March 13, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting

1. Call to Order and Meeting Procedure Review
2. Staff Update
3. 620 Airport Boulevard Commercial Development in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County (Second Pre-Application Review) (PDF)
   The Design Review Board will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by Vassar Properties \ Boca Lake Inc. to redevelop the 3.7-acre site at 620 Airport Boulevard on the Anza Peninsula in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County. The project proposes two eight-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would include a raised plaza area with Bay views and access to an improved Bay Trail to the north of the project area.
   (Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654 shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov
   Exhibits
4. Adjournment

Summary of the March 13, 2023 BCDC Design Review Board Meeting

1. Call to Order and Meeting Procedure Review. Design Review Board (DRB) Chair Jacinta McCann called the hybrid meeting to order on Zoom, at approximately 5:00 p.m.

   BCDC Board Members in attendance included Board Chair Jacinta McCann, Board Vice Chair Gary Strang and Board Members Bob Battalio , Tom Leader, Stephan Pellegrini.

   BCDC staff in attendance included Ashley Tomerlin, John Creech, Shruti Sinha, and Katharine Pan.

   620 Airport Boulevard Project Team: Jeremy Lui, Development Manager (Vassar Properties, Inc.), Justin Aff, Project Manager (CMG Landscape Architecture), Leticia Moore, Attorney (Holland and Knight), Karin Kuklin, Principal Architect (DGA Architecture)

2. Staff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update on Commission staffing changes. Ethan Lavine, who has managed Shoreline Development permits team since 2016, has accepted a new role as Assistant Regulatory Director for Climate Adaptation. Katharine Pan, who has been the Principal Shoreline Development Analyst since 2021, has taken over as the Shoreline Development Program Manager. And Jenn Hyman has been appointed as Senior Staff Engineer.
3. 620 Airport Boulevard Commercial Development in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County (Second Pre-Application Review). The second pre-application review of the proposal by Vassar Properties \ Boca Lake Inc. to redevelop the 3.7-acre site at 620 Airport Boulevard on the Anza Peninsula in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County. The project proposes two eight-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would include a raised plaza area with Bay views and access to an improved Bay Trail to the north of the project area.
   1. Staff Presentation. Shruti Sinha provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.
   2. Project Presentation. Jeremy Liu and Justin Aff provided an overview, with a slide presentation, of project goals, background, local context, existing site condition, and a detailed description of the proposed project.
   3. Public Comment. No Public Comment received.
   4. Board Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation.
      1. How is the design controlling groundwater in parking structure? And where does storm drainage go?
      2. Do you have a habitat elevation for the living shoreline? Or will it evolve as waters rise.
      3. Are all the pathways in the network under 5% and what’s the paving material?
      4. Is there any barrier to public circulation through the site?
      5. What’s the relative confidence in the café happening?
      6. What is informing the parking count, code or market demand?
      7. Is the wind analysis just the wind at the building or does it include the landscape, particularly between buildings?
      8. Have there been any conversations about signage and wayfinding, interpretive, or artist program?
      9. How is the project addressing the required existing and new, more sophisticated maintenance demands? And who will be managing the maintenance program?
      10. In pulling the building back 25’, is that only the ground floor or is it the entire building?
   5. Board Discussion. The Board discussed how the project addresses the seven objectives for public access found in the Public Access Design Guidelines, provided feedback on the proposed public access improvements with respect to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise, and environmental justice and social equity, and addressed the staff questions listed below.The seven objectives for public access are:
      1. Make public access PUBLIC.
      2. Make public access USABLE.
      3. Provide, maintain, and enhance VISUAL ACCESS to the Bay and shoreline.
      4. Maintain and enhance the VISUAL QUALITY of the Bay, shoreline, and adjacent developments.
      5. Provide CONNECTIONS to and CONTINUITY along the shoreline.
      6. Take advantage of the BAY SETTING.
      7. Ensure that public access is COMPATIBLE WITH WILDLIFE through siting, design, and management strategies.Staff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration:
         1. How does the project proposal result in public spaces that “feel public,” and does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people?
         2. What additional improvements would improve the public access experience to and along the shoreline?
         3. Are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adaptive to sea level rise in balance with ensuring high-quality public access opportunities?
         4. Does the design provide legible connections from the adjacent roadway that will draw users into and through the site to the Bay Trail?
   6. Summary of Key Issues
      1. Site Design
         1. The site design is a more aggressive use of the shoreline band that we’ve ever seen. The west side is still tight and the wind is going to be difficult on that front corner. The development still seems to maximize site even with the pull back of the buildings. They did respond to DRB comments and made some moves. There was progress with the trail moving back off the shore.
         2. The landscape does feel public. A lot of landscape space has been added, the shoreline penetrates into the site in a significant way creating an important threshold. The narrow paths are great for building workers to gather. The public will likely move through the Bay Trail at a faster pace. The two spaces seem cohesive and complimentary.
      2. Café. The positioning of the Café and the effort to make it highly visible with the grade change will be important. The café is a strong draw but could feel separated. Ensure visibility to the café is maximized.
         1. Circulation
            • The Board appreciated the improved public circulation with the widening of the Bay Trail to 18’ and seeing the realignment.
            • The public will not likely walk through the middle of the development, but feel more comfortable walking the edges.
         2. Parking
            • The underground parking is preferable to surface parking; it isn’t as impactful on the experience of the public access area. It’s a shame the loading dock remains along the western trail. The Board recommends continuing to develop the landscape to minimize the building impacts.
         3. Interpretive Program and Wayfinding
            • Wayfinding signage, especially to the Public Shore Parking will be significant; do everything possible to make it clear the spaces are there.
            • The Board expressed appreciation for the bike parking.
            • There’s a lot of opportunity for the interpretive program and addressing what people are looking at; the planes and birds are a draw.
         4. Sea Level Rise Adaptation
            • The Board encourage the project to be less specific as to the future adaptation approach for the Bay Trail. The exhibits show a retaining wall and the trails will just be raised where there is not sufficient space for migration. Recommend keeping the option open for fill in the bay for a wetland or additional habitat. Board members suggested not being so prescriptive that they must build walls to adapt.
         5. Planting Plan and Landscape Maintenance
            • The Board was supportive of enlarging the planting areas and felt that it will contribute to the success of the planting.
            • The Board was appreciative of the planting plan. Success will be about the culture of care for the plants in order to maintain the landscape as envisioned.
            • The Board appreciated the details for landscaping on structure and stated it is important for developer to recognize the additional cost associated with that decision.

            The Design Review Board appreciates the responsiveness of the updated project and was satisfied with the changes, directing the project team to work with staff.

4. Meeting Adjournment. Vice Chair Strand made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Itwas seconded by Member Batalio. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:00 PM.

Meeting Transcript:

We’re very grateful for the feedback of.

In August.

Board for a second time. We have taken efforts since that presentation to work with.

Certain groups, interested parties.

Collaborative, ultimately improve our project.

Present something project that has higher quality, amendment, and better access.

The public to the shoreline.

This is what 6 20 Airport Boulevard looks like.

It’s a parking lot, and Trudy described it.

Well, 6 20. Airport is rectangular parking lots.

The bay trail today sits on top of a strip of land that borders to the north and to the west, and is owned by state lands.

Maintained by a separate private third party. Our vision is to combine these 2 parcel.

To a 5 acre project site, 2 objectives.

The first is to create a destination for the public, come and enjoy nature and the shoreline.

Second is a destination for the next generation of life. Science companies to create products and services.

Ultimately help us live longer. But the purpose of today is to focus on the first objective with respect to the public.

Okay. And of the 5 acre site we’re proposing to create 2 acres of public improvements and introduce features to turn what is currently a pass through section of the bay trail to a place for the public to stop at to to eat, to exercise, to gather and to otherwise enjoy the shoreline

in a way that they can to that end we are proposed to activate the shoreline with beautiful landscaping.

An outdoor gym, okay? Creating new ways for people to access those.

Existing big trail was originally improved decades ago, maintained by our neighbors over here in the backdrop the the Embassy Suites.

The improvements are certainly functional.

But perhaps sparse we are affiliated with the Colton Hotel in the backdrop.

Here and over the decades we have seen our hotel guests, cyclist runners.

Families and other members of the public. It’s actually quite well visited.

But not often do they stop, and when they do stop, it’s not for a very long time, and we have an idea we know how to change that, and we’d love to run through that.

I’m gonna touch very briefly, because Shudi covered this so well and synthesize the feedback that we received from the board.

Hearing in August. Then what I’d like to do is.

Touch on a menu of changes that we’ve made to respond to that feedback.

To walk us through the project design. How the choices we’ve made make this a better project!

So first we heard feedback to reduce the building footprint within the BC. DC.

Shoreline we heard a desire to soften the bay edge, and make the transition from we go into the land more natural.

We heard a desire to create more entryway, better access point from Airport Boulevard, and finally the board was looking for more.

And I think this is good feedback, because one of the most technically challenging.

Perhaps expensive features of project is to put the parking below grade.

What we’ve done here, additional details on how we’re able to accomplish that.

What I’d like to do. Here is set the table, actually go through all of 20 design changes but I’ll focus on on the 3, on 3 of them.

First we reduced the building footprint by 25 feet by bringing it from the northern and back into the back landward. And in its place we’re adding, okay, a plaza public bike parking in a way to nicely connect this area with.

Located in such a way that it’s always within eyesight.

Of the public using the trail.

Number 2. We changed the philosophy of Bay Trail.

Original design. Following following the Bay trail.

Follows the contour.

We heard the feedback to create and adaptable living shoreline zone and we’ve been able to pull back what we think is the most prime part of the shore, create a summary foot wide, adaptable living shorelines area that allows the lagoon the bay to

gradually melded with land over time, and it also creates additional zone for ecology, and then finally, on the southern edge of the site we’ve created, let’s say, a much better way for pedestrians.

To access the shoreline through our site. We’ve gotten rid of what circuitous ramp and replace that with a much more direct welcoming and inviting.

Into the public plaza which offers the front seat.

The shoreline. The western side of the added another pass from Airport Boulevard to access public parking, and that creates a total of or entry points that other 2 being one just to the west of the site the lagoon, and then another one not on our project through our neighboring property to the

east through the hotel front door.

So with that, I’m gonna turn this over to Justin Af, who will walk us through the details of.

Thanks, Jeremy. Hi! There! I’m Justin at the Cmg.

Landscape architecture. And I’m going to share more details about the updates that Jeremy just summarized, and also take you through a little tour of the project.

After we met with you last. We took your comments to heart.

We’ve made a lot of changes, and I think we’ve come out with a better project with respect to public access, respect to enlarge and reorient open spaces, and with respect to shoreline ecology, and how.

So I’m going to run through a series of diagrams just highlight.

Some of the big changes that we’ve in all of these diagrams, you’ll see a red dashed line.

Another request that we had to make clear where the parking garage below was on the site plan.

Red dash line shows that shows where that is.

So first, as Jeremy mentioned, we’ve cut back the buildings on the ground floor between 15 and 25 feet. It’s mostly 25 feet, so it’s quite a large bit of space given back to open space and public.

Shifted the trail inland, realigned the Bay trail.

Significant way, and this allows for that sort of living shoreline zone that Jeremy mentioned will be set down at a lower elevation project.

Elevation it will allow for future migration of the shoreline, and.

You reduced some of the surface parking, and we reduced parking lanes as much fire lines as much.

We’ve created more direct connections between Airport Boulevard and the project site and the Bay trail, as well as the other direction between the bay trail.

We’ve also taken taken a look at the geometry and shape of all of the planted areas on structure.

We’ve enlarged them, I think, Will significantly.

The ability of plastic driving larger soil, volume.

On top of the.

We’ve enlarged and reoriented a lot of the public spaces.

The outdoor fitness area. We’ve changed are thinking on that a bit, making it much larger, much more likely to be a destination.

This area, so more detail on that later. We’ve added the cafe for the cafe along with bike parking on the east side of the project we’ve reoriented and redesigned somewhat that terrace seating area sort of right size it for this area orienting it more towards the

north, or San Bruno Mountain, San Francisco skyline.

In the distance, the airplanes landing, and we’ve also just made some minor reviews. The picnic area added more bike parking unit tariffs.

Had some reconsideration, public, public and a minor thing.

But we’ve added more shade trees along the this was in response to.

So I think all of these changes ultimately are gonna make a better project for us.

But the main design, principles that we started with really remain is to create clear, continuous, and somewhat seamless act, visual and physical access through the site to the Bay Shore.

To bring the nature of the Bay shore into the site and allow people to experience Bay trail in a more enhanced way by widening it, bringing it up to today’s standard and so again, okay, being sort of the key armature along the bay shore we’ve.

A variety of programming, passive and active. Along along the bay trail.

Site Detail.

See here that Number 10 is where we’ve made a direct pathway along the driveway into the site.

Open this space out for more landscape, and created just a direct.

Jeremy mentioned at Number 10. There’s a direct pedestrian between the public parking and.

Those are some of the key circulation change. And now I’m going to go ahead and just walk through in detail.

The enlargement plans and see everything in a little more detail.

I think it’s worth pointing out again that putting that parking under underground here has allowed us achieve this sort of seamless, continuous landscape experience through the site and around the site without it being obstructed by a bunch of.

I think that’s an important thing to dwell on for a second.

Really do think that?

Really?

The first thing, starting it from the interior of the site.

For today. You see, at the bottom of this sheet is the turn around and drop off quickly.

Transitions into these sort of stroll garden, that seamless connection out to the day.

And this garden is made up of a series of of different types of paths.

There are more direct paths that go out to the bay than there.

Secondary pass that moved through, of stroll, garb in kind of a circuit with it’s seating throughout. And then, as you move towards the bay.

This terrorist seating area a sort of bleacher style, seating that allows you to overlooked the bay towards the water oriented towards.

Here’s a view of that terrace seating area as it looks north towards, and Bruno Mountain you can see some Rudo mountain, and you can watch the airplane planned.

So!

You can catch up some faint one system.

This is going to be A.

Back the other direction from that.

Yeah. Yeah. Shot of the east building. With these the mounded planting areas in the stroll garden within the plaza, and then left of the of the image in the distance you can catch a glimpse of this.

Umbrella at the outdoor.

And this, this long site section, through the site illustrates a gentle translation. Transition.

We have from the roadway up to the plaza, with the turnaround and the landscaping throughout the plaza, back down.

And then cross section through through the plaza, showing mounted, planting.

We were asked last time around about about details on how you.

Get a thriving plant, starting plants and trees. This is an example of a detail details that we’ve been working on for many, many years at Cmg.

To make viable rooftop landscape, and it’s, you know, a fairly point convention.

Build up of lightweight, fill soils, good drainage, and in large soil areas for trees, all the while trying to allow as much new soil volume as you can.

Trees as much as possible, to support.

Now moving a little bit west on the project. This is management plan features, this new living shoreline zone again.

It’s a nice wide zone about 70 feet between the edge of the you edge of the bay trail and the shoreline.

This will be set down at a lower elevation, closer to the current.

Thanks for all elevation.

And we imagine that this will allow for future sea level rise to gradually inundate this zone periodically.

This is a ways off on day one. It’s going to be upland planting, but we see that this will allow for more kind of natural upland.

The shoreline and up on migration.

To that. We have a picnic area that overlooks overlooks this area.

On the left.

Seating area number 3, as well as accessible slope locks between the plaza.

Another view, just looking back towards the site from the bay side, you see that tariffs, tariffs seating feature again, you can see the right on the right and left.

Clear-wide connections to the plaza, into the Cafe.

Section shows that relationship.

The building plaza down to the bay trail, and then on the bay side of Benched, where we’re creating this zone is at a lower elevation.

The upland plant communities golf scrub, but eventually will allow for future addicts.

Now moving back over to the east. Here’s where we have the cafe on the east building, looking out towards the water.

You have a cafe plaza, we have a direct step set of steps down to the for the bay trail.

Slope block number 5 that moves around.

2. We’ve we sort of pick an inspiration from this very successful.

Fitness area and made a space that a little bit larger than that.

Have a really successful destination.

So you’ve taken an opportunity to use this space to make a really sort of impactful and not just a couple.

Now, here’s the view you are getting the coffee and going out and having a nice coffee in the morning on the plaza, looking up the water.

Be of folks walking down to the bay trail, slightly elevated.

To the water, be on the left.

Another more accurate!

That simply shows that.

Fa plaza.

And now we’re going to shift back over to the west side.

There was a lot of discussion last time around about this West side.

And we’ll get into some sections.

It’s worth pointing out the number 8 on this slide to the left.

The plan is the existing public bay trail access very wide, very clear.

A bit of public access proving that piece. Do you start widening it out?

Out of this number 7 public walk from the public parking at number onto the sidewalk.

You can also switch back and get down to the beach.

I did. I’ll never 2. Is our sort identified.

Location for public art. Yeah, public art concept is the ways off.

We don’t know.

But we took your points last time around about considering more than just kind of what we showed in concept.

At grade, sea, level, rise and.

There’s something that’s more interactive strengthener could interact with.

So we heard you there remain on our radar as we continue.

You can see here in red. That’s the outline of the parking garage.

At the top of this plan, quite narrow between the edge of garage and.

In the bay trail. And so we’ll look at some sections that see that the green zone above the parking there, that’s where we’ve taken out certain.

With the architects slab, and that allows us to bring the putting the landscape up and over that slap more than we were before.

So as it stands now, you’ll never see that edge of the garage pop up above.

This is what that looks like today. At that corner point there’s a you know, or so chain like fence on the other side that you see the parking lot on the left, somewhat degraded planting ice plant.

Exotic species, 10 foot wide.

This is a bit further back from that view, standing roughly where the path comes down from the on the parking.

One, to one new comparison. But here we are looking at the opposed bay trail that’s 18 feet wide.

The details, and on the right see that? Do some parking up below great parking garage, and then on the.

On the right the building amenities.

We measure this zone, this landscape zone that’s between the bay trail and the parking.

It range understanding closer to where the cyclist is, that ranges from 35 feet to the narrowest.

At 6 10 feet wide.

Offer. In all those cases we have the ability to plant large shrubs, entries.

We larger plantings in here if we want to, didn’t wanna behind what we’re doing in the background, we’re confident that.

Space to get a robust lamp.

But now I’ll go to the section like I said, the architects of so far depress this lab about a foot or 4.

What we have a lot of headroom in that top parking garage there’s a good chance correct me if I’m wrong, Karen.

That will be able to get that down even further.

This is the most is the closest. The garage gets to the base.

The press slab in the removed parking space. We have 26 feet of plant in here.

Now the other type of I’m showing you the worst case scenario here.

The other type of Pinch Point here. And the reason I’m doing this because there was a lot of about this before.

Is the closest, the narrowest, the landscape.

2 feet wide. It comes up over over the very quantum.

Okay.

Pretty, confident, I’m very confident this was going to be a fine experience.

Walking down this one side of the project, which, about a quarter of its.

So again, we’re really excited about the change and we’re grateful for all the comments that you all gave us last time around.

I think that yeah, informative project here.

Parking lot and sort of outdated, somewhat degraded bay trail.

Sort of an active and dynamic.

Have a lot of things going on.

Still kind of up to place, and not.

Overboard.

This area shoreline zone, writing, feeding.

Be a great project.

Excellent. Well, thank you very much. That was 3 through the project, and I do appreciate the where you’ve prepare the graphics communicate, for you have been so thank you for that.

We now move to clarifying questions from the project.

Presentation, so we’ll just move through the board, and she will start with the online folks.

So, Bob, you’ve got your hand up. Our fine question.

Go ahead!

Yes, thank you. Chair, Mccann. So I, looking at the plan.

Thank you for making all these revisions. I think it’s definitely responsive, you know, at least from my perspective to the comments in the prior meeting.

It also allows us to see the underground parking and the elevation differences, and it leads me to ask the question, How are you gonna control the groundwater?

I guess the parking cross is gonna be sealed pretty well, cause it’s down below the top level or into the tide level.

And then, secondly, where does this storm drainage go?

Does the city of Berlin game have a storm drainage collection system?

Or is it just go into the lagoon?

So I, yeah, those are my questions about the drainage specifically how it relates to the the underground parking structure.

Elevations.

Turns a principal at Dga, with the art.

The storm drainage. We’ve been working with the city of Berlin game.

I do believe that.

Hey!

Oh!

The drainage is under one shot.

I thought the question was about how the garage.

Groundwater. Oh, and also a question. So the garages will be fully waterproof will be.

Sources of water and and.

I think the the benefit.

You can see it.

Quite a commitment.

They offer?

Yeah. And I’m sorry to interrupt. But if I just wanna say that from my side of things on remotely, I can’t really hear very well.

I think it’s probably because I’m remote but if you wouldn’t mind trying to speak a little louder hopefully I’m not speaking too loudly or too softly.

I can’t tell.

Okay. Can you hear me? Great Jeremy? Speaking?

Yes.

And if I’m offering some more contact on groundwater, that’s certainly something that we’ve been thinking about a whole lot.

And so what we did is we drilled a few holds into our site and over time of collective groundwater data and cut to the chase and slightly, not very surprising.

The ground wall, fluctuates somewhere between, minus one to one in elevation, so call that sea level approximately, but something that’s interesting about our design here is that it’s not the entire garage that’s subject to groundwater because only a portion of it

is in that zone. Now, from an engineering perspective, we would create a backathtub around it.

Waterproof. The whole thing. We would also consider mechanical pumps, because it’s certainly an area that has these forces.

But I think the key to note here is that it’s not the entire garage that’s subject to to the groundwater level.

A portion of it.

Yeah, thank you. I I think you answered my question.

I I just wanted to bring it up, and I’m sure you’ll consider it.

It’s really more of a design issue. So I don’t know.

That it’s I have a real concern about it.

I mean, I think it’s something that you can address.

I hope, and it sounds like the drainage may not go into the Bay, or if it does, maybe it goes through some sort of polishing or something.

If you’re puppy. My other question is, do you have a a particular habitat?

Pipe for the living shoreline that you’ve put in place.

Or is this something that would evolve once the bay waters get high enough to inundate?

That site which I think you’re showing it at.

It’s existing elevation around 10, which is, yeah? Well, above high time.

Yeah, so the conception right now is that it’s at that elevation, that on day one it’s upland, coastal, scrub and grassland.

And so that that habitat type is pretty common, and we wouldn’t, you know there would have to be some management of this.

But over time then would change, I think, a ways off.

But on day one it’s upland plant communities that are with layered.

We’ve been working with Ht. Harvey on some other projects in this type of a plank community, and those types of birds and and insects and pollinator that that use it.

One of the main things that we’ve learned is just just the layering of shrubs and ground cover.

Okay, there’s some pretty basic things that will implement, I think, as we get further into the design process in the planting plans will likely be consulting more with.

Sure we’re doing the right thing.

Thank you very much. Appreciate the answers to my questions.

Thanks. Bob, Tom.

Yeah, I agree with Bob. I think it’s good project.

I just have a few quick questions. One is the the looping pathways that create kind of a network as you head toward the plaza, from from the I’m assuming those are all under 5%.

And I’m wondering what the paving material is.

I’ll go back to the overall plan here so I can just point to a few things, so I’ll take this enlargement plan.

Great.

Can you perceive the 2 colors in the plan from where you sit?

The idea is that the overall, the main paving type that’s more of the white, the lighter gray, is likely to be concrete with score joints, and you know, and some kind of exposed aggregate finish and then the more narrow paths that move through these planted

Hmm!

Right.

areas. I think are likely to be accessible, but they will be stabilized, stabilize, crushed stone, less than 5%, but they will rise up and down a bit with that slope to allow some of that soil volume to go under them so there’s 2 main paving types

here the smaller narrow ones stabilize, crushed down the larger, wider ones, concrete.

Okay. And people could find their way at under 5% down.

Some of these pathways I see there are a few stairways.

Yeah, we have so if you look at the number 7 on this plan, you can see these are sloping at, you know, 4.8.

Got it? Yep.

You like sure, I’m sure you do this too. You never like to design to the 5% for tolerance.

But right now these are measured out at about 4.8%.

Okay.

We have accessible walks as well as stairs, and unfortunately, it’s the nature of these slope walk that you sort of have to go sideways to get out.

Right, second question. I’m assuming that there’s no barrier to public circulation between the 2 buildings.

Like, if you’re coming from the you can move public and move through to the back.

Got it?

That’s correct. There won’t be. The security will be at the building doors, and there will won’t be any gates or barriers.

Public access to.

Okay? And third question is, what’s the relative confidence in the cafe happening?

Hi!

Hi! There’s no other, no other place speaking purely for the private side of the building.

Not many choices for people.

To eat or drink in this currently, but I think we really focused on on the public side and the placement of the cafe, so that it’s in probably the most prime part of the site to folks to look out into it.

And hopefully with more visitors. Time, there’s actually flexible space within the building for that.

Amenity possibly grow. The area evolves over time.

But you. What you’re saying is that the users in the building are gonna need it, anyway?

That’s right, and I think the public would like that as well.

Okay. I’m good.

Okay. Thanks. Tom. Gary. Any questions? Yes, yes, I have one question I might have asked this last time.

I’m sorry, if it’s redundant, but can you summarize for us again?

The parking count, and how you get there, whether that’s by code or by market demand.

Hi the parking count is driven by code. At this point, and we are at the code which is far below what you would normally see.

You know a 2, 2, and a half, or 3 per 1,000.

We’re at about 1.8.

Strictly driven by the city. Thank you. Sorry if I may add a little bit of color to this.

Going to overarching site plan. That’s right.

So we are parked at the absolute minimum of code, and that includes Tdm measures that allow us to be below that feature and we’re certainly both.

The market would consider as an appropriate level of parking within our site what we do have a interesting feature of our project, and that we’re connected to the neighboring site to the east of us, which is the hotel which was built in the 70 S and is completely overparted in

fact, we try to fill up parking spaces by offering parking for $10 a day.

Is to generate revenue. There ultimately, what we’re able to do here is share parking, to create use, existing underutilized parking.

Raj, not within the project, but Jason to it. If there are, if there’s a real market demand for more parking, but that allows us to minimize parking on-site and also to encourage people both on the site and visitors to the site to use alternative means of transfer.

I didn’t bring it up again in this, in this round, but first round we showed there are shuttle stops just to right in front of the hotel.

That serve, call trans. And Bart. There is a public transit.

This on? Do you have any questions?

Yeah, I have 2 quick questions. One is just on the.

I really appreciate the addition of the wind analysis in the package, and I was curious if that was looking at just buildings versus wind, or if the landscaping or the tree planting at the shoreline is expected to have any impact on comfort particularly in between the buildings.

I believe the the winter, the wind analysis, did take into account tree planting.

I think that you know we we have the opportunity to work with them and adjust the location.

Precise location I think there’s a lot of time to do that within the design process.

It did. It did take that into account. My understanding.

But this was the first round as well, so we have the opportunity now to make some adjustments, try to improve when conditions.

Hey, Jerry!

But what we do see, I think, is actually fairly the area that actually around the project, the the buildings actually improve conditions.

Quite a few spots, with the exception of.

Side of the project here, but the areas around the bay trail.

Have actually been for the most part improved, including it. If you look at our cafe spot here.

Gonna be a pretty pretty good spot. It is a very windy site, and so that is just a nature of the beast.

We’ll do everything we can to improve the condition.

Yeah, I appreciate you guys, including this and the package and exploring this cause.

This is a tough, a tough location. And then my second question was just with regards to the signage and weight planning program.

And I know that this is actually under concept. But I was curious.

If there, what sort of thing you guys have had either about interpretive signage or and or sort of the artist’s program that you actually are suggesting.

I think it’s early stages for those for that discussion.

The preliminary discussions I’ve mostly been around the blue dots on this map that I’m showing which is the interpretive signage that you know it’s having something related to what we’re doing with the shoreline zone.

Will be will be interesting. I think there’s an was an idea of having something closer to the plaza level that overlooks the water.

It could be the history of Ansa Lagoon. Hey, Phil?

And just some interesting site history. So we haven’t gotten that far into it.

But I think there’s plenty of for some interesting interpretive signage. And the art program that’s going to have to be a collaboration.

Process, getting an artist and figuring out what it is going to be, and how.

Will happen at that point. We’ll try to influence decision to make it a site site appropriate in sight. Piece of art.

But we just have. Haven’t gotten that far with it yet.

Thank you.

Thanks, Stefan. I I just have one clarifying questions.

The that was mentioned, made at the beginning of the presentation.

What about the maintenance of the State line parcel being done by?

With the enlargement of the adaptation planning area.

You know I’m I would anticipate that would be maintenance is being done right now.

Do you have any way in which?

I think this is a topic that we haven’t too closely on with Staff, but I think it’s.

That we can do in principle the idea that we would be forever, at least for the lifetime of the project.

Certainly with these improvements it will get a little bit more complicated. But I think that the the driving factor here is this is effectively our would be the private side of the development front yard, and it matters for a a- project to have a plus.

Maintenance. So I think just natural positioning of the public portion of improvements.

Next to the private, would create a very good incentive for us to keep that maintained.

I would note that the current setup for an external third party to maintain into an agreement by a neighbor to take care of your front yard I’m sure that answers your question.

Oh, it sounds like you’ve got clear intent to make sure that.

Appropriately, since it is an important part.

I don’t think it’s a very small point, but in police.

Between 15 and 2515 and 25.

Building back the way you delineated the build.

Is that the that is a. Because there is another, hang an extension at the ground floor, extends further out the so I don’t. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but the 2515 to 25 feet was an extent, and we’ve blocked that off so there

are some awnings and overhangs in the architectural, but they’re minimal relative toad.

And so the line that you see on the plan.

Is the building. So when the comments, when the presentation is made that it’s been back 15 to 20, the first floor, I should have said that in my.

Yeah.

Right. So we’ve just that that’s been reclaimed for the Cafe Plaza.

Okay in the perspective, it wasn’t.

Okay, I think that wraps up the board clarifying questions.

So we will move on to the next item here, which is public.

So now that we have both the presentations and the board quiz complete, will open the meeting today.

And any member of the public attending the meeting of can you notify?

No, there are no thanks. Okay. So if you’re attending the meeting online and would like to make a public comment, I’ll just run through the directions again.

Raise your virtual hand to speak. Remember, if you are joining our meeting via phone, you must press Star 9 on your prepared to raise your hand to unmute or mute per staff.

6, you will be called in the order that your hand was raised, and you will have 3 min to speak.

John will note when you have 1 min. Please state your name and affiliation.

The record.

As mentioned, beginning of the meeting would like to add your contact.

The party’s list to be notified of future concerning this project.

Please, call, or eat.

Okay.

There are no hands raised. Chair really wanted to read those.

But no public comment. Let’s move straight into board.

And advice, and we have been given the full, and, I think, even just hearing the dialogue in the clarifying questions.

Speaking on behalf of the Board.

Priority, and and the if it has been made.

This phone.

There are 4 questions here, and we can also.

Any other observation.

To spend a minute or 2.

But last time in relation to.

The project resulting in public spaces that really?

In a development like this. It can be a challenge to have people really.

So the question really is asking for is it feeling public?

And do you think the short?

People so gary any comments? Sure I’m happy to kick off here.

Yeah, the questions that we’re being asked to address there.

I think the project does really a fantastic job. The landscape and the buildings, to the extent that we can see the architecture.

It does feel very public. You’ve added a lot of landscape space, and I especially like the way, it’s organized, so that you know this very large green area.

You know, the shoreline really penetrates into the site in a very significant way, and it creates a very, I think, an important threshold between, you know, the city and the arterial, and the shoreline, and it and I love the narrow paths because I think it creates

intimate spaces for people who work in the buildings to gather, and it also gives them privacy from, you know, from the shoreline, you know, from the bay trail, where I think the public will move through at a faster pace, and maybe wants larger areas to to inhabit so I think those are 2

really distinct areas that function differently. But, you know, appear to be, you know visually, you know, very unified.

So I think it’s just exemplary.

You know the the things that we’ve been asked has to address.

Does it feel public? Is it?

Yes, visibility access, you know, across the site. I mean, you’ve improved the you know the pedestrian access a lot in.

I really appreciate. So I I can either make all the comments I have right now, or I can wait until week.

Let’s see.

Do you have comments that deal with the other physically, or do they all?

Well, I the I’ll I’ll just keep going out.

I think that the you know the way we started the meeting was, you know, these are the main questions that the Board had last time, and number one was to reduce the impact of the building within the shoreline band.

And as much as I you know I love all the things that have been done on the surface, and visually in terms of usability.

And I just want to acknowledge that it is also probably one of the more aggressive uses of the shoreline band that we’ve ever seen.

I don’t know. I’m not opposed to that, but I think it’s an important thing, maybe, for the group to discuss and just comment on I don’t know that we have any per view over that.

But I think you know, we’ve made our comment.

You know the proponent has responded, and so I think we’re very clear that you know this is what you need to make the project go so I just wanted to put it out there as as a as a point of discussion.

And and then 2 2 other things, one minor, the concrete on structure.

You know we in my practice, I mean we never I don’t think we’ve ever poured concrete on top of the structure before, because oftentimes even contractors don’t wanna install it because of the liability problems difficulty in accessing your

waterproofing. Should you have a problem in the future?

You know none of our none of our business, but I think it’s it’s a long term sustainability issue for for the owner, and it also it’s not as pleasant for the user.

You know, to have a unit paper that you could remove, you know, address the waterproofing problem and then replace.

So again. I I don’t even know if that’s in our purview.

But and then finally, I just wanted to say that it was very creative the way you were talking about the parking on the adjacent parcel, you know, having the opportunity to share, and it sounds like you were saying you might have provided even more parking if you didn’t have that opportunity to

expand, you know, into the adjacent parcel. So I appreciate that I would have loved it if you had said, we’re sharing this parking, and so we’ve reduced the parking on our site by 15% or 20% or something.

I think in the future we’ll see more, you know, more creative solution.

Appreciate it. Okay, that’s only thank you very much.

We might as well just go.

Want to pick out a response to any of the killer questions.

Other run through for everyone’s benefit. Again.

On that, you know, making spaces for public. A great number.

People. Second question. Additional improvements to improve, probably going to okay.

Third one also deals with public access, designed, that does, and then number 4 was just.

Legible connections.

Okay, so.

Oh, yeah, thank you. I was gonna respond to what Gary was talking about.

Which are invited discussion on which I think was item number one.

I mean, just for the record. The west side is pretty tight, the winds, as we talked about before, was probably gonna be pretty gusty and difficult on that core, which you know we see now in the exhibit.

That’s the case. And.

And then the development does seem to maximize the site, even though it’s been pulled back.

Some certainly the parking is extensive, you know, goes pretty close to the short and places so, but you know they were, as Gary said.

They responded to our comments and made some moves, and I like the at least we want a little bit here where the trails been pulled back.

One spot. So that’s I think that’s progress.

And so I like that part, but I think it is.

It is a kind of a big use of the site going to this second one or the third one.

The one thing I think might make the plan better would be to be less specific about the future adaptation of the perimeter walkway.

Public Access day trail. With a higher amounts of sea level rise. The exhibit show that there would be a kind of recaining wall, and the trails would just be lifted vertically where they there wasn’t enough space for a flat enough slope.

I think that’s you know. Certainly one option. So I think they that’s a path, you know.

That’s a pass that works.

But I thought you might wanna just keep the options open and mention what a lot of people don’t like to talk about, which is maybe fill into the bay and extend and make a wetland.

Or you know, fill some of the create, some habitat, I mean, sea level is going to be rising everywhere.

So a little bit of a fill for some, edge. Habitat might be nice might be nice for everyone.

So I just like to you know, they’ve got something that qualifies.

But let’s not make it prescriptive that they have to build walls, you know, to adapt.

That’s finally comment. Otherwise, I appreciate that.

They moved in our direction, and I’m impressed by how they were able to in process with this maximum development.

Just go to an explosion. It. Thanks, Bob. We’ll just keep moving through the board, Tom.

Thanks. Going. Straight to Gary’s first point, Damian, I want to make sure I’m understanding.

Just sent this question to the applicant where you were asking is that is, the line is being shown.

The footprint, and then there’s a significant overhang into the shoreline band.

What I thought I heard was that it’s mainly consistent with footprint.

But was that right? That that right?

My understanding is what we saw before was a pretty big over.

Spaces.

The applicant hasn’t reduced footprint of the bill.

I see. Okay. Yep.

I thought I thought, but the building.

The building, footprint.

Yeah, well, we’re getting back to Gary’s Point. Then.

That’s set back at the ground floor. It’s the ground floor, and I think I don’t. I was just looking at.

See if there’s a drawing that shows the overhang, so that you can see that on the ground floor plan.

I don’t, but that would clarify it. The building.

Yeah, because looking at the footprints on Site plan, it looks like that.

They hardly break through the shoreline band at all.

Got it?

I believe that’s correct.

I’m looking at the when I said that I meant the garage.

Yeah. Gary was referring.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, the garage garage, I see. Okay, I’m okay with the grass doing what they’re doing because they’re making a big effort to put that, you know.

It’s true we don’t have to look at a at a above grade garage here they’re gonna go through a lot of to waterproof this whole bathtub situation and so forth.

So I kind of appreciate the the boost they made, and so overall.

I think the they have been quite respectful now of the shoreline band.

I think it’s in terms of public access.

I mean, you can walk through Central. I don’t think I would.

I would probably wanna commit from the sides because they feel more kind of less like your eyes are on you for the users, I suppose, but I think that’s a common situation that’s been dealt with.

Well, I think that the I think Bobby made a good point maybe you don’t wanna build retaining walls or I’d be a flexibility.

And how to do that, and maybe by the time there, that’s happening, this board will say it’s greater.

Do some fill into the bay to achieve more, more wetland.

What am I missing? In terms of the questions? I’m a big supporter of the project.

I think they worked hard to to respond.

Thanks. Tom.

Yeah, I’ll keep my comments short. I think I just really appreciate the sort of thoughtful response to the Board’s previous comments.

And I think you know, just thinking about the site, about what’s there today.

And the invent of what’s there today, and what actually might be able to emerge through development is a significant improvement.

And sort of seeing things through. That lens, I think, is is important.

So I really appreciate the just the critical way that team has tried to incorporate and respond to the Board’s comments.

Yeah, and look, I just we’ll add a couple of things.

I think, see response in terms of the okay.

Like a real effort to make.

Make it really visible and attractive for a few.

As the.

The grade change up. You just want to make that, and.

You know all that, but in the renderings as well.

I think that’s a strong.

I agree with Tom, I think the fact.

So my!

I be a real.

And the development that far into.

I still.

It’s still pretty shame that the loading does right up there again.

And and then just on the signage.

Spaces.

Yeah. So again, just as you move through into.

Really appreciated what you.

And the interpretation, and I realise it’s down the track.

And there’s certainly.

Natural.

From my office of date.

But yeah, and for the we’ve made, I think the.

As proposed.

Is strong.

But it’s.

So that concludes my reaction.

Or add one thing, so I’m comfortable with the parking garage and light of your you know the comments of the other Board members, and you know I just wanted to get it out there, and I think that the project does offer so many different.

That you know very reasonable trade-off, and I also appreciate, don’t want to go and mention the, you know, providing the details for the planting on top of structure.

I think that’s really important. I know that that the landscape architects know how to do that, but I also think it’s really important to have it on the record and have the owner be able to acknowledge the extra cost and maintenance it goes into doing a landscape on top

of that building like that. So I think it’s helpful to have it there, and the also the fact that the planting plan is, you know, is a very thoughtful and attractive, and it just will face, of course, the challenges that we discussed earlier.

Who’s maintaining it? Do they really know what they’re maintaining?

Do they know how to keep it alive, and also these are native plants, and they’re used to growing and native soil.

I’m I think it’s also important that we start changing the culture of maintenance or the lack of a culture of maintenance around landscape.

Soapbox there for 1 s. Okay, thank you. That’s it.

That’s all my comment should follow on on that comment.

We’re usually talking about fine being so stressed in the extended drought period.

Hope. Now we, changing our point of view.

But.

Doug aside. I.

Good, but is.

Any other?

Okay.

You had, and the staff had in review.

We just need direction on that. It will come back.

Okay, does anyone feel they need to see this project again?

No!

Thanks everyone. Okay. So we don’t need to see it again.

We’ll look forward to going down there.

So look! With that we moved to the project proposal.

Response. So this is an invitation.

Oh, why I appreciate the feedback and the discussion, perhaps just the only clarifying remark I would make is is on the, on the on the setback.

The first 4, just because there was additional discussion on that. And we did pull the building.

The first floor of the building back 25 feet, where the tower is, currently is also how it was designed in August.

But I just would like to express our gratitude for the feedback.

That was very helpful. And ultimately we think this is a very symbiotic way of delivering a project.

We’ve spent a lot of time here talking about the public realm, but on the bravest private side of the project we feel that the public piece of it is necessary to create an a-plus environment that’s going to bring some of the most creative and innovative companies to come so we

don’t view this necessarily as a burden we view this as a very integral part to making a excellent project be successful for the long term.

So thank you. We appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Actually.

Well, I also just want to make a comment before we adjourn.

This is Ashley’s first meeting as board secretary.

Done a great job, John. Thank you very much.

And there’s a lot that can go off the rails so, and nothing beeps that I arrived.

Yeah. Well done.

Yeah. Great job. Everyone. Okay. So we will. This concludes the and I’d like a motion.

I will make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Okay, are there any objections?

Okay, hearing none, the meeting is adjusted. So thank you all, and good night.

Remotely. We’ll see you all soon.

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.