January 8, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting

1. Call to Order and Meeting Procedure Review
2. Approval of Draft Review Summary for November 6, 2023 Meeting  and the December 11, 2023
3. Staff Update
4. Public Comment Period
5. DePave Park, Alameda, Alameda County; First Pre-Application Review
   The Design Review Board will hold its first pre-application review of a proposal by the City of Alameda to develop DePave Park at the former Naval Air Station Alameda, in the City of Alameda, Alameda County. The proposed De-Pave Park Project is one in a series of waterfront public spaces surrounding the three sides of the Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda. The Project would involve creating an urban ecological park by removing much of the site’s existing World War II-era concrete runway spaces and onsite buildings; repurposing remaining materials for public access areas and amenities; and establishing new tidal wetlands, a pilot eelgrass restoration area, and other native habitats appropriate for San Francisco Bay. The project intends to maximize re-use of on-site materials and design the park as a model for open space and habitat restoration areas that can be adapted to sea level rise over time.
   (Schuyler Olsson) [415/352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Exhibits
6. 1301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development Project, City of Belmont, San Mateo County; Second Pre-Application Review
   The Design Review Board will hold its second 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
7. Adjournment

January 8, 2024 meeting summary

January 8, 2024 meeting video

Thank you for joining us tonight for the BCDC Design Review Board meeting. I’d like to remind the board members to please speak directly into the microphone.

In front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. And please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on, but your audio is disabled.

Okay. Thank you, Ashley, and we’ll open the meeting. My name is Jacinta McCann and I’m the chair of the BCdc’s Design Review Board.

I’m located here at Metro Center. In San Francisco and our meeting will include participants who are here in the room and participants who are participating online.

Our first order of business is to call the role. Board members, can you please unmute yourselves to respond and they mute yourselves following that?

Ashley, can you call the role?

Chair McCann. Present. Vice chair string present board member Anderson. Present.

Board member Pellegrini. Present. Board member leader.

Here. Present.

And board member Chow will be with us at 5 30. The staff BCC staff attending tonight or myself, Ashley, You’rey Jewett, Skylar Olson, Julie Garen, Trouty Senna, and Katherine Pan.

Okay, thank you, Ashley. We have a quorum present, so we duly constituted to conduct business.

I want to stop by sharing some instructions on 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 that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise.

For board members if you have a webcam please make sure that it’s on so everyone can see you and for members of the public if you would like to speak during the public comment period you will need to do so in one of 3 ways.

If you’re here with us in person, speaker cards are available at the door and you 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.

After all, individuals who are present make their comments, we shall call on those participants who are attending the meeting remotely.

If you are attending on the Zoom Platform, please raise your virtual hand in Zoom by clicking the hand at the bottom of your screen.

The hand should turn blue when it’s raised. Please note that we will only hear your voices and that your video will not be enabled.

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. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are raised.

Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner.

We will not tolerate hate speech. Threats made directly or indirectly and or abusive language.

We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines or who exceeds the established time limits without permission.

If you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform, we recommend using the Gallery View option in view 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 in to the individual panelist videos.

If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects, please call or email Ashley Tomlin who is right there, Ashley.

And Ashley’s contact information is on screen or is found on the BCdc’s website.

Finally, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host, Yuri. And your use, what about BCDC staff and is acting as a 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. So we’ll move to item 2 now, which is approval of the meeting summaries for number, November sixth, 2,023 in December eleventh, 2023.

And board members we’ve all been furnished the draft summaries for those 2 meetings I’m just going to remind you, we might just approve these individually.

So the November sixth BCDC meeting. We had the following people present. Bob was here, Bob Balio, Kristen Hall, Tom Leader, Gary Strang and Stefan were were here.

And we were. Reviewing the 1499 bash project that was the first pre-application review.

Are there any comments? From anyone? I do not have any comments. Any other comments from anyone?

I have actually have a couple of comments. It’s just clarifying language, page 8.

Under item 4, emergency vehicle access and terminus of the public trail. Some point 2.

I just the wording in the paragraph is not particularly clear and it may have been my expression, but I would like to just clarify it.

So Ashley, I’ve rewritten the paragraph and I’ll can give it to you afterwards but I’m proposing it be changed to say Jacinda McCann observes that the terminus of the trail is a dead end and that is it is unlikely that people will walk to the end is currently proposed.

Positioning public art in the end could potentially encourage people. Improvements to the hammerhead configuration could also assist in making this section of the trail more appealing.

It would also help if staff could clarify if there’s any potential for the trail to continue beyond the site in the future.

So it’s just cleaning up that paragraph so you can refer to that.

And I wanted to clarify on page 9 and Kristen isn’t with us tonight, but under sub point 2, the second paragraph below the top of the page.

It’s a Kristen Hall was talking at this point. She says it’s beautiful space and will be a nice respite.

And then the second sentence says excited about the possible road diet. And I think that needs to be changed to something else.

And I could not remember what that would be, but maybe someone could go back and just cross check that and clarify what that is.

And then . The

I think that was it. Yeah, that was it. So with those 2 changes, is everyone okay with the?

With the adjustments to the minutes, for these meeting notes for the November 6 meeting.

I’ll make a motion to approve. Second. Bye. Okay, the next meetings were meeting summary was the December eleventh summary.

And people present there was myself, Bob Batalio, Kristen Hall, Gary Strang, and Steph.

And we were reviewing. It was just last month, so. It was the first review of the,

Windrover project, which, excuse me, it was technically the second review. Even though it felt like the first review.

Correct. And at the end it says we moving to the third review, which I will just reconfirm is correct.

Right. And,

Yeah. There was just a minor improvement in. Language. I can pass these through to you.

They’re not substantial, just a couple of minor clarifications but with Just the bottom, sentence, on page 6 site entrances, sub point one, final centers, it would be helpful to have more context shown for the concept plan and a clearer illustration of the connections, being made on site and off site.

And the final sentence there starts struggling to determine to just change that to it is difficult to determine at this stage whether

And there’s a repeat of a sentence on page 8, some point 3. Just send him a CAD suggested incorporating playful elements, if we could just strike that sentence, which is a repeat of a sentence in the previous paragraph.

So we don’t need, it will be a very desirable place for families. So with those changes, any other changes that anyone has?

Okay. Motion to approve. The commotion to approve.

Hi.

Okay, all in favor? I. Okay, thank you. Good.

Let’s move to item 3, staff update.

Thank you, Chair McCann. Congratulations to Tom and Leo on the soon to open public access at 3,500 Marina in Brisbane.

The project last came to the board in September, 2,018 and includes approximately 1,100 linear feet of bay trail and shoreline spaces and then approximately a hundred 1,000 square foot public access area on the podium level.

The project will also be constructing an approximately 700 linear foot pay trail around the neighboring parcel that will complete the Bay Trail loop around the Sierra Point Peninsula.

I wanted to update the board on a few changes in laws and policies related to member participation. I will send out a summary of these changes.

First, BCDC has an updated policy regarding the role DRB members may play as consultants to permit applicants.

Board members are no longer allowed to represent permit applicants before the commission or a BCDC advisory board.

Board members who have been recused for assisting permit applicants are not allowed to speak in front of the board while being paid by the applicant.

And this is to present as well as for answering questions. Recused board members may attend meetings in person or remotely as a member of the public.

A board member may speak as a member of the public as long as they are not being compensated by the applicant.

Do board members have any questions?

I don’t have any questions on that. I don’t think we have any questions. Tom, any questions?

Well, I remember there was confusion on this project you’re looking at whether I can represent the the applicant or not.

And I decided I better not because I wasn’t sure nobody seemed sure but now it’s it’s clear.

That on this project I would not be able to present. Speak in front of BCDC or a commission or anything like that.

You are correct. Actually, just to be very clear because Tom, I recall that. Does it apply to any member of the firm that the African has or just the individual.

It is just the individual. So, for instance, with 1301 shoreway, the project going second tonight.

An ECRB member had spoken and answered questions during the last DRB meeting related to the levy or the shoreline protection.

B he would not be able to answer questions in front of the design review board, but a member of Moffat and Nicole could.

I see. Okay, thank you. Alright. Second for law and policies update as of January one and through 2,025 board members may attend and participate in meetings remotely staff are required to notice remote attendance at least 24 h in advance of the meeting via email and on the website notice.

And we do not need to include the remote location. I believe our preference will remain to be in person or to have in person attendance, but we do now have flexibility for your participation.

Are there any questions?

Very clear.

Finally, the DRB meeting dates have been set for 2024 and are posted on the BCC website.

The February meetings canceled and our next meeting is planned for March eleventh and will be the second review of the proposed very building and plaza renovations.

And that concludes the BCDC staff update. I’ll pause if there’s any other questions from the board.

Well, thanks, Ashley. And, again, congratulations, Tom, on seeing your project.

Completed and contributing to the continuation of the Bay Trail. It’s a very important project.

So well done. I don’t have any other questions. It’s good to get the policy updates out clearly.

So thank you for that. Any other questions from the board?

Hearing none, I think we’ll move on. Okay, so.

We will also just move now to public comment for items. Not on tonight’s agenda. So we’ll start with those members of the public in our headquarters building here today.

If anyone has a comment on on something that is not on tonight’s agenda form a line near the podium to make a public comment.

And if you’re attending online, it would like to make a public comment. Raise your hand to speak as previously notified.

Is there anyone who wants to make a public comment?

Okay.

There’s no hands raised online. Okay, thank you very much. So no public comment for items not on tonight’s agenda.

So we’ll move to item 5, which is the first review of the Depave Park project in Alameda, Alameda County.

And I’ll just remind you of the project order that we follow for these reviews. So we start with the BCDC staff introduction.

We then move to the project proponent presentation. We then have both clarifying questions, which are between the proponent and the board.

It’s not a time for discussion but question and answer then we move to public comment and then we have full discussion and summary which is the dialogue between the board and then following that the project proponent can make a brief response as desired.

So we’ll follow that. Permit and so with that the BCDC permit analyst Scholar Olson will introduce the project.

So thanks, Ga. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Macken. I’m just gonna share my screen here.

Alright, good evening to the design review board members, the project team, my members of the public. My name is Skylar Olsen and I’m a senior environmental scientist at BCC.

I’m happy to introduce the project for tonight’s review, the DPA Park project in Alameda proposed by the City of Alameda.

This product has received Measure AA funding from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority and is a bay restoration regulatory integration team or Brit project.

Tonight will be the board’s first pre application design review of the project. I’ll start with a brief introduction to the project before the applicants present the project in greater detail.

Before we discuss the project, we’d like to begin by acknowledging that the project side is located on.

Artificially filled land. It was historically shallow water habitat within the traditional indigenous homelands at the outline people.

We offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original storage of the down to phone natural resources of the Bay Area.

This slide shows the location and vicinity of the proposed project site. The approximately 21 acre .

Pay Park project side is located in along San Francisco Bay at the western end of Alameda. It’s on, it’s on property owned by the city of Alameda, within the central.

Area southern and central area of the larger former Naval Air Station, Alameda site, commonly referred to now as Alameda Point.

It’s bounded to the east by sea playing Lagoon to the south by San Francisco Bay.

To the west by wetlands owned by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and to the north and east by sea plain lagoon promenade a public area.

Running along the north side of. See Plain Lagoon.

As shown in this image from BCdc’s community. Vulnerability, mapping tool. The project sites.

Is located within an area with high social vulnerability based on a range of vulnerability indicators. This area also has a high contamination vulnerability based on Call them viral screen.

What does a statewide pollution vulnerability assessment? The project proponents will talk more about how local communities have been engaged in their project design.

And how the design has evolved. Accordingly.

This slide shows the project site as it relates to other BCDC required public access areas.

Along the seaplane Lagoon shoreline. The city and its presentation will go into greater detail.

About the Limited Point precise plan. And what is planned for the greater. See playing the goon area.

Currently the project site shown on the left of the screen is open to the public, but it’s not improved for public access.

And the purple lines in the map show approximate locations of existing BCDC required. Public access.

So the first permit shown here. . 1998 that o 3 6 required public access to London northern side of sea play in the goon in association with the Alameda Antiques and Collectables Fair.

But this public access is no longer in effect as the fair is no longer operating at the site. However, this area It’s still open to the public, but mostly unimproved for public access, except the portion on the right, which I’ll talk about next.

So permit number, 2017 dot o one issue to the city of Alameda and that’s me to point partners.

Requires an approximately 2.5 acre. Al Lima Point Waterfront Park. And associated amenities.

At the northeast corner of Sea Plain, Lagoon. I’m, 2018 dot o 2 5 also issue to the city, requires an approximately 2 acre public access area on the eastern shoreline of sea playing lagoon in connection with the seaplane, the groom ferry terminal.

Finally, permits, and, 1,900, and 96, dot, o, 2, 6, issue to Nelson’s marine requires an approximately 8 700 square foot area at the southeast corner.

Of the lagoon in connection with authorized construction of various marine. Facilities.

I’ll now show you the sea level rise vulnerability for the site based on BCdc’s, Bay Area flood explorer.

It’s important to know that this represents the vulnerability of the existing site without the changes that will be associated with the proposed project.

The product team will later show figures demonstrating the sea level rise, resilience of the site if the proposed project were implemented, as well as potential future adaptation measures.

So this image shows the funding that would occur with a total water level. That is 2 feet above the current mean higher high water.

Such a water level could under, could occur under a range of scenarios such as No sea level rise plus a 10 year storm surge.

Or one feet of one for sea level rise plus a king tide or 2 feet of sea level rise.

I mean higher high water. 2 fee of sea level rise is roughly equivalent to the 2050 projection.

Under high emissions, medium to high risk aversion scenario. Which has a 0 point 5% chance of occurring.

As you can see, there would be some inundation at the western area of the site.

This, in, shows a flooding that would occur with a total water level that is 7 feet.

Above the current mean higher high water. That could occur with about 54 into sea level rise plus a 10 year storm surge or 6 feet silver rise plus a king tide.

Or 7 feet of sea level rise. At mean, high high water and 7 feet of sea level rise is roughly equivalent to the 2,100.

Projection. Under the same scenario. And as you can see, the site would be completely inundated with this amount of sea level rise.

This slide shows an image from the San Francisco estuary. Institute San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas.

Which identifies and describes the suite a potential sea level rise that upation options. For the base store line.

The Atlas also identifies which adaptation options may be feasible. How long specific area that the shoreline based on the shoreline conditions at each location?

Unfortunately, the map is very difficult to read at the scale and does not appear to identify conditions suitable for any of the listed adaptation options to any meaningful.

Extent. However, that does not mean the site is not, is not suitable for such features.

I’ve known as they were discussed, the pilot team is proposing an eagrass restoration area at the west side.

Of the lagoon. Whereas this Atlas indicate suitability for ill grass at the eastern side of the Lagoon.

However, again, this does not necessarily mean the Western side is not suitable. The, will work with the product team to ensure any ill grass restoration work would be designed and cited appropriately for the site conditions.

And finally, I would like to make one correction to the staff report that was sent out on December 20 s.

So on page 3, the staff report references and existing. US Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion from a separate project.

That relates to the nearby California least turned nesting site and that’s an endangered species the opinion limits, trees and structures within areas of the, the proposed the pay park.

To reduce perching opportunities for predator species of the California lease turn. So on the staff report, I indicated that certain structures proposed for the site, including their restroom and barbecue cellus would be acceptable.

To US Fashion Wildlife Service if they were equipped with anti-purchin devices. However, this was a misunderstanding and certain portions of the design may in fact be and consistent with a biological opinion and require modification.

This map shows a slightly outdated version of the site plan. As it overlaps with 3 zones that are defined in the biological opinion.

You can disregard the question mark and the red dot line here. So within zone one, which is on the right.

The biological opinion prohibits construction of new buildings lightpost vegetation or other structures Greater than 4 feet in height.

The restroom and as proposed would be in zone one. And would therefore be inconsistent with a biological opinion as currently designed.

Lighting for the adjacent parking lot may also require modification.

But I, you know, the project team will discuss this more and we’ve already talked about this and we’re confident that.

You know, that will be able to coordinate. To through the pre application process to ensure that the project is designed to be compatible with the You guys fish and wildlife service requirements.

Other requirements applied to zones 5 and 6. And I think the design is likely consistent with these requirements.

But we need to verify this. But we’ll continue coordinating through the, process on this.

This slide shows the 7 objectives for public access and the commissions. Public access design guidelines.

Which the board should consider closely in its review. I’m sure you’ve seen this many times, although of course we have a new member today.

So the guidelines focus on publicness and usability, the public access, visual access and visual quality.

Connections and continuity along the shoreline. I’ve taken advantage of the base setting. And.

And compatibility with wildlife. Additionally, while not currently included in the 7 objectives, It is important for the board to focus on sea level rise, resilience, environmental justice, and social equity.

And it’s review.

Finally this slide includes a condensed version of the questions for the board as included in the staff report.

As well as one question they added to address that. Us fish and wildlife service requirements.

So in addition to the considerations on the previous slide, we’d also specifically appreciate the board’s input on.

The design of the beach and that’s resilience of sea level rise. The advocacy of the terraced beach steps to provide public access to the water when the beach is in data.

The adaptation approach for the southern portion of the site. And add a quick advocacy or the adaptation plan in general.

Potential events that should trigger future adaptation actions. Such as T level rise or funding events. Needs for additional weather protection at the site while avoiding wildlife conflicts.

Recommendations to adjust the limits of the biological opinion described earlier and of course Any other comments that the board may have on the design?

Thank you very much and that includes my staff introduction.

Thank you, Scott. Are there any questions from the board? Any clarifying questions on Skyler’s presentation?

Tom, anything?

Okay, I think we will move on. That was a very helpful scalar. Thank you very much for that presentation.

So we will now move to the project presentation. And.

And I think we, I’m not sure who will be making that presentation, but we will. Hear the introductions shortly.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Justin Long. I’m the director of Recreation and Parks for the City of Alameda.

I’m joined here with Assistant City Manager, Amy Boldridge, as well as Kevin Conger with CMG Landscape Architects to present our project.

We are very excited here to present DPave Park as an ecological park that will adapt to Dee Pave Park as an ecological park as an ecological, park that will adapt to see rise here in a relatively, dense urban area, in a relatively, dense urban area, and per also provide, the community and,

So this project has been in development for a very long time going all the way back to the precise plan when the site was identified for a very long time, going all the way back to the precise plan when the site was identified as potential park space.

And then, became, a little bit further alive in, 2,020 when we started the DPA Park vision plan.

And then again, when we were granted the measure AA funding. So it kicked off a really busy year this year starting February where we had our project kick off, community events.

Not to mention we’ve also worked with Brit. We’ve had 3 or 2 rounds of community engagement meetings.

We’re about to have the third. We presented the designs to the Park and Rec Commission and then to City Council in November.

And here we are today. Presenting to you, to get your feedback on this wonderful project we have for you.

Again, to build on Skylar’s presentation, the Oval Circle identifies the location of C plane lagoon here as part of the old naval air station as well as Elmo Point.

This area really has become a very active space for the residents in Alameda as housing has been added.

There’s many businesses out here. You’ll often find people out there fishing, biking, walking their dogs currently, even though it is undeveloped in its current space as a park, but it’s very active and very important part of the Alameda Park system as well as just Alameda as a whole for the Alameda park system as well as just Alameda as a whole for the city.

Here’s some historical figures that sort of show what it looked like and before the fill happened in the military naval station was built, you can sort of see in the different pictures and on the bottom right behind the words there you can see seaplane lagoon and it’s Clory when it was open.

Here we are with a image from today where if you look at the bottom of the picture, we have the new seaplane lagoon ferry terminal that services between San Francisco and Alameda to your right, you see a park development there’s seaplane lagoon promenade phase one which is the current park that has been built that will also help with the sea level rise for the rest of the Alameda

point. Area just above that is the plain lagoon promenade for the future next 2 phases we’re about to enter into phase 2 phases.

We’re about to enter into phase 2 of that. And then in the distance in the center is the location of Depave Park with behind that the Veterans of Fair Wetlands.

You can see at the top the least turned nesting site was out there between the runways as well in the background at the top right hand corner is where the future veterans VA Hospital in Columbarium will be located.

This is in that, C plane lagoon promenade phase 2 is probably where we’re going to, we’re proposing to have the kayak launches and those components for people to get access to water there as there was historical ramps down there that brought the airplanes down into the water.

We’re going to try to use those accommodate those and bring them into have people bring themselves into the lagoon that way as well.

And then San Francisco, they’re in the background with the views of the bay.

So here again is the outside of our project site. It’s approximately 21.2 5 acres.

You can see that there are currently 2 big buildings that are located on the site, building 29 and building 25.

We went to city council in November of this year and city council made a very forward thinking decision and they voted to remove both buildings from the property and so that to expand the wetlands and have more of a basically create more ecological space here on the property.

As you can also see in the lower part, what the VA wetlands currently and sort of the proximity of how they’ll join our project.

And sort of the proximity of how they’ll join our project. We’re not looking for them to be combined at this point, but at, in the Grand Sense, they will be one space in the overall.

The other thing is we’ve been coordinating with the VA as well during this project.

So we recently just had another meeting with them to try to coordinate property line and edges and what that’ll look like.

Next slide. So these are sort of today’s current images. The C plane lagoon is lined by a rip wrap wall and then our project site is combined mainly of large concrete paving and asphalt.

And again, joined by the 2 buildings on the side and then it has a jetty out into seaplane lagoon there.

Like I say, currently these spaces are used for a variety of uses. There’s also some really kind of interesting old remnants that are still in that concrete back from its original uses with the remnants that are still in that concrete back from its original uses with the air station, from its original uses with the air station, airplane ties, rails, different components like that air station, airplane ties, rails, different components like that, things that we’d like to incorporate into the

overall design moving forward.

So this was the price. Precise plan back in 2,014 identifying the different areas and uses that would happen on Alameda Point.

Deepave Park is outlined there in the dark green or the purple around the dark lean green. And then you see the, see, the see plane promenade right there on the north end of Seaplane Lagoon, as well as sort of the natural or the nature preserve area that is controlled by the VA and then slightly to the north of that is the VA Hospital Colombarium and then a regional park to

the northwest. So these are all side of the kind of different components that were decided back then about what would be done on Lima Point.

So here’s an image of Seaplane Lagoon phase one. So this part currently is open to the public.

It is showing a tiered level park up from the lagoon that acts as the virtual first phase of the levy that will continue to protect the rest of Alameda Point as it gets built out and in the distance at the very end right before the San Francisco skyline back there is D.

Pave Park and again DPA will serve as that node of the levy system that will be protecting all of the.

This slide here shows the pedestrian circulation and bike circulation and where our project site is here.

So it’s serves as a very big connection for the Be Trail and so Deepave Park will serve as a node both for the Bay Trail but also for the seasonal Bay Trail that will continue out around all of Alameda Point seasonally.

And so it’s a very important project in that sense that it’s connecting the people to the bay, but as well as making sure that there’s sort of the seasonal trail so you can get out all your own.

So again, here’s the slide that is from East Bay Park District that shows the outline of the seasonals, betrayal that will go all the way around the existing point there and at the bottom right hand corner is D Pave Park.

And so where those lines intersect shows where the Bay Trail will come, but also as DPA Park is the node for the jumping off point where you will be able to do the seasonal trail all around.

So again, we’ve. Had a great time with this project involving the community. We certainly, we’ve already had 5 in-person community meetings.

We’ve had online surveys. We had a great involvement from one of our local high schools who were over 150 responses to our survey.

We’ve been working with the Limited Point Collaborative, which is community that is out here on Limited Point Base, which is community that is out here on Limited Point Base, which is an that is out here on Limited Point Base, which is an underserved community, which is an underserved community and they’ve been involved in it from day one.

And they’ve been involved in it from day one. We’ve had a great experience with day one.

We’ve had a great experience with having the kids and the families out there asking their opinion, we’ve had a great experience with, having the kids and the families out there asking their opinion, seeing how the kids and the families out there asking their, having the kids and the families out there asking their opinions, seeing how things that they like out here, and really getting a So here’s it sort of some

of the meetings that we held on site. We did intercepts. We hosted meetings. We had tours.

And like I said, we’ve done the first 2 rounds of our community engagement and we’re about to start our third here on the twentieth where we’ll actually have one meeting out with the Elm to point collaborative community as well but also one for the general public as well in person.

So overall, we’ve the community is very excited about this project. We are delighted to be having this here in Alameda.

We think they’ll be a great example of showing how sea level rise can happen and happen in a way to bring the community forward as well as also working on developing a stewardship program to help maintain that with that community as well.

We’ve been working with LM to point collaborative to do that. As a sort of an employment.

Program in order to get experience and job development.

Have we seen the support for, you know, having Fishermen. They people don’t want to have dogs off leash out there.

There’s all sorts of great information that we’ve collected incorporated into our designs. You know, there’s just been a great support for the marsh, natural play areas, fishing, bicycling, spaces for outdoor education.

You know, there’s just been a huge tremendous involvement in people asking for a tremendous amount of access to the water, tidal pools, really about bringing people out and also creating a great environment for wildlife.

And with that, I will hand it off to Kevin Conger. Alright, thank you.

Good evening. Hi Leo. It’s certainly a pleasure to be here and talking about this project.

My new favorite project. One of the one of the biggest outcomes of the community process that Justin was talking about was a very in informed and passionate community that argue for this once in a lifetime opportunity to make a park that was all about nature.

And to compel the council to remove the big building 25 that you saw on that last slide and I think you’re probably going to hear.

A little bit of support for that decision from the group that’s behind me. Which button am I pushing that one?

Okay. Transforming this 20 acres of pavement into a place that creates nature and public access to nature is pretty straightforward.

Actually, in our approach. There’s mostly asphalt out there, but also these strips of concrete.

It’s really thick concrete. It’s about 12 inches deep. And as some of those pictures shown, there’s some really interesting steel rails and remnants in the concrete from the military industrial past.

And so the strategy is to save the bits and pieces of concrete. That are useful. And to use those for the future.

Public space, promenade, circulation, pathways, etc, and to remove all the rest of it.

Crush it, use it for the fill area. Under the elevated levy portions of the Discovery Play in the picnic area.

There’s a huge benefit to repurposing all this existing concrete because it greatly reduces the carbon footprint of this project during construction.

And in fact, this project will be climate positive we estimate in 4 years it will start to offset its own carbon footprint and be part of the climate solution.

So reuse, recycle as much as possible. And it also leads us with some really interesting forms.

And then basically Take it big hole, lower the areas to encourage the tides to come in so we create some intertidal habitat areas.

We’re gonna create some fill areas that have that are elevated a little higher for some upland habitat creation. Take a

Rest of the film and put it over on into the elevated levy area. So we have a balanced cut fill is what the strategy is and then basically invite nature in.

The. The forms that are generated around the new paving, which is the orange area, which is all that DG area, those are.

That way because we’re trying to harvest strips of concrete from the. The pieces that we’re moving, we’re gonna use that for the.

Restraining edges for all the edges of the DT paving and everything. So again, we’re trying to reuse pretty much as much as possible.

So this is a paving diagram, everything basically to the left. Is all existing paving and again the forms there, you know, these sock up machines are these big giant heavy things that pretty much make straight lines.

You don’t get to do curves or anything, so it’s a really kind of just pragmatic approach to.

Generating form and then everything to the right. Basically the right third is going to be new paving DG and that’s all upon the elevated area and then the parking area is also going to be on existing paving.

Looking to some of the furnishings and I’ll start at the right hand side, which is north.

There’s about 75 parking spaces on existing paving over there. The restroom is on that north side.

We, as was mentioned by Skylar, we got a bit of discussion of whether that restroom can be there with the anti perching element on it or whether we need to move it a little bit.

East out of that zone. So we’ll work with Brit to do that. And then from there, that’s down a little lower.

So then from there you go. South and you go up onto the elevated levy. There’s a big picnic trellis there in a picnic area, group barbecue area, same issue there with the bird predator things we may need to move that a bit east and then the discovery play area.

There’s a terrorist that steps down to the beach. The terrace made out of concrete slabs that we’re going to cut and harvest.

Move those over from the existing paving. So that’s all repurposed. Moving south, there’s a overlook area, interpretative overlook area, and then down the promenade that goes all the way out to the end and then the further south is the what we call the learning lab, but there’s some of the big or more interesting remnant pieces of concrete with the steel rails.

That will be places for groups to gather school groups to go out there and gather. Social spaces, etc, all the way at the far, far, far south then as a fishing trail along the back edge of that rip wrap.

That’s where the fish fisher people like to go because it’s out on the bay side, not in the Lagoon side.

So here’s a simple circulation diagram. So, 24 foot. More average prominent minimum.

24 foot minimum promenade, multi-use path all the way up to the end, and then these smaller pedestrian pathways that are again are mostly all predominantly using existing paving except for those areas that are on the.

North where we’re elevating the land. And we will have, bike circulation out here and also vehicle circulation for service vehicles.

Eventually, that spur that heads up to the top screen to the west will connect and go north and be part of the levy.

Protection that goes all the way around behind the hanger buildings in future phases.

So some material and character all pretty straightforward, natural materials.

Here’s some scale comparisons because it’s a little hard to wrap your head around how big this park is.

It’s about 2 thirds to. Size of Similar width actually about 2 thirds the length It’s a little bit shorter than the length of the Christy field.

Title Marsh, out the same width, actually interestingly. The beach piece down here is overlaid here on top of Crane Cove.

Quite a bit smaller than Crane Cove, so it’s a little pocket beach. The learning lab.

Piece is about the size of the area down by the warming hut at Chrissy fields.

It’s a little bit bigger, maybe, you know, maybe twice the size of that, but.

Kind of similar to that and maybe a little bit. Better scale present will be this side down on the east end of Christy field where a butts up against Marina Green.

It’s about the same size as that space down there. So we’re really confident that it’s scaled appropriately.

The grading. The whole site is basically at about. 10 and a half. So we’re.

Lowering the edge in the center area, where the gravel beach is proposed, which is Right here.

About. 6 feet at the rip wrap edge. And lower the seawall down a little bit and lower the rip wrap to create a gravel beach and then basically excavating out the areas to create intertidal zones and raising up the Discovery Play Picnic area up to about 15, which is the height of the levy that’s part of the master infrastructure plan that goes around and

protects. All of the, Alameda point. So. Here down at the north end, we’re basically elevating a little bit down at the Picnic terrace and where that interpretative overlook is and then as we move further south.

You can see here where we’re cutting into the seawall, which is shown in red there.

I’m going to drop the top of the seawall down. But not remove it all the way because we still need that lower part of the rip wrap sea wall to interface with the seaplane lagoon.

And same with the inner title, the Rocky Inner Title Habitat area at the Far Far South End.

So that allows us to create an inner title area that’s illustrated in that top diagram where the dark blues mean high high water and lighter gray is the king tide so all of that zone will be intertidal and what’s exciting is that with CLRIs coming up, our wetland areas get bigger.

And we get increasing intertidal zone, which is the goal of this project. So you see that on the bottom one with about 2 feet of sea level rise all the public access places are still high and dry at that point.

But when we get to, 3 and a half feet of sea level rise, you can see that the main promenade starts to get inundated at king tides and it will be at about that point where the city will need to make some decisions about when to do the adaptation for the public access.

To maintain public access out here. And the thought that we have is that they’ll just leave that concrete was a big 12 inch map foundation and just build a elevated promenade on top of that.

And I know in the staff report there was some comments about are we thinking about providing enough public access at the southern part where the learning lab is and as to say that this is just very notional.

I mean at the time when that adaptation gets designed. The city will make a decision about whether they want to add more elevated deck space out there or different types of, you know, public access amenities out there, which I think would be great.

And then ultimately, when we get to 7 feet of sea level rise as with the rest of the Alameda point the levy itself needs to be adapted and elevated up.

But that will be far enough out where that program that discovery play area and the picnic and stuff up there were, you know, 80 years from now.

Renovated anyway.

So what all that does is allows us to create a bunch of habitat, primarily salt marsh in this lower inner tidal area, upland coastal scrub in the areas at above that will transition to salt marsh over time, gravel beach habitat right along the shoreline, eel grass pilot project at that southern end and a rocky intertidal habitat zone on the very, very far south end.

And you can see how this becomes more or less contiguous with the with the VA. Weapons on on the other side.

So it’s really all about, and I won’t point out we have HC Harvey and ESA advisors advising us on the ecological.

Components of this but it’s really all about this interface between the tide waters and the land obviously to create these different type of habitat zones.

We are doing it for These stakeholders, these are all the species that are currently out. At Alameda Point and including the, Alameda Song Sparrow there in the middle of the screen and some of the subtitle species that are on the bottom of the screen there, but we also have.

These VIP stakeholders, the California Least Turn in the Great Blue Hare and there’s a There’s a her and site right in the middle of the Project site, which you’ll see in that blue dot here on that lower part of the slide.

And this slide also shows. The least turned nesting site and all of that hatched area is part of the.

Conservation area because of the lease turns and so oh, and I just wanted to point out that,

Down on the on the southern end of the VA property There’s 2 black kind of bubbles that are outlined and there’s improvement, habitat improvements that are planned down there which include doing some re vegetation around the existing wetlands, but also creating a new planned wetland you see on the left hand of this screen to expand the inner title zones over on that VA.

A property and HC Harvey has been doing the work on those 2 projects as well. And so just to look at that in this air photo, you can see the those VA wetlands, you see that the heron.

Hooker rookery right there in the middle of the side the least turn loafing area over to the left there is some habitat value currently at DPA Park with the bottom edge of the intertidal rocky shoreline and also the mudflats out there.

But if you just kind of diagram all that stuff that’s existing and we also put in here the expanded marsh and then overlay the proposed DPA park wetlands and upland vegetation.

You can see that how the whole thing kind of becomes one bigger complex. All sort of working together. So the subtitle area will be look like this.

This native. Vegetation, the upland coastal upland areas. Looks like this. All things that we’re familiar with.

Some of the plant species that HD Harvey is recommending things that are familiar pickleweed and cord grass and the glass ward and eel grass and see.

There’s transition planting and should come up a little higher and then the upland. Plant materials.

So take you on a quick tour now from north to south. Zooming in a little bit on the plan.

So there’s that the barbecue trellis area, they’re right in the middle, there’s the beach area with the terrace, the nature play area, there’s another large group picnic area that’s to the west and then these 3 nodes of like smaller picnic spaces and then the overlook that will have these interpretive panels.

Which show another view again to see it there. And then a rendering from the overlook. We’re looking at incorporating the interpretive story into the railing that goes all around it.

Moving to the middle, there’ll be a bridge. Where we remove some of the existing paving, create a bridge where the Martian let is.

View from that and then down in the what we call the learning lab and all these kind of big Blob things that you see on top of the payment call these seating slabs.

That’s where we’re proposing to take some of the big plants that we’re going to kind of harvest out of the existing paving and repurpose them.

For, seating elements and sculptural elements. And then also you see the, space there at the end.

So. A view of the learning lab. With the steel rails in it, the intertidal area.

And, and then lastly, a view from one of the higher upland overlooks looking back.

So that’s where we are. We’re hoping to get to council here in a month or so for approval of this final master plan.

We’re hoping to get to council here in a month or so for approval of this final master plan.

We’re hoping to get to 30% design. This spring and with that assist the city and going after more grant money with, AJA and others and really looking forward to hearing.

Your thoughts and comments about how to make this better and also hopefully hearing your endorsement. For us moving this project forward.

Thank you. Okay, thank you both. Justin and Kevin. Excellent presentation.

And I, it’s a. It is a very exciting and very significant project. So I’m thrilled that you are all here with your team and associated folks from the community as well because it’s a significant evening for us to have this project with us.

So we’ll move to clarifying questions, from. The project presentation. We’ll just perhaps move along the line here.

Gary, do you have any questions?

Sure. Yeah. Thank you. That was a wonderful presentation.

I’m just curious context wise because it’s an opportunity for us to all learn something about the bay edge and context.

Just curious, who are the? Users today and what do you anticipate? You know, in the future given the status of, a, to point, you know, what projects have been completed recently and what do you see in the pipeline?

And and then maybe just one other thing those very large hangers that Kevin referred to for a second and they’re shown as being, I think, being flooded in the recently near future is their plans for those buildings.

Thank you, Gary, for your questions. The current users, out here at all, to point, like I said, the community, even though it is sort of undeveloped, is actively using this.

There are with the reason projects built out in what we call site a with a housing out there there’s a tremendous amount of people living here now.

There’s restaurants amount of people living here now. There’s restaurants, there’s breweries.

If you, now with a new ferry terminal connection to this area, it’s become incredibly active.

So it also with the first phase of C plane lagoon promenade. We’re also working with radium who has regular performances out there currently.

I’ll, to point collaborative is located, within walking distance of this site.

They’re sort of our, it’s a very low income area and an underserved community.

We are also in the process of starting construction on our reshape project. Which is going to help both take care of our older housing units that are out there that are serving the underserved but also expand that and also provide different services out there like the, a library branch is going to be out there, but also they’re building as part of that project, this barn employment center training center part of that that’s going to

be built out as part of that. And then as the rest of the master plan for the base build out, there’s going to be just a lot more residents and businesses out there using this park and getting access to this property.

So encouraging people to get out their sea nature, be connected to it, and then addressing your concern about the sea level rise.

So part of the master plan infrastructure plan that continues out and around at the edge of D Pave Park where you saw the elevated part with the picnic and terrace all that promenade going out to Deepave Park and then continuing out north and around the entire Alameda point will be a raised levy system in order to protect those old hanger buildings that you see there.

And many of those are not vacant currently today. There we have active uses in them, different businesses, and we’re actually looking about expanding those.

So that’s who we’ll be using in the future. Okay, thank you. Stefan, any questions?

Yeah, thank you for the presentation. I really appreciate it. I have one question sort of about.

I guess the stewardship and management. Of the space and sort of how that actually might relate to.

The management of the other public spaces around in this in this vicinity. Are there special needs here that you’re hoping to accommodate as this sort of built out?

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, so, you know, as part of this process, we’re also working on a stewardship group with, you know, as part of this process, we’re also working on a stewardship group with Albie to Point Collaborative, really trying to get at a stewardship group with Albany to Point Collaborative, I’ll be to point collaborative, really trying to get at environmental justice and

getting, really trying to get at environmental justice and getting, a workforce trained to help do this.

We understand that this is not going to be a workforce trained to help do this. We understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance, you know, system out here.

We understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance, we understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance, you know, system out here.

So there’s going to be the normal park maintenance, you know, system out here. So there’s going to be a need for specifically trained individuals and sort of developing a need for specifically trained individuals and sort of developing a work program and trying to do that to reach out to the community and that unders

Okay, thank you, Cody. Clarifying questions. Yeah, per se, I think it’s extraordinary.

Place to build a park. Working at this scale in the bays. Rare, especially in an adaptive retreat that I think could serve as is an example regionally and you know around the world.

I was curious about the the longer term. Resilience for 2,100 protection and you alluded towards.

You know at such time the city would decide whether or not or how to go about providing access out to the to the end of the point that would be outside of the area protected by the levy, I understand.

But, yeah, I’m just curious if strategies or any additional thoughts have been developed that weren’t included in the presentation.

Or if that’s something that you intend to address as we get closer to that scenario. I believe as we continue project development as we look at that, we’ll definitely need to do, further studies of how that levy, how the whole levy system will interact, will be looking at the adaptive ways in the future, whether or not the height out continuing around the park, but also that access continuing out to

the waterway as to what height, what we need to build it at. I think that we have the preliminary ideas around it, but I think we need to do, we’ll be doing more as we continue to develop this project.

And as we get to that, 2,100, you know, between now and then, you know, there’s be so much to anticipate that I think, you know, working on positive strategies and really trying to think that through will be part of the rest of this project as we continue to move forward.

Thank you. Leo, any questions? Sure. Thank you.

And like others, I wanna thank you for the presentation. I think it’s always wonderful to see a very thorough presentation about a project.

That’s as important as this. And really gonna contribute a significant amount of area back to public access.

So thank you. I had really maybe 2 questions. Or 2 areas of questions. One is about hydrology and second is about access.

So on the hydrology side, I know you, Kevin and others have done this kind of work extensively.

I would like to understand that the hydrology of these inlets and the way the targets work that those areas will continue to be flesh and fleshed out and remain healthy and how that your thoughts behind that.

And then secondly about access. We can see from the plans that there’s certain amount of seating along that length.

Would be helpful to understand what is the sort of interval. Is it comfortable for people to walk all the way out?

They might need places to perch and to sit as well as are there specific types of seating, you know, this is a former air base.

So presumably it’s pretty windy and are there opportunities for some seating not all but some that might have a little bit of wind or purchase for people who wanna come here for bird watching.

Cause it sounds like that’s a real opportunity. So any fine-tuning about that kind of access would be appreciated.

Okay, great. Hi, hydrology. We, ESA is on our team doing the hydraulic, hydrological analysis.

So they are feeling pretty comfortable with the title prism coming in out of here and there have been analyzing the amount of scour and everything and make sure that it’s all going to work feeling good.

Moffat and Nichols also on our team. We do have a little bit of wave erosion threat in here because the ferry coming in and out generates these little waves that just kind of lap out the shoreline.

So, but we think we have a strategy that everybody’s really comfortable with in the short term, but also a sea level rise comes up so we don’t have.

An erosion problem later. So a long story short is we’re on that. We’re and at you know, at the 30% design level or 20% design level or 20% design level or 20% design level that we’re at right now.

We think we’re in good shape with the hydrology. And at the 30% design level or 20% design level that we’re at right now, we think we’re in good shape with the hydrol On the seating.

It’s only, you know, it’s only about 1,700 feet. Long from one edge of this to the other you saw when I showed those scale comparisons.

So it’s about a 7 min walk. And I think we have, I don’t remember, 27.

Seating plants or something like there’s a lot of seating out here and they’re both these big concrete plants, but there’s also a whole bunch of benches everywhere benches with backs and armrests and more convectional seating.

So I think Leo that there’s going to be a plenty of seating in terms of like when you need to sit and take a rest and stuff like that.

We also have been pretty Okay, careful to get seating oriented toward the different views and to have some of it behind.

The the mounded upland scrub areas. So by the time you get a little bit of topography and vegetation, the benches down low enough to where you’re going to be tucked in out of the wind.

We are constrained somewhat by not being able to have tall elements. That encourage predator birds to perch on them and then.

And then that creates some conflicts with the least turn site. So. And we’re trying to frankly kind of keep, I’m trying to keep everything low also out here and to not have too many design elements.

To that that in my mind potentially start to change what this park is about like if we can make it just essentially about Nature.

And being on an old runway. You know, that’s like that’s enough, I think.

That’s a really compelling place to be. I’m in an old runway in nature and without adding too many bells and whistles to it.

Thanks. That helps. And I think that that overarching principle is really spot on. So thank you.

Okay, thank you, Leo. Tom, any clarifying questions?

Yeah, Kevin, I guess, I mean, great project, obviously. I think you just answered maybe my question, which was, you know, there was, I noticed there was a board question about shelter for people.

Out here and I guess that means wind but also sun. And There being no trees here. I guess the reason there’s no trees is because that provides a Burch not damages the.

Habitat but I just is there. Anything that could or should be done for somebody’s got a Very fair skinned little baby out there all the way at the end.

That kind of thing. I don’t know if that’s needed or appropriate with the discussion has been and the other question is how close is nearest bathroom?

The bathroom is near the parking. So it’s 1,700 feet from the far south end. You know, it’s at the it’s at the entrance end.

But again.

Okay. So, 7, 7 min walk.

Right, so 7. So I think it’s, it’s not too far. And You know, again, when we thought about shade and treat your correct on trees and the perching.

A predator perching so that that was that. And when we went out to places like, Heron’s head and, you know, when you walk along the marsh at Chrissy field, again, which I showed in the scale comparisons, it just seems like.

It’s not that. It’s, it’s, I think that shades not neat, really needed.

I think it’ll be it’ll be good.

Okay.

Okay, thanks, Tom. I just have 3 questions. The first one I just want to clarify. What the ground conditions are expected to be like when you.

Remove the concrete and start, repurposing it, recycling it. Do you expect to, find contamination or what What’s likely?

There’ll probably be some we’re doing up there’s been some testing that’s done out there and some remediation that’s been done out there and some remediation that’s been done already by the Navy.

We are underway with more further testing right now just to make sure that we have a good understanding of what is going to be in there.

So if we have to do any further remediation that we can capture that in our cost estimates, in our grant funding requests.

So if things are found that are in conflict with what it is that’s being proposed, they’ll be remediated or removed.

Right. I mean, the question behind that really is, This is conceptual and, you know, moving into, design right now, but, you know.

Whether they could be flexibility to actually avoid some of these areas once you, you know, in the design.

Yes, and we, and we have done that based on what we think might be there. We have, you know, the, and the bigger conflicts with the contaminations, potential contaminations are not so much human. It’s the interaction with the bay.

So have it’s the related to the Brit. So we’re trying to like work around that if we can, but we don’t.

Exactly know what’s where. Okay. Like a second question. Is dealing with the beach and, appreciated the presentation and scale comparison.

Can you talk a little bit more about what the intended uses are on the beach is that it tended to be a place you swim from or you know what’s being the feedback so far from the community and then the question of resilience of beach related to fairy waves and so on and you know what what the how far you’ve gotten studies.

As far as any type of erosion, so there’s a little beach now that’s there.

There’s a little sandy beach that more sand gets deposited right there and so we’re basically just working with that grade.

And laying it back a little bit deeper and you know we’re gonna have to import some sand to bring it in there so we’re trying to stay with what’s there so that we don’t create any new erosion problems.

And so, Thanks we’re in good shape there in terms of that approach. I know there was a question from staff about the long term.

Adaptability of the beach. And, what to do about that and I, think, that our assumption is what when the water comes up another 3 feet it won’t be a beach there or if it is just gonna be at the lowest tides, you know, it’s gonna be underwater like a lot of the other beaches in the world.

The intended use is just a small recreational. Pocket you know I think people will go down there and sit on the beach and I think people probably will go swimming out there.

As Justin mentioned, the primary kayak launch and small craft launch is further down in that second phase of the promenade.

So we imagine that that’s the place where most of the kind of launching activity is gonna occur.

But I think it’s gonna be a popular recreational amenity to just run around on the sand a little bit like the tiny beach at Clipper Cove is.

Right. I looked just so, question. I just wanted to clarify. The on the plan that’s on the screen right now the yellow color on the main walkway is decomposed granted. Is that correct?

That follow is about 25% of the length and then it moves to concrete. So my question is really to do with accessibility and safety.

Wheelchairs etc. you know baby strollers are you comfortable that the I mean, well, I went, but just I just wanted to clarify that.

So that is. Decomposed. Correct. Stabilized crush stone. Right.

And then the following question to that is on the vision plan. I saw that there at least in the package we received that there was originally some looping of the trail secondary paths and it was a just wanted to hear a bit more on your thinking.

About you know, a 1,700 long linear path versus loops and so on. We took the loops out when we all toured Heron’s head with our ecology team and we observed that the place that had the most habitat was the place that was furthest away from people.

People and dogs and so forth. And so we thought, well, if we want to have habitat on the west edge of our wetlands and we do loop out there it’s going to be counterproductive.

And so I’m better to be a little further away from the birds, but seabirds than to be over there and have no birds.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I think that concludes our clarifying questions. We’ll move to public comment now and Any members of the public attending the meeting in person?

Please notify the board secretary if you would like to make a comment. And as we said before, if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment, you can raise your virtual hand to speak and please do that.

At this time. And if you’re calling in. You can also call in to make a comment you will be called in the order that your hand was raised and you will have a 3 min Period to speak.

Uri will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your comment.

And as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, if you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning this project.

Please call or email Ashley Tomlin. So, you will hand to you now. Thank you.

Okay.

And you will have 3 min to speak.

Hello, my name is Jeff Maker. I live within walking distance of where DPA Park is going to be.

I’m here also as a member of the Golden Gate Bird Alliance. I’m a co chair of the East Bay Conservation Committee and I’m also on the Youth Advisory Committee for Education in the East Bay.

I’m a lifelong birder. I love the idea of this park. It’s such a great idea.

I can’t wait to see more birds out there. I love the idea of this park. It’s such a great idea. I can’t wait to see more birds out there.

I go out there frequently the bird and see a lot of other burgers out there. One of my concerns is about, access for fishermen.

Wherever fishermen go. And of course it’s not all the fishermen. I have nothing against personally, but they often leave tankled fishing line.

And that is a big hazard for birds. I would much prefer that fishermen are not allowed out on the jetty on the far end.

Also I walk out, Pass Ensignel Beach on the jetty out there and there’s often a lot of trash left out there by Mostly fishermen because those are the people I see out there.

And that attracts rats. And rats will wreak havoc with the birds if they’re roosting out there.

And especially if there are nesting birds out there, rats will. Eat eggs, chicks.

Adult birds, etc. So. I would caution against allowing fishing out on the far end of the thing.

There are fishermen out there, but they’re not very many. There are many other places where they can go.

Out over by the Hornet by Ensignel Beach. etc. So.

My recommendation. Would be to not have fishermen there. I think it’d be better for the birds, which is one of the major purposes of the park is to have a nature center.

And I think it would interfere with the birds. So that’s my recommendation. Thank you.

Marjorie Powell, you will have 3 min to speak.

Thank you. My name is Marjorie Powell. I am an Alameda resident.

I very frequently go birding out on this. Section of concrete and around the other. Section of seaplane lagoon.

I have personally seen more than 100 species of birds out in that area. It is an area. Currently with only concrete, but with the.

Land in the VA wetlands behind and the water within seaplane lagoon. It is very well used by birds.

I anticipate that once there is marshland there, there will be more birds nesting there. Once you have birds nesting, you have a whole range of issues that need to be addressed.

One of those is dogs. I think it’s vitally important that dogs not be allowed within this park.

If there is any interest in encouraging birds, particularly nesting birds, the dogs will. Eliminate a lot of that because they scared the birds off the nest even when the dogs are on leashes.

Now I’m not opposed to dogs but there are numbers of places within Let me the point. As well as the entire Alameda Island where dogs are very welcome.

I think just shouldn’t be one of them. I’d like to echo the fishing issue. I almost every time I leave the D to pay park area I have fishing line that I’ve picked up from the ground in my back pocket to go find one of the places I can dump it to be recycled.

Fishing line and fish hooks are anathema to birds. There are all kinds of problems with birds.

Getting tangled in fishing line or getting caught with fishing nets. So that’s a real concern.

But I also think that there is a concern about trash. And any time you have people, particularly people out having picnics or using the parks in other ways, you get trash.

And if you’ve tried to take trash out of marshlands, it’s very difficult.

All you have to do is look at any other wetland park, I think it’s important to have good trash bins and to make sure that there are.

That the trash doesn’t move into the wetland areas. But I’m excited to see all these developments and looking forward to the sea level rise, changing the patterns of the water there.

Thank you. Thank you.

Karen Miller, will you approach the podium?

Good evening. My name is Karen Miller and I am a long time Alameda resident. I am also a member of the Golden Gate Bird Alliance.

And I’m also a member of the very active paddle boarding. Neighborhood in Alameda.

So in regards to the park itself. I am very excited about this and, I just wanted to bring up one thing about making sure that the access for people with disabilities is really carefully looked at.

Hope that the pass and the access will be there for people. Who have need to use a wheelchair.

I also, I live right next to Crab Cove and I know that some of the East Bay regional parks have specialized wheelchairs that people can reserve and use that have special wheels that make it easier for them to use them on the pass.

And also people who don’t have wheelchairs of their own but have disabilities that make it difficult for them to get around in parks.

Can use those so they can also get out there and really enjoy. The park and I think given that the VA is gonna be so close, I think it would be really healing for a lot of the people who are patients there to come out and to the park and we’d want to make sure that those patients also were able to fully use the park even given whatever disabilities they might have.

And then also. With people who are in wheelchairs or where there’s benches and seating and stuff to make sure that any fences that are put in don’t have slats like right at your eye level when you’re sitting down by LC Romer, bird sanctuary on shoreline, the dock that goes out there.

If you’re sitting in a wheelchair, you can’t see through the slots there on that dock.

And that’s just one example of something that would be an easy fix. On behalf of the paddle boarding and kayaking community, I’m so excited about having a new landing spot.

There’s probably maybe a half dozen of really specific public landing spots for the small craft in kayaks in Alameda.

So this will be. Very widely used by those communities and we’re very, very excited about it.

So, I think it’s a wonderful park and, I’m really happy that we’re all here working on it.

Thank you. Thank you.

Richard Banger and then Cheryl Nelson and Bry you’ll be next.

Thank you. My name is Richard Banger. I’m a resident of Alameda and I’ve in a long time advocate for this park going from.

Conceptual plan to master plan. And I’m thrilled that. The City Council recently approved the maximum plan by bringing to remove building 25 And I would say this should serve as an example for other cities around the bay.

Because it’s not just a building, it’s a building that’s worth a lot of revenue.

And someday it will be, it would be worth a lot of money to sell. They’ve given that up.

And for the environment, for the future. And I think that is a remarkable. Achievement.

The, the issue that I’d like to talk about tonight.

Is the passage in the staff report. That refers to fencing and dogs. Says finally low cable and mesh fencing would border the central promenade.

The property line with the adjacent BA wetland. To prevent dogs and people from disturbing habitat areas.

I would argue that best way to keep dogs from disturbing habitat areas is to not allow them in there in the first place.

And I think. You need look no further than. Coyote Regional Park. In the South Bay where Yes, it’s coyote hills and there’s a lot of hills, but there’s also a lot of marsh area.

And the rules specifically state no dogs. In the marsh area. So, and also. The walkway that goes through that marsh area.

It doesn’t have any fencing on it. It’s just like a boardwalk. I mean, yeah, somebody could fall off into the water, but.

Doesn’t seem to be a problem. So, and if you would have fencing. Well, it wouldn’t just be the promenade.

I mean, where would you stop? I mean, you’d have to have fencing so next to the tide pools.

And then how do people go down there if they brought their dog? They could tie the dog up. So, I mean, it’s just not practical.

From any angle to allow dogs in this park, it’s a marshland. It’s a marshland and your your guidelines state, well I’ve lost it on the screen but it states that you the policies The last bullet point stated that policy should not negatively affect wildlife.

And management policies. And I would urge you to stipulate when the permit is issued that it’s state, no dogs allowed.

That I think is necessary for the benefit of the wildlife there. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay. Hi, I’m Cheryl Nelson inbri and I was the supervising naturalist at Crab Cove for 26 years.

And retired about 4 years ago. I’m now involved with the Golden Gate Audubon.

And formerly Audubon, now the Bird Alliance. And I’m also the co-chair of the Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve.

So we just really applaud the city of Alameda for. Planning this park for taking it through the visioning process and we’re just really excited that this is going to be a wetland park that will welcome wildlife and can help to replace the more than 80% of wetlands that have been lost around the bay.

And because of this being a wildlife park it just doesn’t make sense to have dogs roaming freely through it.

And currently a lot of wildlife uses this park I’ve been watching nesting osprey.

That are in the park on the jetties that are one of them will be within this new park plan.

And the osprey have been nesting there for about 10 years so they kind of alternated between the 2 jetties.

And so we can already see, you know, the impact that additional fishing would have on that kind of bird life.

And then also having the dogs roaming there, you know, that would reduce the number of bird species that could nest there.

So I just really encourage you to think about some of the details of this plan like that. And also, if there were no dogs, you wouldn’t have to have the fencing that went to the ground.

You could just have a boundary line for people to know that they shouldn’t go across. So thank you so much for the work that you’re doing for nature and for creating new habitat for wildlife as well as for people to enjoy.

And thanks for letting me say my peace. Thank you.

Irene Dieter, please.

Hello board members. I am a resident of Alameda. I am one of the many residents of Alameda who have been really excited about this project.

We have been working on it for years. And I cannot find anyone in the city who is not looking forward to it.

So, I want to just say that I hope that you do not underestimate. How important?

How significant, how historic. How monumental this project is. And each of you get to be a part of this history making.

There are not many places. Where we have been able to adapt. To sea level rise while people get to enjoy the change.

And I’m sure that you don’t have many projects that you were looking at that it’s being undeveloped versus developed.

But it’s being in a different context. And it is just so exciting. And I think that this project, there’ll be many coastal communities around the country that will look at it.

And for an example. Let alone around the world. To look at it and your names will be on this to make it the best it can be.

And to move it forward. And I just think that this will be a project that so many different agencies and stakeholders will be involved with with getting funding for this.

So the more excitement and the more support that we have for this project, the more the money will follow to make it a reality.

So I, want to thank you for being a part of this historic event. Thank you. Thank you.

Chair, we have 2 public comments online. The first person is Andy Mavoli. Apologize.

Hopefully I pronounce your name correctly. I am allowing you to speak and you have 3 min.

Good evening. My name is Andy Mavoli and I’m speaking on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this innovative Depave Park project. Baykeeper is a California nonprofit organization and submits these comments on behalf of its approximately 5,000 members and supporters who live and or recreate in and around San Francisco Bay area.

Baykeeper’s mission is to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and to hold pleuters and government agencies accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive.

Beeekeeper has participated in the stakeholder group since the visioning plan for this progressive ecological park.

As one of the scientific leads, we met with city staff and consultants to help describe the benefits of this park for the people of Lameda and Alameda’s wildlife, including how it will help protect this community against climate change impacts.

As you know, nearly 85% of San Francisco Bay’s historical wetlands have been destroyed by development.

So we are encouraged to see Alameda begin to rewild its shoreline and restore the many benefits wetlands can provide.

All right. Alan Mida should be applauded for designing and implementing this visionary park.

We hope that other cities will follow Alameda’s lead and rewild their shorelines, creating buffers for sea level rise, enhancing biodiversity, increasing community resiliency to climate change and creating more shoreline access.

When built Deepave Park can become the model for other cities to follow. Using nature-based solutions rather than hardening their shorelines to address climate change.

We encourage this design review board to support Deepave Park in its mission and design. Projects like this will truly support communities and nature as our climate crisis unfolds.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, the next speaker is Come if you could date your first and last name and affiliation. You have 3 min.

Yes, we can.

Can you hear me? Am I on? Thank you. My first name is Kami.

Last name is Richards. I’m also an elevator resident. I feel a little bit lonely because I’m not going to speak wildly in favor of this.

My question is, has anybody done research on how many? Least turns were losing to predator birds now.

I mean, there are buildings that have been there for 50 or 60 years. The least turn community seems to be doing okay.

And here we are, it sounds like we’re afraid to put up a 6 foot wind break. In the future.

So I, it sounds like you’ve got a huge science team working on this. And I don’t know that we need to be horrified of.

Planting the tree or putting up a windbreak when you if you go and look at the buildings that are have been there since the Navy was there and the least turns have been there just as long.

That’s, that’s my, conceptually, I like the idea of a park.

I don’t think that it needs to be. Literally like walking on a runway.

I think we could do better Thank you.

Thank you. And there are no more public comments.

Okay, well thank you for that and thank you to everyone who contributed comments tonight. I can see there’s a great deal of long-term.

Commitment and passion about this project as one of the speakers mentioned that is really needed to bring it to reality.

Okay, we will now move to board discussion. And advice. And so we have all the board members present here.

Tom online. So Tom will make sure you contribute. The staff have asked us to consider 4 particular questions but as always I think we you know at this stage in the development of the the design I think you know bigger picture comments are also welcome from in our discussion.

But the full question is just to remind you, the first question deals with the beach. And just you know is it appropriately designed to be usable and accessible.

We heard some details on that, you know, details about, well, is it, Will it be expected to erode, require regular nourishment, so maintenance questions.

Do the terrorist beach steps provide an equivalent water access experience when the beach is inundated due to sea level rise?

So we we heard the proponents talk about that. But. We should have some discussion on that, question.

The second question deals with the adaptation approach that has been presented and the adequacy in terms of addressing program and use areas at the southern portion of the site, which as you recall in the advocacy in terms of addressing program and use areas at the southern portion of the site, which as you recall, in the long term that that disappears.

So, you know, are there programs that have not been included in the long term adaptation plan that should be included or prioritized.

So it’s really a question about adaptation and program. And then question 3, events and event frequency.

Well, actually I just want to read this as written. What events and event frequency would the board recommend as triggers?

EG flooding events or observe sea level rise amounts for initiating sea level rise actions, adaptation actions such as the elevated board walk.

So this is speaking to our. Our question that we deal with every time we look at a project. And then the final question, do the public access uses of the southern portion of the site necessitate weather protection?

If so, does the board have recommendations on how this could be provided while avoiding conflict with the adjacent habitat area.

So so these are the 4 questions that, you know, if you want to speak specifically to one of those that would be helpful to staff.

And But if you also want to speak to any bigger. Points related to access. All the design.

Please go hit. So. Gary, do you want to lead off?

Sure, I can do that. Thank you. Okay, well. Maybe just start with.

The beach comment You know, I do, I think that, you know, it’s great to have the beach.

If you’re bringing in sand, then yeah, that implies that there’s some maintenance involved.

I think it’s worth Considering what is the beach become if the maintenance is not there to keep it replenished.

And I think that’d be a great study to do and just. You said there’s some sand there. Does it just go away?

Does it just get flooded? But I don’t know, I think we’re entering into an era where, you know, maintenance is getting really difficult and every city is seems to be overwhelmed with the maintenance they they already have.

So I love the beach, but I’m not. I don’t know the idea of having to truck in sand on a regular basis doesn’t seem, you know, maybe that appealing or.

I don’t know how realistic that is. Gary, can we just jump maybe to Cody?

Cause what was your reaction to the materials we’ve got on the beach? Do you need to see more detail or?

What’s your what’s your reaction given your? Other beaches along the southern, edge of Alameda that seem to self-maintain relatively successfully.

That this area is unique and that it’s so bound by hardscape. That I’m not sure where the source of sand, where the sand is going, where it’s coming from, but I do know that along Crab Cove, you see the beach change over time and as as with some exceptions, maintain itself.

Right. Okay, that’s helpful. Thank you. So, you know, beyond that.

Detail. I mean, I think the adaptation plan is exemplary. I love the way the project.

Is reusing materials on site and embraces the change as the adaptation and the fact that it can improve or become more of a habitat while also adapting.

Is brilliant and I think it’s realistic and it’s pragmatic. And the idea that the you know, the concrete walkway can be becomes a foundation for a future pathway that can easily be raised.

I mean, to me that just is so beautifully logical. That I, I think I have a lot of confidence in what’s been.

Presented and you know, as far as the comments by the speakers, I mean, thank you for your comments.

I, there’s almost nothing I heard that I don’t agree with a hundred percent I mean I think that urban areas are overrun with with with dogs and you know if the fishing is a problem I think I don’t know what is our ability to comment or mandate, you know, no dogs or no fishing or whatever, but I think it should be considered and I think you know it kind of in a way is that.

Cross purposes with the main mission of the of the parks. So I I really agree with that and and I think that there can be some some open spaces public open spaces in the Bay Area that don’t have dogs.

I think that’s okay. I think it’s

Gary, can I chime in? Others please weigh in too. I think one of the beautiful aspects of the design.

With the 1,700 foot long walkway out to where the Guys are currently parking their cars and fishing.

I think there may be some self selection. I mean, I do support having some. Clear guidance and, well, not even guidance mandate if that’s if that’s, if that can be done.

Effectively and I think it probably can but I’m really hopeful that the people who currently fish there and I support people being able to fish and as people made the comments you know I think they agree if people want to fish there should be places that they can fish from but this is not one of those places and I think the design is going to really help.

Accomplish that and the fishermen can go somewhere else where they can. Pack their car and fish. So I, and, I think, you know, the question about dogs, obviously that needs some real, guidance on that point, but.

But I like the fact that the design is assisting in some of these objectives. Yeah, that’s a great point.

So I do, I do think it’s an exemplary project. I think that it will serve as an example.

You know, we see a lot of communities where, you know, we’re reviewing sites. Communities that are doubling down on marginal sites for long-term development that will ensure expensive mitigation for as long as you know we can see into the future.

And the fact that this project is seeing it differently I think is a amazing inspiration for the area. So I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you. Oh, Stefan. Yeah, I went just, again, thank you for a great presentation.

And this is maybe the second or third. Project that we’ve seen that is sort of thinking about.

The shoreline as an opportunity to sort of subtract and revert a portion back to nature. And I think that’s just really, again, exemplary.

This is clearly sort of the largest scaled. Proposal that we’ve seen. I want to see something about public access.

And I also want to say something else, but just to try to sort of put a Put a bow on this discussion that we’re having.

I think that the party of public access is really strong and I really command that. And, the idea that you would maintain sort of equitable public access for the entire length of the park.

I really appreciate that. This idea of creating a public space that can nurture. In an increase in habitat.

From what we see there today. It seems really difficult to make that decision today about Should this. Should this park be?

Primarily for birds or primarily for people or primarily, for fishermen, fisher people, however you want to say it.

In my mind what seems more important is that there’s sort of a management structure and a stewardship structure that can actually adapt.

The use of the park over time. In the same way that the users of the space today didn’t have access to it 50 years ago.

Because it wasn’t public at all. And so I would sort of wanna be careful with the like.

Maybe predetermining the balance. Between public access. And wildlife compatibility today. But I think it’s really important that that’s monitored.

In the same way that DGNRA and other stewards around the bay have been actively making these decisions to respond to.

Increases in habitat populations or challenges, the certain habitat populations and sort of how that actually mixes with dogs and the success of places.

There’s certainly value to.

Bringing public access and bringing people to a space where they can actually see the functioning of the bay.

When we understand how limited those are. And just the value of that for a population that needs to learn and understand.

What’s happening to the Bay. I think it’s hard to. I think it’s hard for us to lose sight of that.

The other thing I think that I’m struggling with is I shouldn’t say struggling because I think this is sort of a challenge is this idea that The site is being reinterpreted.

From a runway. Environment to something different that we’re seeing today. And so I’m curious about sort of the historic orientation to that.

And this idea that you can actually now be in the space that used to be the sort of, it’s totally fabricated.

It’s this military structure and you’re sort of Taking pieces of that away and creating this nature, but How do we interpret that?

How do we learn about it? Are there? Is that exclusive to the learning center? Is there other places that that can be interpreted.

Is there sort of. Like. You know, this kind of interpretation where somebody’s telling you how to view the site, is there other stuff about like at how you interpret the ground plane and where you just know where you learn and sort of understand.

I can look at the concrete and I understand what that used to be. Versus look at the Deacon Post granted and I understand that that’s actually what’s been changed.

That whole sort of like morphological interpretation, I think there’s a huge value. To that because

We don’t, we don’t necessarily realize people not realize that this portion of the bay was just bay.

And so now you’re creating like a second nature which. You can tell people about the history of what people made and then decided to subtract.

That’s also sort of makes it very unique and valuable, but that historic layer and who manages that, who tells about it, who has that expertise I think is.

Really important and to Gary’s point this starts to get beyond like what cities do. So I think it’s just really important to continue to kind of foster the right stewardship for these kinds of places.

I’m gonna stop talking there, but that’s what’s on my mind. Yeah, can I can I just say really quickly?

I mean one of the things I really love is is that it preserves that one piece of concrete which really maintains the historic, you know, military edge, you know, that crisp industrial edge.

Well, wilding the site so you’re kind of having it both ways. I mean there’s a pretty strong you know pedestrian runway now that that, you know, keeps that edge intact for.

A very long time.

Okay. Cody, comments.

Yeah, I, it makes me think of a couple of adjacencies. One, I know the site really well.

I taught myself to write a motorcycle on this pavement that you’ll be removing.

I’m still a big fan of removing the thing but it’s it’s a heavily used site there have not all the activities that have happened there have been things that are building community.

There’s been a fair amount of

Requirements for law enforcement, right? Maintenance and law enforcement. I thought it was going to be a sideshow preserve for some time and I applaud the city for not making it a Seijo preserve.

I think it’s a genuinely exciting site in a in an area that. It has a lot of direct community benefits in an area that where the community is growing.

I’m the civil engineer, so I have to ask simple engineering questions. It’s difficult for even those of us in the design community to really understand what sea level rise resilience looks like and what it will look like after we’re gone.

But the sections that we draw. You know they’re they’re based on the best available data we have.

And that will change over time and the implementations will adapt as we get better data. But I, when I see these plans and I look at how the, the park would integrate into these future levies.

You know, it’s the future levies that always I think make us scratch our hands is what is what is that ultimately really look and feel like?

So it’s not necessarily a comment on the design of this part, which I think is really. Really thoughtful and already captivating.

But it’s more a thought of how does this, how does the adaptation of this community over time.

The adjacencies to this park and this park. What does it really start to look and feel like?

Because it’s. I just don’t think any of us really get it. And whether you’re in East Palo Alto.

Or you’re out of the, to point. What does it look like when we build these levies up to 16 and a half?

And, I don’t necessarily have a comment on how the park is laid out to best.

Make that up, that adaptation is, thoughtful as possible. But, yeah, it’s sort of the first thing that comes to mind is I see this, levy shooting out to the west and shooting out to the east.

Trying to wrap my brain around, you know, what does that really look and feel like over time? So.

I’ll stop my comments there. Otherwise I’m a I’m a big proponent.

I’ve spent more time on the specific site than I care to admit. I haven’t fished from there.

I haven’t burned rubber in my car, but I can when I first saw the plans I was very excited about what this place can be.

So Cudi, I have a follow-up question. You know, we were asking question 3.

You know, what would be a trigger for initiating sea level rise adaptation measures and I’m just curious, are you starting to really Analyze that at this stage.

Well, I think we all rely on the best available data. Right? And when we project out, to 2050 and beyond the accuracy the precision of that data diminishes.

Right, so I think that the. We have to have some faith in how the design community will continue to.

To respond to to the available data. And we’re not it’s not gonna be an isolated case where we see it that will be a point.

We’re gonna see it everywhere. So I think it’s probably really difficult to assign prescriptive measures for any any given site, but I do think that I mean, guess there’s a lot of faith in the future communities of leaders and designers.

To be as thoughtful or more thoughtful than we’re able to be now about how to respond to the evidence.

Continue to collect and and review data and then respond in time because you’re not gonna you’re not gonna be able to build this elevated platform.

When it’s underwater, you know, half the year. Yeah, I mean, I’ve got to believe that the The tree is going to be centered around valuation of risk, you know, people.

Could, you know, could injure themselves or be killed, you know, fall in water, you know, and then sort of frequency of inundation and I don’t know how much work is being done at this point.

But I’m sure cities around the Bay are thinking about that even though it is still some years off.

Can I just mention maybe a really good precedent for that would be the, Sausalito Mill Valley path, which accommodates thousands of bikers I think on weekends and it floods you know regularly I mean you didn’t use staff to check the tides before you went for bicycle ride, but now that’s getting more common.

So at some point, you know, it’s going to get inconvenient and, and I think it’s self regulating.

That’s a great point, Gary. Thank you. I’d like to begin by thanking the members of the public that have joined us this evening.

I think it’s always a really important part for us to hear one’s voice. As residents, neighbors, users.

I think it’s really important. And one of the things I think that really struck me was

It really made me wonder about the term or the usage of the word park. Because I think it’s a bit of a loaded word and I think that we think about these things in certain ways.

Because I think a lot of the conversation has been about and I think it’s very important one is How do we strike this balance?

Between creating a place that’s good for people and a place that’s really puts nature out first.

And I think, you know, when most people think of parks, they think of about being supporting people’s people like human activity first.

And I think with this project. I think part of what we love so much about it is that it is trying to allow people access to witness natural processes at work and it’s really about nature first and I think that’s really important and and I think we need to think about it as being nature first and I that’s where I think we really appreciate about it.

So I agree if there’s ways to. Manage the human activities to try and allow nature to be.

Really protected and to succeed on its own. I think that’s really important if we can.

And find a way forward. On the question of adaptation. I think it’s, I think there’s another thing about parks, which again, maybe I don’t know if it’s nineteenth or eighteenth century thinking but there’s a sense of the the permanence of these things that the desire for them to be something that is accessible to us and to future generations all time.

And I think really we’re in a world today and particularly in a place like this where sea level rise happens that adaptability is this notion of adaptability or resilience.

I think it’s really about the changeability that nature is constantly in flux and particularly these days and perhaps the flux is something that’s human-induced but The fact that the park could retreat could.

Be adjusted by future generations, I think is actually appropriate. It’s the way we should be thinking about the edges.

Of where we build where it meets nature. We should really allow for that line to be a soft one.

You know, nature doesn’t very rarely works in hard lines. It’s always gradual transitions from one thing to the other.

And I think that’s what this park is trying to do, even the beach, I think. How’s that opportunity to be something that It’s there probably because there’s some currents or some sands that are allowing that to be deposited into.

Extend that a bit, but I don’t what I’m not hearing and I don’t think we should be is.

Oh, it’s gonna be permanent. Something that’s going to be protected forever and ever. It’s if it gets in the data eventually then that’s what nature wanted.

Right? So I think that kind of soft approach is really what this project calls for and the way we should be thinking about these kinds of spaces these days.

So. And then, so when it comes to this question of event frequency and triggers, I think it’s really.

We’re gonna have to see what. I’m hoping that future generate we’ve learned enough to know that.

We really need to take our cues in these kinds of places from what nature is telling us and to listen and not try to.

Put the human stamp on it. So, I think we have to put a little bit of faith in our future leaders to to be sensitive and to recognize that.

Good. Thank you. Tom, comments. On these questions.

Yeah.

But everybody said everything already. Okay, I would just touch for a minute. On the assumptions that are built into both.

He’s big levees that Cody was talking about. And the. Continual assumption about what a park program is supposed to be.

And that we treat every park. With the same list of of concerns and demands on And, I don’t think it should be that way.

I think this one here in terms of. How it reaches apart? Should be very, it’s a very raw and almost severe idea here, which is all we’re doing is removing and chopping up concrete.

It has a coolness, but that you don’t wanna lose by softening too much. First I was worried, but I think that It needs to just be dim, demonstrating the the rawness of ripping up concrete and stacking in a few places and then declare a really clear purpose that it’s going to be, I think in this case, Why not test it for the birds for the for the least turn?

It’s easily adaptable to something else that doesn’t work, but it’s going to have a clear purpose.

You don’t know why it’s there, I think. I would navigate for very, very heavy on.

You know, making all that work. They were the dogs, get rid of the fishing. Give it the best chance it can and then if it’s not so great.

In the future, you don’t know, you can. Change it. Also I thought, Stefan raised an interesting point, you know, about interpretation.

Who’s going to tell this story? I don’t know. Who’s got money or or timer?

Experts use to do that. The could be some something done like that. There could be something that BCDC concerned itself with, you know.

Bcds was started. By people that were saving the bay and then Ron Blatman, you, and, our friend Ron Blatman.

Hmm.

He, he, he did that series saving the bay. And it was about about.

Not fill it. And this is about something different, like saving the bay too. Ought to tell the story.

There ought to be somebody that’s doing this that’s kind of in charge that this is like the documentarian of the this and this is a great example of one chapter in a in a thing like that and I think it could be the charge of BCDs to think about.

Who’s telling this story and how? It’s critically important to advancing the us. That’s it.

Thanks, Tom. Okay, I just want to make a couple of comments myself. And I don’t want to repeat what other people have said because it’s been said very elegantly.

I do wanna comment just pick up on question for the question of public access and You know, I’m really persuaded by what we heard that the, you know, It is about nature.

Constructed elements should be secondary. I don’t think that we need to be too concerned about, you know.

Structures for weather protection. I don’t think this is that kind of park. I think it’s it’s something else and there are Fabulous, really great.

Areas of public space that are being built. Just me here where there’s protection and lots of opportunities for people who want shade and so on.

So. You know, this is, this is about something else. So I don’t have a concern that, you know, I think the design is going in the right direction, with that approach.

And I also, I mean, just, I was just thinking about how often we are. Reviewing typically reviewing Bay Trail and we talk about safety of, you know, commuter cycling or cycling versus pedestrians.

And maintenance and operations. And again, I think in this park, if this is something that is not so relevant here, not relevant actually.

So there is a a generously proportioned space that goes 1,700 feet. Out along beer to the water.

And people will. So-organized and people will It’s their have their children with their bicycles, they can be on the bicycles, if they’re walking they can be walking.

And I think that is perfectly. Fine in, I don’t think we need to have, you know, strips of planting to delineate.

The bicycles and so on. And, because to the point about stewardship.

I see. Time. This park will evolve, these spaces will evolve. So I’m not really concerned about the issues that we are often quite concerned about for for different reasons.

There is one thing that I want to emphasize that, someone spoke about, at some lengths.

I, do think that the the distance is fairly significant for people who have accessibility concerns I think just being very confident that people can get across a long stretch of decomposed granite and that that decompose granite will be maintained data quickly and be stable and so on is important.

It sounds like a real detail at this stage, but I think you know, the big moves of, surfacing, being established at this point in the design.

So. I would just encourage you to think about that. And Yeah, I, the points are being made about the beach.

I was just looking at these questions for anything else. We should be, commenting on, but I think everything has been said very clearly.

So look, I think that concludes. The board discussion. Do you want me to highlight critical points or are you fine, Ashley, with what’s been said?

Great. One thing I know. Yes. Yeah, I just the interpretation thing that Stefan and Tom, we’re talking about.

After working with the Torium for 15 years. I mean, I think I’m a proponent of.

To some extent of non didactic learning like self-discovery and I was thinking about how the marina green You know, at a low tide you can see, you know, the landfill, you know, call on Corinthian capitals and keystones, you know, all the rubble from the earthquake.

Which is kind of which shows itself at low tide and there’s something about No visiting there, you know, 10 times or 20 times and then all of a sudden you discover this and start asking the question like, well, how did that, you know, how did those old building parts get down there and then you, you know, it tells a whole story about the marina.

So anyway, I rather than signage, I don’t I’m not sure that that’s what you were referring to, but but I think there’s kind of a beauty in letting it be what it’s going to be.

And there’s plenty of runway out there for people to. You know, just to build on that too on the question of stewardship.

I mean, it’s so inspiring to see so many of you from the community here tonight speaking about stewardship really and so I think we already have the beginning of, you know, and perhaps the core.

You know, what will become an important part of long term stewardship of the park, which is really strong community advocacy and involvement and dialogue.

Continued dialogue with the city really close dialogue to address. Questions and potentially management issues, which as Stefan pointed out, you know, might not be here today.

But in 20 years time there may be a raft of different issues that are being dealt with. So I think that, you know, whether there’s some formalization of that as this design and this process continues.

You know for you all to think about but i’m really pleased to see this level of commitment from the community.

It both very well for project. Okay, so look with that, I think we’ll wrap up the.

The board discussion. And at this point. We can move to a project proponent response Would the team like to respond or comment on what’s been?

Discuss tonight. I just wanna say thank you very much. This went. Exactly as we had hoped.

A great insight and ideas. Welcome the board to the DPA. Project team. Thank you to the community for you guys showing up.

You guys are always great. So we have a lot of work to do and you know as I said We’ll be trying to wrap up 30% design in this spring and then we’ll have a lot of activity around.

Fundraising to try and get money to actually. Make it happen And from the city’s perspective, I just want to thank you all for your time and your thoughtful comments.

We’ve been excited to bring this project forward. And we’re going to be continuing to be just as excited to have this project built.

So thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you for making the trip over from Alameda to here too.

It is so much better to be able to see people and talk about. The issues face to face.

So. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah, there is a question. Do we want to see this project again?

I don’t, you know, I know we often need a second review, but given what we have.

You know, given the presentation, the comments that we’ve made back

I don’t think we need to see it again. Unless it would be helpful to you to come and have a another conversation at some point during the process.

So Do others agree with me on this or? Yep.

I would have confidence in this team to do it.

According to what’s what we’ve seen

Okay, so yeah, so we don’t need to see this project again, but we would certainly like to keep.

Track of it. And stay in touch with you on it. Yeah.

Is that okay with you? Good. And we’ll the staff will follow through on all of the points we’ve made tonight.

Thank you. Okay. Look, we’ll take a 5 min break to set up and we’ll try and keep it to 5 min so that we can get started with the second review.

Thank you. Access.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah. Yes. Okay.

Okay. Nice to meet you in person. Thanks for your support. We differ to local jurisdictions.

That is all you. Sounds good. Okay. We’re gonna.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

It’s great.

We’re going to continue with the second part of the meeting now. Welcome. And this is the second review of the 13, point, 0, one, shoreway life sciences development project.

And. We are all familiar with the order but I’ll just run through it very quickly.

We’ll have BCDC staff do an introduction overview, you will then present. We’ll have clarifying questions, public comment, board discussion and summary and then a brief response.

We appreciate you coming back and for the additional work that you’ve done. And we’re looking forward to hearing.

The issues that we raised last time addressed so with that We’ll, hand over to our permanent analyst who is Shruti for this project.

So Shr, please go ahead.

Thank you. Chair McCann and good evening board members. My name is Shruti Sinha.

I am a permanent analyst at BCDC. The second project for review tonight is a life sciences redevelopment project in Vermont proposed by 4 coronals.

4 coroner’s properties. Please note that the staff report that was mailed out, ously indicated that this will be the project’s first DRB review.

In fact, the project was first reviewed by the DRB in August, the twentieth. 23 and tonight will be the project’s second review.

Before we discuss the project, we would like to acknowledge that the majority of the land in this area was once water and historic tidal flats.

Located near Lampson. The unseated ancestral homeland of the Rahmatush Oloni.

We offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the Bountiful Natural Resources of the Bay Area.

1301 shoreway is a 6.9 one acre site at 1301 showway road in the city of Vermont, San Mateo County.

Just outside of the Redwood Chores waterfront community.

The satellite map on the right shows the project site outlined in yellow. The project site is bounded by some lane to the northwest.

Shorway Road to the Southwest. A PG and E substation to the south. And Vermont Creek to the east.

The site shares the Vermont Creek shoreline with 10 Twin Dolphin and 200 Twin Dolphin.

Both reviewed by the DRB.

In 2022. Sure way road is adjacent to and runs parallel with Highway One.

The existing permit for the project site was originally issued in 1,982 in association with the construction of a 48,000 square foot building which is now a medical office building.

The permit was amended once for construction of a private sports court. The overall public access requirements of the permit include.

Appropriate 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.

This is a Google Street View capture of the site from Shawway Road from the 101 freeway.

The project site is shown at the center with a hotel campus to the northwest and a PG and E substation to the southeast.

This Google Street View capture of the site.

Is from Sem Lane, which terminates here. To the right you can see the parking lot of 1,301 of the 1301 shoreway campus to the left is the existing Vermont creek trailhead marked by a public shore sign.

This is a photo of Vermont Creek from a staff site visit in 2,022. It was taken from Shawway Road, north of the 1301 shoreway site.

In this photo, 13 or one shore away would be to the right of the frame as indicated. The creek is at the center, flanked by marsh vegetation.

And the building on the left is 10 twin dolphin, also known as the former Oracle campus, a project previously reviewed by the DRB as mentioned.

This slide provides some regional context for parks and public access areas in the vicinity.

The project side is outlined in yellow. Public access paths are shown in purple lines while the bay trail is shown in a thick blue line.

Area shaded in dark green represent BCDC priority use areas for wildlife purposes. And areas shaded in light green represent public parks.

Adjacent project sites, 10 Twin Dolphin and 200 Twin Dolphin.

Can be seen to the north and south of the project site.

With respect to the social setting of the project location, the area is largely dominated by office buildings. Then BCdc’s community vulnerability mapping tool shows the project area as having moderate social vulnerability.

And 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.

Note that there are some areas to the West that are identified as having high and highest social vulnerability.

Vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile for this higher vulnerability area includes children under 5.

People over 65 and alone. People with no high school degree. People with limited English proficiency.

And people, people who are not US citizens and people with very low income.

Moving on to sea level rise. BC DC’s Flood Explorer Map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged.

The site is outlined in yellow for the medium to high risk aversion scenario. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level.

Which would not cause any flooding on the site.

Here’s a zoomed out picture of the map, the same map showing. Flooding in surrounding areas at 24 inches of sea level rise.

This map shows with 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site. If the site remained unchanged.

Here again, the project side is outlined in yellow. For the medium to high risk conversion 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 2090. As you can see, 66 inches of sea level rise would cause overtopping at the project site.

This is a summary of the Bay Pine policies and guidelines that apply to this project. The proposal should provide public access that is clearly visible.

Usable, visually accessible. Complementary to the visual quality of the bay, shoreline and surroundings.

Connective and takes advantage of the base setting.

In addition, Steph, we’ve also included some questions by staff that we would like the board to consider.

Specifically, we would like the board to consider the legibility and public feel of the proposed public access.

Any additional ideas for public access improvement. The legibility of connections to and through the site for pedestrians and cyclists.

The adequacy of the revised signage plan.

Our apologies. We seem to have. Been disconnected from the presentation. I was trying to share it again.

No, but that was our very last slide. And I only had one other thing to add was that the, we would like the board to consider the advocacy of the revised signage, plan and possible triggers for flood adaptation measures at the site.

At this point, does the board have any clarifying questions?

None for me. Does anyone else have clarifying questions?

No. In that case, I will turn the floor over to Renee Behan of SWA to present the project.

Thank you, Streaty.

Thank you. Distinguished board members, BCDC staff and members of the public. It’s my honor to present 1301 shoreway.

I’m presenting today on behalf of, our client, 4 Corner property who owns it and also representing the larger consultant team joined by Craig Bachelor from DGA Architecture.

BKF, Raquel Fontas, and Moffat Nichols who are on the zoom and available if need be.

This is our second presentation and I’d like to maybe start by thanking, BCDC staff, Shruti, and Ashley for all of their assistance.

Also very much appreciate the first round of comments from our August meeting. For those who weren’t here, I’ll try to make sure you have all of the same information through this presentation.

I thought we had a fairly positive feedback and review. I think the question was a level of detail, you know, more detail about the architecture, more detail about the architecture, more detail about the architecture, more detail about the and specificity about the program, clarification about flood risk.

Relationship to courtyard and of course the potential accessibility of the private sports court for the users of the DCDC path.

I’ll try to address all of those issues through the presentation today.

And also, Try to not be too, repetitive of the presentation BCTC just gave.

You know, our site located off 101 sits on this important kind of apex between not just Vermont but the city of San Carlos and Redwood City itself.

Vermont Creek itself outlined in blue kind of goes across all 3 entities, Vermont, San Carlos, and Redwood City.

The park, the site itself is adjacent to 200 twin dolphin and 10 twin dolphin.

And I will say that we lean heavily on those approved submittals to make sure that this was designed as a single.

Ecology in terms of plant life materiality, accessibility, and we do plan to continue to work with those other groups to develop more of a regional signage and wayfinding system.

To the dash purple, you can see, the BCDC lot, I’m sorry, the Bay Trail itself.

Which we do not connect to directly, but, are adjacent to.

Our city, one of the unique things about our BCDC development is that actually our property owners do not actually own.

The parcel that is currently designed that is owned by SBCA. Which has fully endorsed through letters and communication with BCDC, the plan that we’re submitting.

As Truthy mentioned, to the south is the PG and E transformer.

Site to the north is Sem Lane and Vermont’s corporate yard beyond that shoreway road and 100, and one to the south.

The maybe a little clarification of what Truthy presented, the original plan accessible area in purple originally submitted in 1,981 in 1985 that plan was amended to include a private tennis court that you see in the upper.

Right hand detailed blowup. Our site has an existing trail and as I mentioned, it does not connect directly to the larger bay trail.

It’s a little bit of a one off. You enter the trail, the trail head is at the end of Sam Lane.

And then it comes out just west of 1010 twin dolphin drive. The bubbles show that if you cross the street crossing, twin dolphin drive, you can, connect to, to the larger bay trail.

As Truthy mentioned, our site is just under 7 acres. The, you can see that BCDC jurisdiction line.

There are 3 seating nodes, which I’ll demonstrate in a minute here. An existing creek trail.

Access, icular access is off of both shoreway and Sem Lane currently.

Views pulled back first from the 101 the creek itself is not detectable from this area.

It’s it’s about 600 feet off of shoreway drive. There’s no visible connection and it’s it’s a little bit of a walk without much signage upfront.

Way. Again, there’s no indication that there’s actually a trail down there from a shore way.

And so you can see the images looking down. Looking at the existing building and then looking at the parcel adjacent to the PG and E.

Substation.

From the site itself currently in a bit of disrepair the trail head in the upper right hand corner one of the seating and trash nodes, one of 3, they’re all pretty much.

In the same condition and then the slightly improved node adjacent to the private tennis courts down in the lower right.

Just a little bit more. The trail has, although it’s actually in pretty firm, pretty good shape, it’s accessible.

You could, you could easily roll a, a bike or a wheelchair, through it.

But again, I think the biggest issue is just identity and kind of getting people to understand that this is a public place and you’re welcome to join.

Flood map in the larger area. I think last meeting we clarified that that FEMA levy is on the other side of the creek in the Redwood City side.

Our site is in a zone X, which is a minimal flood hazard. Currently the site is more or less at 10 with the existing a trail sitting between elevation 10 and 11 5.

Our proposal is to bring the minimal height. Up at the trail to 12.5. And then to have some variation.

So it would basically vary between 12 5 and elevation 15. And I think this is one of the one of the questions that you guys had last time in terms of.

How the grading, the burning, the accessibility kind of ties new to old. Buildings will be elevated to elevation 12 per the city of Vermont regulation.

I’m consistent with FEMA and again our minimal elevation would be 12 5 with the burning.

Going up as high as 15 and then meandering between 1413 and down to the 12 5. Little more detail of the contouring.

The path itself will remain relatively flat other than the connection to some lane. Where you basically slope the walkway down to meet grade.

Some data on what’s being proposed existing, ing proposed obviously the site remains 6.9 acres publicly accessible DCDC space is going from 57.6 to 83.6.

Landscape area is increasing from 51,000 to 56,000. DG path and program nodes increasing from 6,500 to 9,100.

Multi-use sports court. Which we are making publicly accessible is an additional 4,700 feet.

The auxiliary sports court kind of the workout area adjacent to it is an additional 5,008 8 5,800 feet.

Bike spaces we’re adding 10 public parking spaces we’re dating 3 sidewalk, new sidewalk.

Along some lane, which will demonstrate is an additional 7,700 square feet of accessible space. The bench seating going from 8 to 19.

Going from 2 to 4 signs and adding 2 fitness nodes. We’ll get into the details on that as we go through the presentation.

So again, from a grading perspective, existing grade on site, 10 more or less at 10. And at the berm more or less 11.

Going to a minimum, 12 5 at the berm and the buildings go up to 12.

These are the key to the sections are up in the, in the upper right hand corner. So this is through the first building.

Second, the wrong way. Second section is through the courtyard. And again, the courtyard going up to 14.

The berm is going up to 14. Along the BCDC easement and up to 1415 in areas of the courtyard as well.

And then adjacent to the parking structure, again, 12. And then going up as high as 15 when we go adjacent to the PG and E.

Transformer station.

On the question, so this satisfies, Bcdc’s, 2,000, and 50 requirement on the question of 2,100 you know is there advocate room to go up an additional 6 feet.

Yes, there is taking a 3 to one slope up from the existing top of bank. We can easily hit elevation 18.

And accessibility from the parking lot is not an issue. That we would also be willing to work, you know, 2050 and beyond with adjacent property owners.

If there was another approach to developed in, in time.

The signage program, we’re adding for signage starting again at the beginning of some lane with just kind of a identity sign that there’s a public shore in this area.

The first node at the end of science some is more of an educational wayfinding regional wayfinding hoping to orient people to where they are and how to get to the larger trail system.

Focusing on birds. Naturalized birds in the area in the third node and then focusing on plant and plant life in the fourth.

Note for the signage. So again, existing. Existing intersection on SEM and shoreway, no sign, no walkway.

No. Kind of clues whatsoever. That there’s a path. And then the, the proposed.

6 foot walkway from shoreway all the way back. Public signage and you can see the new building starting to come into the landscape here.

About halfway down the block is the courtyard between the 2 buildings. You see the parking structure in the background.

So there’s basically a space where the 2 lobbies face each other and there’s an amenity space for.

The building users. And, you continue your access for the BCDC easement. Second signage at the end of some lane is kind of an active note. It’s where you park.

It’s where you deal with your bike in terms of repairs or parking and that sort of thing.

It’s also where you orient yourself. So that’s sorry. This includes a Parker Station, the first of 3 stations along the court.

So we’ll get into the detail in this in a second, but just to snippet of what you’ll find at the end of some lane as you approach on your bike or park your car.

Or take the new walkway down to the area. The second node as we said, this is a more passive node.

There’ll be informational signage about burning bird life along the material here. Just a snippet of the kind of larger regional landscape will be included.

In that, in the development. The third node has orientation back into the architectural courtyard.

The private courtyard, but also designed as a passive node preceding. Additional signage and information.

Storytelling about plant life along the Bay Area. And then finally, the sports court area.

As I mentioned, we are going to open the court to the to the public in addition to being developed as a, to the public, in addition to being developed as a multi-use court, to the public, in addition to being developed as a multi-use court.

There’s a manetized se

So, a little bit more detail now on each node. The first node will include a bicycle repair station, a fitness node, again educational way finding signage.

10 bike parking spaces and 3 vehicle spaces as well as a new entry to the to the path itself. Fully accessible.

So existing condition at the end of Sem and the trail head. And the proposed condition. New buildings off to the right.

The next node, is where there’s visual connectivity. To the existing courtyard.

Again, the idea here is to continue with the decomposed granite trail. Develop a unique signage program for the plant life of the area, provide seating, I’m trying to use natural material, wood, and other materials that kind of support the sense of a natural space.

Existing node and sitting area looking back to the parking area and the proposed node. And although, you know, the courtyard itself is going to remain private, It’s a singular ecology.

It’s the same plant material, same plant life carried from the creek through and into the project itself.

And then, finally the sports court itself, I think, on your recommendation, which was a good one, to give a little bit of scale and variety, we combined 2 nodes with the existing sports court in this case.

So the space is very flexible. It can be used, you know, basketball, paddle ball.

It has the exercise nodes and it also has ample seating around the perimeter.

So the proposed sports court. Fencing on the PG and E. And outer property line but open both to the to the trail.

To the trail to the north and to the west.

Again, the parkour area, it’s one of 4, 4 along the trail.

Existing plant leaf, plant life, trees anyway, that our verse report has, deemed, the existing plant to be either in poor or very poor condition.

There’s no trees that we deem, are necessary to, salvage out there. So we’re adding a substantial.

New and improved. Plant palette and by improved, I mean plants that are more appropriate for the environment.

A lot of plants, a lot of trees adjacent to the PG and E station and the parking garage and then with greater transparency obviously as you get to the courtyards itself.

Again, same plant material on the trail and in the courtyard so that there’s both visual and ecological connectivity between the spaces.

Plant pellet. It’s and again this is similar to the plant palette at 210 twin dolphin drive.

And then the ground cover pellet itself.

So in summary, That’s our presentation. Hopefully, we were successful in giving you a better sense of what’s being proposed.

Both from a physical and emotional perspective of how the project feels.

Yeah. Okay, thank you very much. That was very helpful. I was not at the original, first presentation, but from reading meeting notes, I think you’ve put a lot of effort into communicating more detail, which was a significant part of the comments previously.

So with that, are there any questions from the board clarifying questions from the proponent?

To the proponent.

Any questions? Yeah. Yeah, thank you for the presentation. Thank you for coming back.

One question I had and I don’t remember if it was answer. Thank you for coming back. One question I had and I don’t remember if it was answered in the first meeting was you What is the anticipated maintenance of the area going forward.

So that it doesn’t fall into the kind of similar state of disrepair.

Yeah. Shorthy, can you help me answer that? Is there a maintenance agreement? In place.

The final permit will include a maintenance condition. But. The.

The, the applicants who will become the permitting. Can can determine how that will.

How that will take place. That agreement can be an internal agreement, but they as co-permitees, they will both be held to that maintenance condition.

I think just speaking practically, it’s absolutely in their best interest to make sure that it is maintained and doesn’t fall into disrepair.

Okay, thanks. Yeah. I think that’s my only question right now.

Tom, any questions?

None for me. That’s pretty clear to me.

Okay, I just had one question about the multi purpose court. I don’t know how things work in Vermont, but in San Francisco, city of San Francisco, Parks and Rick have a booking site, you know, where you can book courts and so you know that that courts available.

Is there a similar system in the city of Vermont? We’re currently in discussion with the city and with Vermont in terms of how best to do that.

They they actually we presented this updated presentation last week and they were They asked the same question and they also are worried about, well, is it too open now?

You know, are you going to get graffiti and that sort of thing? And I, I don’t think so.

I’ve worked in the area for decades and this is not a high crime or a graffiti kind of type of neighborhood.

I think part of it is balancing the programs that are provided. For the communities that live in the area, the communities that Shruti was mentioning.

Well, at the same time making sure that the courts are getting ample use. In other words, we talked about paddle ball, but we’re a little bit worried about that paddle ball will kind of overrun all the other programs that could happen here. Right.

And, yeah, I mean. Some of these activities come and go as well. So. You know, got to think long term, but yeah, the other side of that is that, nothing would be better than seeing this.

Trail overrun with people because it’s it’s a bit isolated and I think That’s the key is balancing something that’s gonna draw a lot of use, but not have a single user group dominate how it’s used.

I’m glad to hear the city is focusing on that as well because that will be the key to.

People knowing about it and coming there. So, yep. Yeah. Okay, I think that concludes the questions.

Questions, clarifying questions. We’ll move to public comment. Is there any public comment?

The board will have received a forwarded letter from the Steve, in support of this project. But that was the only public comment that we were seen.

And we did receive that letter and very Good to hear that we, you know, did not have that.

Information last time around. So we’re very pleased to hear the city is supporting the project.

Okay, we will move on from public comment. To broad discussion and advice. As we always do, we have some questions to consider.

The question one is about, you know, public nature of the spaces and is the new is the more developed.

Scheme, allowing for that. Are there any other improvements? Could enhance the public access experience?

And the third question really is, related to the scale, the size of the buildings and, you know, is there a are they legible connections and, you know, how does that work.

And then the fourth question is about the revised signage plan, the adequacy of that. And the fifth one is Just, again, raising this question of flooding and adequacy of, well, the types of events and frequency that could trigger adaptive actions.

So that’s the way that question is framed. So. Look, I’m gonna defer to the people who were here at the last meeting to provide comments and i think that was leo you were here and stefan and gary and Tom, were you with your time too?

I was here.

Yeah. Tom, why don’t you just lead off with your reaction?

Well, you, I. Maybe I don’t remember everything, but I recall. I had 3, 3 things, only 3 things.

One was that the signage at the, at the same way. Clearly directed people to the bay trail.

That that was probably handled. To just about safe crosswalk traffic table type crosswalk from the courtyard over to the trail.

And 3, I was concerned about the non public nature of basketball, of the, yeah, tennis court.

So

Those are my concerns. I would go ahead and say I think they’ve all been dressed. But.

Okay. Good talk. Yeah, well.

Anything else you want to comment on or we’ll just go around the table here and get people’s

I think I feel like it’s pretty simple they did what we asked him.

Yeah. Okay, any other comments from the group Leo?

No, I think, you know, I think Tom’s right. They did more, more or less what we asked.

I think the is still, there was a general question that I don’t know that for me has been clearly answered, which is Is everything been done to really make this section feel as public as possible?

And I think perhaps part of that is smaller elements related to parking, you know, for example, the parking spaces that are for the public.

Are inside what probably will feel like. Our private parking lot because you know this whole area is about parking lots better on the other side of a curb cut.

So I don’t know if there’s anything that could be done to Further emphasize that you know maybe there needs to be an extra sign by the street or something to encourage folks to come in or the curb cut is pushed back in some way so that the it’s the parking is really seen as being part of the public realm and not private room.

Did I? I thought I heard that there were 2 spaces at the end of Yeah, I mean, we don’t wanna put them in the street because then you’re blocking the the trail itself.

Certainly we could put signage there. We could move up planting island and isolate those 3 and you know, I think additional signage would would clarify that it’s BCDC.

Yeah, I think, the, again, it’s maybe small. Details that will help provide the cues for the public that it’s It’s okay to come in.

This is this is areas that you can be in. I said it doesn’t It could simply be the spaces are there, but they’re lowered.

Street level and the curb cut is pushed inboard. But I think, you know, that’s something that you could work through what the details are.

Yes, I hadn’t realized that you have to. Drive through the. The driveway into the parking field for the for the project.

Right.

Yeah, it would be more.

Intuitive if you could just drive down. Same line and access those. Right.

There, Craig reminds me, there is parallel parking on some lane. If that’s a preferred designated area for YouCDC.

Parking.

I guess we’d have to work with the city on that then. Yeah. No, I think it’s, I think it’s the spaces are fine.

I think it’s just again about providing signage and clarity for the public.

Thanks, you. Yeah. Stefan, anything? No, I think we talked about this a little bit before I think.

You know, opening up this area. To public access. Thinking about what’s there today is a huge benefit.

And like and I don’t want to sort of lose side of that and I would agree with Tom that the specific comments that we articulated before.

Are being addressed very nicely.

I think the

I don’t think this merits Any discussion on our part, but I do want to say that this question about timing of adaptation, which is a concurrent theme tonight for these 2 projects and Not something that I think staff has specifically.

Asked us in that way before. And it feels tough to address that here given. The Progress and improvements that we’ve made since the previous submittal.

Which again, I don’t want to sort of lose sight of that. But I do think that.

This is sort of a future challenge. From staff that we need to think about how to best respond.

Yeah. Yes, I don’t think that’s something we need to. Correct. Yeah, incorporate into this review specifically, but this is a new question that we’re receiving and I think it comes with it needs a lot of.

Thought and probably separate dialogue between staff and ourselves to really explore what that what you would like us to. Focus on when considering that question.

Okay. Thank you for bringing that up. Gary. Yes, yes, I, I agree the, having the court be public is a huge improvement. So, you know, appreciate that.

I think it’s really a game changer and the amount of detail and materiality that you’ve provided I think answers a lot of questions so I feel very good about that.

Couple observations. The It looks like the level 15, you know, BERM is, back at the courtyard, I believe, right?

It’s not on the, You know, it’s not the Bay Trail. It’s really the.

Like the day trail remains at about 12. And the 15 protects the courtyard, which I think is a good idea.

So I just thought There’s an interesting device observation that you know the private space is protected more than the public space but I think that that kind of you know makes sense but I just wanted to point that out you know I don’t know if the berm well I think, I think we’re always a little skeptical about the Bs anyway because you know, you just have one parcel and you can’t hold back the

bay just on your parcel. So. You know, that’s running comment, you know, that without the cooperation of your neighbors, like you said, I mean, it really is not a solution.

And so, you know, that’s why I always think about, okay, what if the neighbors don’t?

Play along, you know. But that, that is a comment, about every project that we review.

Just to clarify, the the BERM goes to 15. At the PG and E station. So behind the ball court, and then it fluctuates, to 14 between 12, 5 and 14 along the trail.

Okay, it’s minimum, 12 5 and then 2, 14, wherever we could easily get it that higher.

Okay, great. And just one other comment. It was about the parking, you know, because in plan you see a pretty strong presence of parking lining the bay trail in the renders you don’t really see what is that impact.

I think it’s okay to show the cars and to really, you know, figure out how to incorporate them into the design.

I guess in some places where the there’s a node. Which is. Write up against parking, you know, the planting strip gets, you know, a little constricted there.

So. I don’t, I think it’s just a comment to stop and you to just think about the screening that would need to occur there in order to keep those nodes, you know, really.

Active and protected. So those are my comments. Thanks. Thank you.

Yeah, look, I think everything is being said. I just want to raise one comment, which this is not something you can address at this time, but.

In the projects that we’ve been reviewing in this part of the Bay, the the number of parking spaces structured parking spaces that are required, you know, are if I added them all up over the projects we’ve reviewed within a probably 2 to 3, radius of this site.

It’s a huge number and And I think there’s a almost a philosophical question in my mind, which is, you know, just as we are being asked by staff to consider.

At what point do we adapt? And at what point are we able to, you know, confidently say that we need to.

Increase protection. Along the along the water’s edge by raising the elevation. I just feel like at some point we should be saying at what point Do we stop building?

Structured parking. I think this is at the size that we’re currently doing it. I just can’t imagine that in 25 or 50 years time people will be driving to these buildings the way they are anticipated or the way the city anticipates.

So I mean I think the garage is 10 stories or 8 stories? 9, 9. And it’s just a lot of parking and and a lot of cost to build it.

So I just would love. People who have to pay for developing. Projects like this. Somehow push this with these cities.

To really push them on this question because it seems It seems. You know, like we are building in redundancy down the track, which is unfortunate.

So this is not anything to be answered tonight, but I just. It dismayed me to see all of this.

I think you could say that the that providing less parking would provide one avenue to long-term adaptability.

Because the site could more easily be adapted for slide control purposes. I mean, you could.

Look at it to that lens that it allows more public space on the site that could be moved around.

Right. Cody, please. Wait. I wasn’t here the first time, but I know this area.

And I know that across the slew are, FEMA accredited levees that are in a state of seclusion, which is like.

Purgatory for levees. Which, which means that without raising them, they’re no longer going to provide adequate flood protection.

So in the scenarios you have here. These berms would at some point need to be accredited levies and those are very specific design requirements if they’re providing flood protection through the FREEMA program, they would.

Could potentially be accredited levies which have very specific design requirements that would to have geometries associated with them, write a certain, driveable surface on top.

And the only comment I have is if that were at some case and you know maybe 2,100 is allows for other adaptations but if that geometry was going to affect your program.

In your design. It might be worth just doing that overlay.

Thank you. Okay, I think that concludes the feedback. I just want to reiterate the, appreciation for, I mean, big picture.

The transformation from what is there today to what you are proposing and with this added level of detail that we see is is you know really appreciated and And I think you’re doing a great service to the community by making this.

Important part of the public realm here. Actually available to people in a much more clear way than it was before.

So we really appreciate that and appreciate you coming back into the additional effort you’ve put into addressing the questions that were raised last time.

Is there any, comment that you’d like to make?

No, I appreciate all the feedback. I mean, I think the first ground made us feel confident that we were on the right track and Appreciate the feedback and note that, you know, this is a client that cares about the site and the ecology.

They’re small local developer firm and I think that it’s good to hear the positive feedback.

Thank you very much. Good. Great. Okay, we’ll look that concludes the.

The review. I, we, we don’t need to see this project again.

So with that, we will adjourn the meeting and I would like someone to propose a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn.

Yeah.

Hello? Sorry, I think Leah’s hand beat you, Tom. Yes. Okay, Tom, second.

Second.

Aye.

Great. All those in favor. Bye. Okay, we have a

There are no objections, I am sure. So here in none, the meeting is adjourned.

So thank you very much. Good night and staff. Thank you very much for all your continued hard work on both projects tonight.

Really appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act

As 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.

How to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits

Pursuant 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.

If 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.

Questions and Staff Reports

If 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.

Campaign Contributions

State 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.

Access to Meetings

Meetings 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.