining our meeting with your phone\, you must use Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment\, to unmute or mute press star 6. \nYou will be called in the order. Your hand was raised\, and you will have 3 min to speak. \nYour Eco. Will note when you have 1 min. Please state your name\, and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. \nIf you would like to add your contact information to to be a future meeting concerning this project\, please call or email. \nAshley do? Oh\, sorry! Here we go! \nWe have 2 hands raised. The first person I have is Alex Bash. \nI like. I’m gonna unmute you\, and you will have 3 min. \nOh\, please state your affiliation\, and you’ll have to. \nAlex\, are you there? \nYes\, I’m here. I have. Unmuted myself\, Alec Bash\, and I’m speaking on behalf of the Gateway Tenants Association. \nWe used to be known as the Golden Gateway\, and are part of the for a redevelopment area log embargo\, golden Gateway redevelopment area right across from the ferry building\, and pier one where the port’s offices are 25 years ago I had \nthe honor of working at the port\, and\, in fact\, one of my projects here was the Rq. \nFor the ferry building\, and I have followed it ever since. \nI continued to participate on the part of the waterfront\, to design advice\, fee. \nThe meeting now known as The. \nMary\, and at the gateway where I now live. We have been very\, very pleased with. \nThe work done under Jane Connors and the owners. \nOf the Sherry building actions before very important to us to see how the very building has cope with all of the difficulties caused by Covid over the past 3 years\, and how will they work to keep tenants there? \nAnd the continued effort to revitalize the ferry building in ways that will keep up with what the demands that are are being placed on it. \nAs the economy of the city have shifted in these past. \nVery strange and tumultuous years\, so well\, we aren’t really prepared to speak to some of the historical qualities that have been talked about here. \nWe do appreciate. I appreciate the concept of having a light touch and understand the importance of it. \nI think that the more openness that is possible within the more public areas of the trade building\, not public access\, but the more public areas\, the more openness that can be continued. \nJust letting you know you have one more minute left. \nThank you very much\, Steve\, more openly. That will be continued\, is very important. \nAt the same time\, it’s important for these patients. So we use under various conditions\, including increment weather. \nAnd I’m sure that the Port and Bcdc. \nStaff are looking at all of those aspects overall\, though I just want to say that those of us living in the area at the gateway apartments we have 1\,254 apartments and town homes. \nThere are very supportive of what has happened here\, and and appreciate the efforts that you\, as designers\, are putting in. \nTo be sure that this is as good of a revitalization as possible\, that. \nThank you. \nThe next speaker is Robert Howard. Robert\, your audio is unmuted\, and please state your affiliation\, and you have 3 min to speak. \nOkay. Can you hear me now? \nCan you hear me? \nOkay. My name is Bob Harr\, and I’m a member of the Board of the Barbara Coast neighborhood is\, and I’ve visited the ferry building many times over the years\, and I’ve always enjoyed my experience. \nI think it’s a real asset to to the city\, and I’m familiar with the the improvements here that the that Hudson is proposing\, and I think that the the improvements do offer the opportunity to expand the Usable space and give you know more \ncomfort to our customers\, to their customers. That would potentially expand the appeal. \nI’m not an architect\, so I’m not that converient in the the historically significant structures and and everything that is associated with the history of this fine building. \nBut I do believe that the the what the proposal has done has been been a light touch\, and I think it’s been very targeted in what they’re trying to to accomplish\, I think it’s appropriate that the large signage at the South end has been recessed appropriately \nso it doesn’t attract from from the appearance right at the at the front of the building\, a bordering on the embarcadero. \nSo in summary. I believe that this project concept does have merit\, and deserves to be moved along\, you know\, with\, obviously\, there’s gonna be some more discussions about details and architectural issues that I’m not conversing in. \nBut again I do believe that this project should hopefully be able to move forward. \nI also think it’s important to note that the city is facing many changes right now with the from the pandemic and all the adjustments that have been occurring since then. \nAna\, and I note that there are 2 other waterfront attractions that are in the that have been proposed for Pierce 30\, 32\, and piers 38\, and 4\, and so I do support from the standpoint of fairness that the ferry building should be able to improve upon its site so \nYeah. One more minute. \nit can broaden its appeal so that they can broaden\, it can broaden its appeal to the wide range of potential customers that they deal with\, and can better compete with other waterfront activities in the future. \nThank you. \nChair. We have no more hands. Okay\, thanks\, very much. \nAppreciate everyone’s public comment before we move to the board. \nDiscussion and advice. I’d like to proposed a 7 min break. \nThis is a very precisely timed break that everyone needs to reserve my watch of my clock iphone for 17. \nIt’s 7\, 17. We will restart because we have lots of people online as well. \nJust to give time for people to run to the bathroom or pick up something and come back\, and then we will start the board discussion. \nOkay. Thank you. \nOkay. We’ll reconvene now\, and I appreciate everyone being very prompt about getting back and thank you for your patience. \nEveryone who’s online. So we’ll reconvene now with our next item item on the agenda is the board discussion and advice. Part of the meeting. \nAnd I just want to remind everyone who is here. This is the point in the meeting where the committee and the Drb. \nHave an opportunity to discuss between us what we think. So the committee and the Board do not ask questions to the proponents. \nWe have had plenty of time to ask clarifying questions. \nIt’s really a time for us to reflect and and ribal out votes and reactions to the presentation. \nA public comment. But we. \nSo I just wanna run through before we start a reminder on the questions that the Drb. \nAsked\, and also the questions that the port has asked us to consider I’m not gonna read them verbatim\, but just a reminder. \nStaff at the at the Bcdc. Have asked us to consider how public the spaces feel\, and that’s a somewhat subjective question. \nBut that’s really fundamental to our role. To make sure that the short. \nNumber of people to also think about connectivity. Are we enhancing sufficient? \nEnhancing connectivity along the shoreline question about the enclosure of the private dining areas on the promenade and the kitchens. \nHey? Prank kitchens is that activating? \nAnd any thoughts on\, whether\, in closing it\, it makes\, and then alterations to the fairy plaza. \nCan we get varied programming there? Thoughts on improvements proposed for the Fairy Plaza? \nAre they going to attract? \nLike a days\, other thoughts on that as well would be welcome. \nThe question. 6. Address. Details about the programming of the perimeter easement. \nActivation zone in the South Promenade. Any conflicts or other thoughts on that. \nAnd any other general additional good enhance public account. Again\, coming to the core of what’s. \nFrom the port also asked the committee. \nSo the following\, the collection of improvements\, they’re aggregated together. \nJust how does that total picture really? \nCultural and the building. Dan also asked the committee to think about access. \nOf access. The proposals\, and then again\, just a specific questioning\, you know what the committee’s view is. \nThe improvements and. \nSo we have lots of questions that have been posed by the staff at both the port and the and the Bcdc. \nSo we should take that as we have our discussion but we’re not going to go through question by question laborious ly\, because we have a lot of people here who need to comment. \nBut what we will do what I would like to ask each member member of the committee member of the Board to do is to speak to the particular aspects of any of these questions that really resonate with them. \nAnd would\, you know\, make them want to talk about that? Are of highest concern to them? \nWe have a lot of experts on the panel and online. \nAnd so I’m sure there will be a number of issues. \nThat are covered by one person. We don’t need to reiterate them and talk about them again and again and again. \nLet’s make sure that we get the maximum value at. \nStaff\, and for the so I’m going to do this in reverse order\, and we’re going to start with the Wdac. \nAnd we’ll start with Laura\, who’s at the far end of the table. \nSo Laura fortunately gets to lead off. Over to you\, Laura. \nThank you. Okay. So though it as part I will just I mean I think I’ll touch on a couple of things broadly and in weighing this one\, as it’s been noted right\, this is very important building and site and experience of San Francisco. \nAnd I think what we’re looking at is the experience of the public and the experience of history. \nHere\, and the waterfront at this site. And so you heard a lot of questions to that end. \nI would say that I have questions about the new enclosures. \nI recognize that there are\, you know\, I think there are boundaries of the least control\, and that you know\, that would have been helpful to have a little bit more clarity. \nI think diagrammatically for\, but I also see that there are some that are going into. \nLet’s see the yeah into the promenade near the ferry plaza. \nAnd so just quiteing really what those trails are that we’re making and what that experience. \nNot just. It’s both of the building where we’re adding these new skin elements and experience of the continuity of the public realm. \nAnd the gesture towards not the non dedicated public space. \nSo I would just kind of flag that as one a big one that I think we are all kind of asking questions around\, and then the other\, I would say\, for for the public space improvements. \nIt does. I understand that this is a kind of strategic\, tactical. \nProject. I do have questions about what ties it together\, and I appreciate the desire to kind of make a bolder move in that pathway\, and I think you already had said this\, Sarah\, but I’m like the drawing don’t get me there yet. \nI doesn’t mean it can’t work\, but I do think I would wanna see on a lot of this I would say I would wanna see the it get to a level of refinement to be able to assess how to Catherine’s point that’s not competing or feeling out of place \nin this context and working together with the other elements. Maybe I’ll start off with those 2 comments and let us keep moving through the conversation. \nLaura. That’s a really good approach\, and we can. We are into dialogue. \nMake their initial. Let’s go to Katherine. \nI don’t know any more where the division between question or observation is. \nSo I’m gonna be asking hypothetical question. \nOne\, and comments. I think the issue of continuity\, transition\, and connectivity extremely important in all aspects of the building. \nThe Ambuladoro side\, north\, south\, as well as east side. \nThat wes the question of equity\, of reassignning\, or we are using space for the different users from farmers\, markets to the public. \nThe reduction in public space per se is of concern\, and requires a single met in order to really create a balance of give and take that at this moment it’s not clear. \nWe? I asked questions about the materiality and details. \nWe\, I think\, got a satisfactory answer. That that would be discussed as we move on. \nSo I’m comfortable with that. There are many good moves. \nUltimately there is so much to think about that I believe we just need to cook together\, spend more time. \nWe’re jumping into this discussion after 3 years of no confusion. \nWhatsoever. And I think we just all have to get used again to rolling up our sleeves and respectfully asking you to other questions and supporting each other in a common goal. \nLet’s go through my comments. Thank you\, Katherine. \nThat’s extremely hard. \nThe. \nSo I’ll hit on kind of 2 points from my and both as kind of user\, I commute using the ferry every day really resonate with a lot of what Carl has to say about getting more activation with the ferry building and with the plaza and with you know\, basically. \nthe kind of post Covid recovery\, and how you basically bring the ferry building. \nOr how do you bring the ferry building back into 2023? \nRealistically right\, like the last intervention that basically turned it into the Festival Market Hall. \nIt’s basically you’re trying to basically evolve. \nYou know the market hall into what? What it needs to be. \nSo I actually really do appreciate a lot of the moves that you’re making. \nI will be very overt and direct\, and say the bold color choices\, which are very helpful for a graphic on the presentation most definitely need to be studied. \nFurther in general\, I will say with our historic landmarks in particular\, with things like signage\, and it should be the building itself. \nThat is the highlight\, not the signage. I know\, which is kind of inverse to what most users want but when you’re dealing with kind of our\, you know\, utmost landmark in the city you know the kind of pinnacle of what is San Francisco you don’t want things \nthat distract from it and so there’s always a balance that I think gets struck between that and that way. \nWe are\, we are able to deal with that kind of component. \nBut I do think realistically think the moves are moving in the right direction. \nI think it’s in the details\, really\, where we will need to. \nKind of\, you know\, move in to see how\, for example\, some of the glazing systems work with the arcades. \nYou know how some of the way finding and signage work with the larger building and so it’s kind of like hitting upon a little bit of what you know\, my colleagues have kind of already stated. \nI think it’s actually going where it needs to go to kind of continue evolving and continue adjusting to quite frankly what is retail today. \nRight? What new retail needs to be you know. And these are a lot of questions that I’ll say that we’re tackling throughout the city period. \nSo it is one of these things that’s nice to. \nA set of evolution. \nOkay. I think we’ll go to our 2 online members. \nDiabi\, next Stefan. I’m going to go to you next. \nIf you’re ready to comment from a discussion standpoint. \nYeah\, no\, thank you. And I’m gonna try to sort of build on sort of what others have said. \nI think one of the things that I’m struggling with is that the the building? \nItself is just very public\, even though the delineation of where the public access is is clear\, and there are sort of a lot of spaces inside the building that are\, I would say\, not 100% public nor 100% private. \nThere’s sort of a liminal space\, and many parts of the building that actually in my mind relate to how people are actually intended to move through the building and the permeability that you have in that the spaces that receive people are bigger at the edges and they sort of channel people into a \nnarrower passages that did kid get bigger\, as you sort of connect back out to the street. \nAnd I think one of the key things to note here which I think is a concern for me. \nIs that the portico is on the front of the building. \nActually\, right now\, allow. The pedestrian to pass through the building\, and then pass through the portico’s before they go back to into the city\, or vice versa\, that you can filter through the portico’s and then go into find your way into the center core of the space and make your way through \nthe building\, and that filtering in this proposal would be lost. \nSo that everybody would channel through the middle entrance\, and that entrance would be right in that the leftover space\, or sort of the space that’s not 100% public work 100% private today it sort of gets transformed into more of a retail oriented corridor and \nso if we sort of took the public space access to this\, where we say\, Hey\, this building has been basically placed inside the shorter line behind\, where you know it. \nIt was placed in the shoreline band before there was a shoreline band. \nI think that we need to sort of think really carefully about how we think about public access through the ground plane of the building. \nIn this location\, and I’m concerned about sort of that. \nThere’s a like a channeling that’s occurring where the access through the building. \nSure\, it gets us to the very building but it’s sole purpose is actually for us to actually pass through retail spaces\, and that is something I think I’m struggling with\, cause. \nThe civic nature of building. I think it actually would be significantly altered by this proposal\, and I can’t speak on the intention of why this building was designed in the way it was\, but I see it a change in the part that I think is it’s it’s concerning from the lens \nof public access\, that I think we should be. \nWe we should alert. We’d be alerted to that. \nAnd then I think just in that theme it was really helpful to hear food wise\, because I think that the farmers market is really is a lens through which the public\, the greater public\, can access continue to access. \nThis site in a way that they’ve managed to not be priced out of the process of this sort of revitalization of this building. \nAnd so I would say that the issues that have that the farmers market has raised about the design changes\, challenging the flexibility or potential function of the farmer’s market\, either in particular locations or across the site in total I think in my mind that raises an issue for us for \nme because the preservation of this space\, as they a space that is really maximum accessible to the public\, I see that\, linked with the farmers market use in some ways. \nAnd so that’s sort of a concern to me. \nThe last thing I sort of want to raise\, which I think is sort of just an issue and sort of an interesting thing is that you know the hard\, scaped presence of the plaza today\, I’m curious. \nIf we should actually question any of that like\, if there’s sort of a layer of greening that could occur through public space and improvements\, that or that we should at least sort of be asking ourselves about Hi\, I did this nature sort of remaining understated being in \ndeference to the building\, I think is is really is really useful\, but that I’m just wondering if there isn’t more space for greening in this environment as a way to make this space actually more livable and hospitable for people to linger in times when there isn’t \nan active programmed use in the space. So that’s I’m gonna end with that sort of question. \nTo my add to my phone on board members. \nSit Stefan. Thank you. That’s very helpful\, and I just want to quickly clarify something on the second point you made about the farmers market. \nCan you just let’s say again\, are you concerned that the farmers market privatizes the space? \nI might have missed her. \nNo. Yeah. I think that the farmers market is a lens through which we can maximize public access to the site. \nIf that’s clear in a way that the way that the businesses function inside the farmer’s market is not is not so opening and welcoming to the public. \nThat the farmers market\, I think\, is from the standpoint of equity. \nIn the same point of that everybody is allowed to go regardless of whether you can afford to buy something\, and that the space is actually sort of presented in that way. \nI think it’s something very valuable. I don’t. \nIt’s having this barber’s market anymore. \nBut I go to the Civic Center Farmers market\, and I think that’s you can see that in play that the sort of maximum use of the public space and the farmers market\, those 2 things are intertwined in my mind because it is sort of an equitable opportunity for everybody to \nparticipate. And so I would say that it’s important for us to try to make sure that we’re not potentially making changes to the space that would hinder the operation of the successful farmers market in this location. \nYeah\, okay\, that’s good. Thanks for clarifying that. Hey? \nJacinda. Can I ask a question? Or\, okay? So I think the to me\, I think the big thing. \nI think we are missing as I shall say in the presentation\, is a little bit of cognition on what the existing space is right like\, particularly as we’re looking at the portico’s and looking at the activity of it\, like you know\, that’s the frame of reference that I’m kind of \nmissing in. Okay\, how does the farmer’s market layouts today? \nHow does farmers market layout in the future? And that way? \nSo that way you can kind of give the board a point of comparison between the 2. You know. \nHow does the portico function? Like? As I understand\, it’s a lot of service spaces so it doesn’t actually have a ton of activation within it\, because there’s nothing in there to engage the public within it. \nYou know? What is it that you want to move forward for the future? \nAnd then that might give a better frame of reference. As we’re kind of exploring a lot of the other comments regarding this\, because\, like\, I’ll say this\, I go to the site every day and night. \nRed Bay is on my jam to go and grab my coffee\, and it’s it’s wonderful\, but you get a sense of this of like\, what’s the site like at 8 am. \nWhat’s the site like? At 5 Pm. What’s the site like? \nAt noon\, and you know\, and that way then you can see what transformation is with regard to the project that you have. \nThat’s very helpful. Look. We’ll keep moving\, Tom\, over to you\, please. \nSo your thoughts for the. \nThanks\, 3 areas of of thoughts. The first one goes back to my previous question. \nI\, honestly\, I really think it’s incumbent on the port not to let 2 different unrelated projects occur on this peninsula. \nI think that there’s gotta be strategies contained within this project that can served to organize the rest of the Peninsula in some way\, and it’s not like it’s gotta be every single thing. \nIt’s like one giant. But the guy beside the links\, something that makes them feel like one place\, one public place publicly linked. \nSecond\, I think I feel like on the building that there are to be ground rules and to me one of those is that you can’t. \nI don’t think you can glass it or cades. \nI think those are are intended\, and function as an area which is between outside and inside\, and strategies. \nThere should have to do with the modifying the climate to make usable and friendly\, and and I definitely loved all the cleaning out of the carbuncles that have been proposed. \nBut I don’t agree with making it and close so that it wouldn’t feel really like a I worry about the privatization sense of that\, and there’s no nothing to kind of receives. \nYou part with the building the way it is now and then. \nThe third thing is\, I was struck by the diagram that was presented that showed the current access axis of the building with the lining up on the\, you know\, from the Market street all the way into the entry to the bill\, and then another access which is being developed now which runs along the side \nand leads people back to the very plus. I think it’s important thing to to acknowledge and to accept that. \nThat’s important. And in accepting that\, I think that there’s got to be some strength to it\, and so that leads me to have a few questions about the light touch. \nAnd I understand why the light touch is the is the idea\, because nothing wants to compete necessarily with the building itself. \nBut I think if you support\, if you kind of accept the this second access there may be\, ought to be a little bit more substance to what structures that access that that means of moving from front to back\, and I think the very components that we’re proposed are all good now I think that the \ncornersstone piece\, the sign at the back\, the promenade\, the Graphic promenade\, and then the treatment of of the plus self. \nOr all the right things to be looking at\, but I would differ a little bit on some of the expression of them. \nThe cornerstone. I wish\, was not planters. I wish it was something more substantial. \nMaybe you should. Maybe the course don’t should be made of stone\, or else not be there. \nBut I think if it’s gonna be a kind of a entry point\, then it should have the substance that isn’t in keeping with the mass and subance of of the. \nBuilding itself\, then also what leads from front to back\, I think there’s too much reliance on the graphic pattern on the ground\, and I think the patterns I mean\, I understand it’s just a surfing suggestion right now. \nBut it’s too elaborate. It feels unrelated to to the context\, and I think that the pattern could be simplified. \nBut I would like to see something done almost vertically. \nMaybe a series of landscapes with more substance than the yellow polls without banners\, something that kind of engages civic sense of architecture\, that leads along this new access from the front to the back. \nMaybe that’s on the Plaza side. Maybe it’s getting too close to third. \nMaybe it oughta be on on the south side and replace or inter interspersed with some of those existing flights. \nSomething that is got a that kind of a more substantial kind of lantern\, and if it was in this self position he could also run all the way the length of the pince all the way to the east Ferry Plaza insert to unite the whole project and then the last thing is \njust on that paving treatments. I think that\, like I was saying\, I feel like the elaborate\, elaborate nature of the promenade is too much. \nAnd then the on the very pause itself is not quite enough. \nI think the very plaza needs a little denser field\, you know\, looking in the rendering\, I I don’t see that it’s going to read enough as a as a clear sort of a field. \nI wish it had more frequency\, more density to the field. \nUsing this idea of just grinding\, existing\, concrete. \nIf that’s what it needs to be. Stain could also be subtly introduced to\, whether it’s color or without color to help Chief semis\, graphic character and something similar. \nMaybe a more intense version of that along the promenade uses grinding and stain would be more permanent. \nI worry about the paint on concrete that you know. \nAfter a couple of years it’ll be ground down a lot to be\, you know. \nRedone\, so often. That’d be kind of falls away. \nBut I do support all the basic planning and strategy that was put forward on the landscape design approach. \nThanks. \nYeah. Thank you\, Tom. Lot of good things to speak up on that. \nGary\, let’s go to you. \nThanks\, so many great things here that folks are talking about. \nI wanna make sure I don’t repeat anything. Well\, first of all\, I mean the ferry building\, you know\, holds such a special place in all of our hearts\, and I appreciate the stewardship that you’re bringing to it. \nAnd clearly\, it’s very important to all of you that this maintains a an important civic asset. \nAnd I actually went there after I got engaged to celebrate. \nI was just there for day lunch\, whatever\, right before this. \nSo it’s\, you know. It’s it’s it’s a favorite place for most people in San Francisco\, and visitors. \nI just wanted to say that I think we it seems like the purpose of these changes is to make it more feasible to continue these retail operations\, and it seems like there’s a kind of intentional shift from a market hall idea towards a kind of a more restaurant idea. \nAnd I think if that would work better if you’re seeing that the market Hall idea isn’t working\, and that the restaurant idea would work better from kind of a tenant perspective\, I think that’s important for us to know. \nBut I also think that it’s not really functioning. \nVery well as a market hall right now. I mean\, there’s a lot of there’s some booths\, you know. \nThere’s some kind of there’s a lot of individual vendors\, but there’s not a lot of public seating\, and most market halls are around the world are kind of a lot of booths around a whole bunch of public seating. \nAnd so it’s difficult right now\, when you go there to buy something\, eat\, to actually find a place\, to sit down to eat it. \nAnd so what\, I wonder\, is\, there could be a little bit more in the in the kind of the way you present these ideas to us. \nSome more clarity around the kind of the public and the private seating areas and I’m wondering if things like on the West Side\, you know\, there’s right now there’s these kind of gardens that spell out of Gods. \nAnd I guess\, what is it? Wine merchant? Now? \nAnd those are clearly private\, because they have the kind of rails around them. \nAnd I wonder if there’s\, you know\, a chance for this seating that you’re showing in that kind of nook there to be public seating instead of privatized seating. \nAnd there’s also a sort of an aesthetic quality. \nThere’s a sort of what is the aesthetic of a civic building\, or this kind of cultural building. \nAnd I think what we love about the ferry building is this kind of gravitas of the arches and the stone\, and and there’s also sort of a fun thing about the ferry building\, which is that there is this kind of like you know the each individual vendor has their own \nexpression they have their own chairs\, they get to kind of brand their own experience within the framework of these stone arches\, right? \nThat there’s there’s a sort of a playfulness to that\, and maybe there needs to be a little bit more clarity around. \nWhat are the public and permanent elements that have a little bit more restraint? \nGravitas scale\, and then the kind of private elements that can be kind of lighter weight and more kind of fun and colorful. \nSo\, for example\, you think of like the Tuary’s garden right in Paris. \nYou know that those chairs are public chairs because they’re all the same. \nThey’re real heavy\, you know. They are always there\, and they’re branded\, you know. \nThey have a little thing on them to say they’re from the garden\, and I’m wondering if there could be more clarity around this kind of public seating\, and to that to that same point\, you know\, the lighting these poles\, these yellow poles and the kind of graphic on the ground I think you’re hearing a \nlot of kind of\, you know\, response to that. And I think for me\, it’s about a civic\, ness civic architecture\, civic landscape design that has a little bit more gravitas and restraint\, and the playfulness gets to be kind of the realm of the inserted \ntemporary things\, but the permanent things have this regime\, and then just one more thing on the Eva access\, or the driveway\, or whatever it is\, I think you know\, it would be really helpful to understand how much that needs to function as a driveway because driveways\, you know exist we need to be \nable to get cars into places sometimes\, and they should be able to get in there when they need to. \nAnd if we can\, I know there’s like\, you know\, 20 foot. \nWhatever you have to do for your fire\, access\, but I don’t think that whole width needs to be always\, you know\, really make it clear what is the in and out part of the driveway\, and then make and let the rest be plaza and pestrian\, if you want it to be a \ndriveway so that it can function in that way\, and I think we would all agree there’s plenty of space here for pedestrians\, and sometimes having a little bit more clarity between. \nWhere do the vehicles go\, and where do the pedestrians and bikes go? \nCan be really helpful for people to just kind of understand when there’s a lot of heavy foot traffic. \nYou know what are kind of the ground rules here\, and I think. \nThe I guess the last comment I’ll make\, and I would defer to the historic folks on this. \nBut on the front I caught the front of the building. I don’t know if everybody thinks of it that way\, but Embarcadero side of the building. \nWe have this kind of you know this\, these distant views right across from Market Street you have these distant views\, and there is a kind of an importance to that facade\, I think\, and the depth of the facade that you can see from behind the arcade\, and seeing that there’s sort of \nthis layer\, which conveys a sort of a passage through the building\, and sort of a gravitas of that facade on the backside or the water side\, which maybe we should think of as the front side\, because it’s the water side. \nBut that’s fine. That is the more modern side. There’s a lot more intervention there\, so that I’m not as bothered by those kinds of interventions on that side to make it a lot more functional for restaurants chosen not to go there for dinner because it was cold and there \nwas no place to sit that felt warm. So the I just that’s one dimension that I think should be considered. \nAnd then I guess the last point is\, I would think it would be a loss if there was. \nLess indoor. That was public for public use. \nYou know these areas that you can get your food and then eat somewhere inside and be warm. \nNot just outside. So I think\, understanding how the balance of those spaces would pan out would be an important component of public access. \nOkay. Thanks. Kristen. Gary\, okay. Yeah. \nI think there’s probably nobody here who doesn’t understand and support the idea that for our preservation goes hand in hand with reinvigoration\, that you know\, we all want to see it activated. \nGreatest hope is that it remains a place for San Francisco as well as for tourists\, and I believe that farmers market really is the heart and soul of the farmers. Market. \nFrom. You know the locals\, even though. But locals also patronize restaurants and it’s a place where tourists and San Francisco are on an equal footing\, and I think that’s a really wonderful thing. \nI hope use that. I wanna talk about the canopies for a moment. \nI think that what’s shown the architects intent it’s very encouraging\, you know. \nThey’re very light. They’re open\, very transparent\, and it implies a kind of mixing of public and private in those areas to capture. \nFor\, you know\, restaurant seating and my observation\, though\, and I think you’ve acknowledged a little bit that once the lease\, begins. You know the leaseholder kind of takes possession spaces\, and there’s creep you know visiting got got \nyesterday\, just walking by. I also how there are these large steel bollards that are bolted to the pavement\, and there’s horizontal steel bars and there’s a sign that says\, you know\, basically God’s only customers. \nOr something like that. There’s also recycling containers which are blanking\, you know. \nEntry on the north to the waterfront. Actually both sides there\, which is not\, which gives the impression of you know I think it incurred. \nYou know\, it’s gives this idea of privatization of the you know\, of the the key areas. \nWhile you know\, the public area seem to be\, or maybe kind of like desirable. \nI hope what’s not happening is that the public areas get pushed to the back off the embarcadero. \nAnd you know\, to the cold side and that warm side facing the city where everybody wants to be for people watching\, because that’s probably the greatest activity of all\, the biggest draw of all people watching that becomes a paid activity for\, you know\, for tourists and high end. \nSo that kind of brings me to the point about the farmers. Market. \nI think it was said earlier that we didn’t have a diagram showing where the farmers market is today\, and square footage. \nIt’s occupying\, and in the renders the farmers market is kind of shoehorned into the triangular area. \nYou know that on the south of the building\, and but it’s it’s also a little bit shadyier than I think. \nThe other. I think it does pick up some building shade\, and I just wonder how that’s going to work. \nI know that you’ve shown\, you know\, market stalls everywhere\, hundreds of them. \nIt seems like all over. So I was a little unclear as to where that\, you know\, the farmer’s market really ends\, you know. At the end of the day. \nAs far as the site. Landscape improvements\, I think really want a second what I’ve heard earlier\, I think that’s a the tall lights\, I mean. \nI was thinking\, like you need a marker to draw people to the rear of the site. \nAnd yet lights. I don’t know if it’s so much of a nighttime place that the lights are really functioning. \nOkay\, well\, they’re really about the 10 years and the banners and I don’t want it to feel like\, you know\, like more tourist waterfront. \nYou know. We know. \nThat was\, and I think that the the polls are. \nI think if we think about the site improvement elements as framing devices rather than as objects\, they seem to tall\, and if they stayed low\, like what Tom was saying\, lanterns\, then they become a framing element for the bay bridge you know a foreground for clash. \nThe the Graphic on the ground. I’m just not concerned about it all\, because I think it’s temporary. \nI think it’s. It’s a test. I think it’s you can test urban design ideas with with graphics and signage\, very low risk. \nBut I think it’s really the verticals and the fixed elements that we should\, you know\, focus on. \nOkay\, zeroing in here. Almost done. Yeah. The arcades definitely. \nThe combining element. I think the glass partitions. If they’re done beautifully\, it could be wonderful. But there are they going to be. \nAre there going to be tracks on the ground? The feel like threshold\, so that you’re? \nI vote for Gandhi at the end of the pier. \nOkay. Thanks. Thanks. Gary. Well\, comments. \nAs an engineer\, I feel a little out of place in terms. \nReece. I’m not clear on the effect on movements. \nThat the Bay front kitchen. \nArcade\, enclosures. \nCanopy have? \nPart of what other people are saying. \nWell! \nAnd look\, and I just want to make a few comments. \nSo I’m try not to echo what other been a lot of 1 0 in on that? \nImportance. \nAnd I think one of the things I’d like to see. \nThe. \nPermanent public\, but in close outside and potentially inside or. \nWhere that and I know there was. There were quantities. Describe. \nHas more than. \nYou know I don’t mean to that the issues\, but you know\, when the. \nBe plenty of spaces for people. \nI just don’t think the balance is\, or it may be there\, but I’m not. \nAnd it applies equally. \nHuman comfort\, very important. \nAnd somebody brought up. You know the my! \nThe so\, you know. \nUp. I think I would like to understand little more about the how the contextual. \nAnd and look you made. \nI think\, even in relation to. \nThat the you know there are cues from the weed upon. \nPart of the. \nQuite correctly used to be water. Now it’s a plaza\, all granite. \nBut you know the other aspects of that\, but might actually be a code. \nI’m thinking of. I would love to see ways in which places. \nBut they’re all part of one. \nThat choices! \nI would echo what others said about the signage. I think. \nWith a a landmark building\, signages of. \nVery thoughtfully done\, and I think what you made when you were presenting about the. \nYou know. I think. \nThat all the. \nWorth thinking! \nAnd that’s in the. \nI I’m not convinced about the kiosk. \nMore of the. \nA comment. Talk about this. \nPublic access. \nI think there needs to be. \nStrategy. \nAnd it could be a really. \nBut I think everyone has. \nThe you know the comments. What about? Well\, I’m going to say safety. \nGoing to happen in the middle of the night. \nBut I I think that just providing. \nHow people. \nThere are many other great comments. \nSort of make a comment about the statue of. And you know\, historically\, it’s another element with very interesting here. \nAnd I just like I’m not convinced any of those. \nThe location on the weed\, applause. \nChair. Okay. \nSo I’m not even sure. \nPerfect\, and I think you know. \nMight be another way to present where it occupies small footprint\, but doesn’t mean. \nAt\, the. \nIf we? \nThere is a. \nAnd I know it’s not good. I’ve always been concerned about the interface with the Golden Gate\, and it’s such a drawback that space and I know it’s not under your control. \nBut I feel like this is part of the process. I know you have a dialogue with everybody\, but I mean even repositioning that statue. \nYou know the I mean\, there are just some very unattractive. \nYou know\, maybe just. \nMaybe there’s a simple fix\, a little bit more dialogue with your friends. It’s called\, and fury terminal\, and it might actually enhance the always felt that it it really diminishes. \nSomething that might help. I think the work that’s being done at the moment for a lot of. \nI really think it’s. \nStrongly permanent. \nUtilizing some higher quality. \nYou know\, just using this as a. \nEnhance the. \nIt doesn’t all have to be. \nIt works great in many ways. I just think that. \nI have a very. \nYou know the Graphic on the road with her different points. \nWould come down on the. \nYeah\, place. Like\, required access. \nI don’t know. \nOn that I get. Why? \nI don’t know. Or maybe there’s another. \nSo! \nSo just want to circle back. We’ve heard a lot from a lot of great comments from. \nHaving Hood. Whatever you anyone weigh in again\, build on something been said. That’s very critical. \nSo about the pavement. \nOkay. \nSo I don’t know. I just slide. \nThat already exist. That’s another way of emphasizing. \nPoint\, but they are accused of. \nCan I say one thing while we’re on the table? \nI don’t know if others notice\, but the you know the wavy pattern of the there are certain views that are shown where you can tell the. \nSo I mean\, Job is not. Our job is just. \nOkay\, so look. \nA long table here for those who are not in. Does anyone else wanna make a final comment? \nJust to address some of what was in our packet. \nWe did review the page in General Memo and I actually think it’s on the right track in terms of compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. \nAnalysis was thoughtful\, but again doubles in the details. \nAt the end of the day. With regard to how some of the features kind of work with the existing historic building\, how you keep it light\, and how you keep it transparent. \nI do think the moves towards making sure that they will access down the promenade. \nI mean in the arcades are really important\, just in terms of\, you know\, keeping that. \nWhat’s historic and what’s important about. \nJust said\, just since I. \nOkay. Anything. Else. \nSomewhere else. Okay\, I’m just gonna make a short summary. \nIt’s going to leave out things that are okay. \nJacinda. I think Stephan had his hand raised. Oh\, sorry\, Stefan. \nSorry go ahead. \nOh\, thanks! I just wanted to just raise one last thing about the lighting\, and because the the sort of path of gold I’ll say datum\, that’s established on Market Street\, you know it does wrap around justin Herman Plaza and then it extends along the \nembarkadero to the north and south\, and it’s pretty civic\, you know\, and I’m wondering if something within that family of lighting should actually extend to the back of the ferry building\, or if there’s an opportunity to sort of think about the civic nature of the \nlighting on the city side of all this stuff and extend this sort of the back of the plaza. \nAnd I just I was sort of think it’s sort of something to consider\, because it doesn’t seem right to go with the a historic fixture in this location. \nBut the the visual data that’s established is really strong. \nComing all the way down market and wrapping around that space\, and I know that the designers of Justin Hermann that was sort of an intentional act to extend that horizontally. \nAnd so I think that I’m just something to consider when thinking about bringing a light standard behind the building and making that a contiguous public space. \nIt’s an excellent point\, Stefan. Thank you. \nOkay. Look\, I’m going to\, just to a very short summary. \nIt’s not a complete summary\, and staff have taken notes and. \nTry and draw out some of the. \nSo I think you know several comments have spoken to\, you know\, greater clarity\, just delineation of. \nA clear picture. What the trade offs are\, what the experience will be. \nAnd then\, you know\, space improvements\, you know\, just even though the work that’s being proposed is right. \nIt’s very tactical\, but making. \nQuestions about comments. I think. \nUnderstand more about everything\, from the the farmers market through to transition spaces through the interior public. \nAnd again metric. \nYou know there was the comments\, lots of comments about the materials. \nNo some refinement taking into the history sorry context\, or refinement\, taking in. \nAreas\, everything. \nI think everyone felt that this\, you know\, a lot of aspects are moving in the right direction. \nMore details needed to really understand\, to work\, get some different opinions on. \nArcade is appropriate. \nPermeability very important\, and I think you know again as sort of a. \nThat was. \nIn this evolution. \nAbout. You know\, historic buildings up. \nIf there is a transition towards more restaurants away from. \nOther activities currently in the. \nIn the middle of it might be hopeful. \nFrom a big picture. \nWhy the future? \nI think. Let’s see. \nYou know. So again\, just on materia materiality. \nSome materials to fill. \nYou know lots of comments about the importance\, Marcus. \nInteresting comment about lighting lanterns. \nWe talked about clarity on public property seating. \nVery important. \nAnd we talked about. I think one of the. \nWe are very sensitive. Okay? \nAnd comfort. \nElements in the plaza. \nExactly. \nSo look\, there were lots of other things. \nThere! \nThis point\, we can move. \nOh\, no\, we do. But yeah\, will they come back\, or are you satisfied? \nLook there was we had while we were at the break. \nI think. \nCritical project\, an important seat. \nSo we will now move to the project. \nThank you so much. Members of for Review Board. \nA lot. Obviously it’s fun to be in a room. \nCare as much about this in the area\, right? And I think we want to spend about 70 more hours. \nNo\, I think I have a little bit of a process question in terms of to the extent we have have yourself. \nSome are in your summary\, recognize disagreements in terms of even opinion amongst the Board members\, and especially to the extent that some are it’s not there yet\, or whatever I think it will be a little bit hard for us to be able to do to fully hit all of those especially if \nthere’s opinion\, I think we will do our best\, and I and there are a number of things that came up as questions after the clarification discussion period was very clear. \nAnswer across that we fully document with that for the team. \nIs there any anything you’d add? I think we’re excited. \nWe know that this is going to be that project that sets the precedent of the next place\, that important building of stature needs to be\, and we’ll knit together the important civic spaces around us\, more cohesive and highly functional site and building space. \nThank you very much. And one of the things that we always do is we\, you know our thoughts are not always completely unified\, so we rely on the expertise. \nThe the staff to be able to interpret what we’re saying and present. \nYou know\, discuss what we. \nMake a refund in one area\, and then you’ll come back. \nWe really rely on the expertise our team. \nThanks so much. We look forward to working to a staff to come back with it. \nDefinitive. \nOkay\, things. \nTalk\, about. \nDan anything else. \nNo\, I think there\, the summary is quite on target. From what I heard here. \nSo thank you very much\, and we are ready to. \nSo just a question. The next step is to adjourn the meeting. \nDo we need 2 motions or one motion to? \nI think we can do it with one motion as long as we include both committees in that motion. \nOkay\, thanks. For that\, Clarice\, Kate so concludes our project. \nReview for the meeting. It’s been really terrific. \nWdac\, and I can’t believe. \nReally helpful\, so I would like to. Oh\, no\, I need someone to pull I’d like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting of the Bcdc. \nSign Review Board and the W. W. Water print Design Advisory Committee. \nSecond. \nHi! \nA second\, the motion. Okay\, all those in favor. Hi\, bye\, bye\, we have a motion. \nSecond\, we have no objection\, so thank you\, everybody\, and good night\, and thank you for coming in person. \nWe really appreciate. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-10-2023-design-review-board-and-port-of-san-francisco-waterfront-design-committee-meeting/
LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR