[0:01] Good evening. The July 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Brisbane Planning

[0:05] Commission will now come to order. May we have a roll call, please?

[0:09] » Yes. Commissioner Funka >> here.

[0:11] » Commissioner Laauo, >> present.

[0:13] » Commissioner Saison, >> here.

[0:15] » Commissioner Watziaak >> here.

[0:16] » And Chair Gooding >> here.

[0:19] Thank you. Uh, may I have a motion to adopt the agenda, please?

[0:23] » I'll make a motion. >> I'll second that.

[0:25] » All in favor? >> I. Motion passes with five eyes.

[0:30] » Uh is are is there any commissioner who would like to remove any item from the

[0:35] consent calendar?

[0:40] » Hearing none. [clears throat]

[0:49] Right. The consent calendar, as I understand it, includes uh adoption of

[0:53] the uh meeting minutes for the last three meetings of the commission. Um,

[0:58] and we have a motion to adopt the consent calendar.

[1:02] » I so move. I'll second. >> All in favor?

[1:06] » I >> I.

[1:07] » Motion passes with five eyes.

[1:15] » Um, we have time now for any oral

[1:18] communications from anyone who wishes to speak to the commission on items not on

[1:22] tonight's agenda. Repeat, not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone who

[1:26] would like to address the commission uh in that manner either in the room or

[1:30] online?

[1:34] Seeing none in the room and none online, we'll move on. Thank

[1:40] you.

[1:45] Uh moving on to written communications. We will acknowledge that we have

[1:49] received written communications from um at least the following. uh Anthony

[1:54] Walker regarding um greenhouse gases. Uh the Beayshore Sanitary District

[2:00] regarding um um compliance and agreement between uh our our proposed plan and

[2:06] their uh protocols. Um from Kim Folian uh generally in support of the specific

[2:12] plan. um from Clara Johnson regarding uh

[2:16] numerous items in the EI uh from BDI in response to questions um

[2:26] from the last meeting and from Chris Florowski regarding the Geneva extension

[2:32] and I are there any other written communications that we've received since

[2:36] then?

[2:40] » Uh he acknowledges Claire Johnson. None none additional. Thank you very much.

[2:48] » All right, going on to new business.

[2:53] We will be hearing tonight's item D. There's a continued public hearing

[3:00] regarding the Baylands sub area environmental review 2021-ER1

[3:06] specific plan 2021- SP1 zoning amendment 2021-RZ-3

[3:14] general plan amendment 2021- GPA-2

[3:24] and does that include the mobility plan? Yes.

[3:28] » Yes. Thank you. I thought it did. Thank you.

[3:31] » Okay. >> So, first up, uh, do we have any staff

[3:36] presentations for this? >> Yes. Thank you. Good evening, chair and

[3:38] commission. So, at last Thank you. Okay. At uh the last meeting

[3:46] on June 30th, staff brought some information to the commission per the

[3:50] commission's request um on five topics. So, those are summarized in the report.

[3:55] I won't revisit them here. Um, tonight we will also address additional topics

[4:00] brought up by the commission um at that meeting. We'll also go over

[4:05] some proposed modification staff recommended modifications to the

[4:09] specific plan um to clarify average minimum densities uh provisions related

[4:14] to hospitality uses and building types and clarifying state regulated

[4:19] remediation and the monitoring process relative to city issued uh permits and

[4:23] development procedures. and we'll also revisit staff's recommendation on the

[4:28] commission's actions related to this project. Um, I want to acknowledge the

[4:32] city team here tonight. So, in addition to myself, we have Jeremiah Robbins,

[4:35] senior planner, um, the city's new city engineer and deputy public works

[4:39] director, Roland Dip, who's been here for about a month. Um, Eric Phillips,

[4:43] special counsel with the city attorney's office. On the consultant team, we have

[4:46] a mix of inerson and virtual attendees from um ESA, environmental science

[4:51] associates, including Terry Ovula, um as well as team members specializing in air

[4:56] quality, energy, GHG, noise, cultural resources, hazards, and water. Um ESA

[5:01] team members specializing in land use and planning and subconultants fair and

[5:05] peers regarding transportation and site lab regarding urban design. And finally,

[5:10] we're also joined by um our consultants with EKI. So, we have Michelle King here

[5:15] in person from EKI and I believe John Montgomery Brown online. Um, and again,

[5:20] they're the city's consultant team reviewing the Baylands remediation

[5:23] planning documents for us.

[5:30] » Okay, I'm going to hand it now over to Jeremiah.

[5:34] » Thank you. Staff included four attachments to tonight's report to

[5:38] respond to topics raised by the commission on June 30th which included

[5:41] clarifying information on the topics on the screen here. Staff uh has summarized

[5:46] them here. Uh the first one is uh on the base mobility plan. There was request

[5:49] for expanded discussion of how the BMP integrates with regional transportation

[5:53] plans and the feasibility of constructing right ofway improvements

[5:57] proposed within the BMP without implementing a road diet. Regional and

[6:02] state transportation plans recognize Beayshore Boulevard as an important

[6:05] corridor, but none of them require it to stay four-lane a four-lane regional

[6:10] route. Instead, they emphasize safety, multimodal access, and operational

[6:14] improvements. This ultimately provides the city with flexibility in how it uh

[6:20] redesigns the corridor. As for rightaway improvements, the feasibility of

[6:24] implementing a continuous class one bike path while maintaining the existing

[6:28] four-lane roadway configuration varies throughout the corridor, potentially

[6:33] requiring reducing the width of the bike path. Uh additional right ofway

[6:37] acquisition, retaining walls, utility relocation andor removal of other

[6:42] transportation featur features uh meaning additional engineering

[6:46] evaluation would be necessary. The second one was uh to provide examples of

[6:51] development projects in California with required or voluntary net zero

[6:55] greenhouse gas emissions. The projects included on that table in the attachment

[7:00] to SAS report are either required by local or regional regulations or

[7:06] voluntarily pursued for streamlining project approvals and judicial review of

[7:10] SQL lawsuits. Neither of these scenarios apply to the bail specific plan. The

[7:15] third one was to get more information on the remediation requirements of the

[7:19] Schlage lock site in San Francisco and whether it impacts development and

[7:24] remediation of the Brisbane Baylands. So development in the bridgebane baylands

[7:29] will be required to prevent exposure to chlorinated volatile organic compounds

[7:34] CVOCC's by either demonstrating through a sight specific risk assessment that no

[7:40] significant risk is present or by blocking or minimizing the vapor

[7:44] intrusion pathway from those CVOCC's in soil vapor that originate from the

[7:48] Schlage operating unit. That's the one in San Francisco groundwater plume.

[7:52] These requirements are included in the approved remedial action plan and

[7:56] accompanying human health risk assessment prepared for the operable

[8:00] unit SM. That's the one in Brisbane on the northern portion of the Bayland

[8:04] site. And then the last one here is to get some more information on the role of

[8:09] sight specific environmental management associations SSAs

[8:14] um and how they might be used for large contamin contaminated sites. So um the

[8:22] both the DTSC and the waterboard will utilize SSMAs to manage sitewise

[8:27] contamination and regulatory compliance on sites that will be subdivided in the

[8:31] future. A local example is SPEMA. That's the Southern Pacific Environmental

[8:35] Management Association. Uh, and it's a mandatory association of property owners

[8:40] created in 1999 by order of the water board to handle the joint environmental

[8:45] affairs of all current and future land owners on the former zero point landfill

[8:49] for both cleanup and ongoing abatement actions.

[8:57] » All right, thanks Jeremiah. Oops. Okay. Um, we also provided

[9:05] information in the staff report on recommended clarifications to the

[9:08] specific plan. Um, and this is building on topics we've already introduced uh at

[9:12] prior hearings. Um, but at this point, staff is making a recommendation on

[9:17] them. So for chapter 3, um we are recommending that the plan be clarified

[9:23] regarding how minimum density and intensities are averaged throughout the

[9:28] specific plan area, including within the uh station area around the Cal Train

[9:33] station. Um, we're also suggesting some changes

[9:37] to uh modify how hospitality uses are permitted in the plan. Um, to

[9:43] essentially permit them in both highdensity commercial and mid-density

[9:46] commercial designations um and to allow those building types to

[9:51] similarly be permitted in uh mid-density districts.

[9:57] Um we

[10:02] we're also recommending some clarifications to chapter 9 of the plan

[10:06] which addresses implementation. So, these changes are really geared toward

[10:13] clarifying and spelling out in a little more detail how the remediation process,

[10:18] which is um overseen by state regulatory agencies, um interacts with or relates

[10:25] to city control processes like uh permits and um other development review

[10:31] procedures. Um we did have some detailed information in the attachment. We won't

[10:36] go over it tonight, but we're available to answer questions on it. Um, but

[10:40] again, it's just to emphasize um existing processes and procedures, how

[10:43] they relate to each other when it comes to the state, the city, property owner

[10:48] uh obligations. [snorts]

[10:55] Okay. Okay. So, just revisiting for everyone's benefit tonight um staff's

[10:59] recommendation to the commission is that the commission recommends certification

[11:03] of the final EIR for the specific plan um and approval of the project

[11:09] entitlements including general plan land use and circulation element um

[11:13] amendments and um adoption of the specific plan

[11:17] itself as recommended by staff with additional clarifications that we've

[11:22] presented uh tonight. um as well as amendments to title 17 of the municipal

[11:28] code to implement the specific plan and zoning uh in the zoning ordinance.

[11:33] Um and finally also to approve the bayore mobility plan um which calls for

[11:37] enhancing mobility along beayshore and compliance with uh circulation element

[11:41] policies in the general plan.

[11:46] So this is we'll keep our presentation short tonight um and leave lots of room

[11:50] for questions. Um procedurally tonight after questions of

[11:55] staff and consultants um the commission should accept additional public comment

[11:59] including from the um applicant team ask clarifying questions related to

[12:03] testimony provided and then afterwards the commission can close the public

[12:08] hearing uh and commence deliberations. And that is it for our presentation.

[12:14] We're happy to answer questions.

[12:19] Thank you. Are there any presentations from the consultants or should we just

[12:22] ask them questions as Yeah, you can ask questions.

[12:25] » Thank you. >> Um I have a few but I'll I'll wait my

[12:30] turn till the end. Um Darius, any questions?

[12:34] Commissioner Saison? >> Um yes, I have questions concerning

[12:39] » through the chair. Is your mic on? >> Sorry. Thank you.

[12:41] » Yes, I have questions concerning what uh was submitted. Um following our last

[12:46] meeting um let me see um the first concerns um

[12:59] um I had asked about um whether the city should have independent testing done and

[13:06] you submitted I thought was was a good response as to what the plan is that um

[13:12] that the owners would put a fund together and that they would um see to

[13:18] it that uh you know the um the the area is monitored for any issues and that any

[13:26] maintenance be done. So my my question with that is um so so the owners are

[13:32] responsible for that. I guess there's a a an association that manages it. How

[13:39] are those people selected and and um who are those individuals like like what

[13:45] what what are their qualifications?

[13:50] » Does anybody >> for environmental management

[13:53] associations so for example how the actual management is is determined? Um I

[14:00] don't know if we

[14:05] » Okay. Um yeah, the the applicant the applicant may be able to address that

[14:08] question. Um if you feel

[14:14] » Yeah. If the applicant has an answer, they're welcome to provide it.

[14:28] Good evening, commissioners and commissioner Cesana. Yeah, the way that

[14:32] um the Sarah Point Environmental Management Association works is it is

[14:36] comprised of all of the land owners out there. So they make up the association.

[14:42] So everybody who and it's and they pay quarterly dues

[14:48] to the association which has a trustee which hires an environmental management

[14:55] consultant. the case of Sierra Point, it's Jacobs Engineering who does all of

[14:59] their monitoring, quarterly reports, reports that are sent to the waterboard

[15:05] and the county department of health and that is all in a recorded um association

[15:12] that it takes is in perpetuity. So once a land owner is in the association, even

[15:19] when they sell the if they sell the property, the next owner is now in the

[15:24] um is required to be part of the association and pay the dues, but it is

[15:28] managed by an environmental consulting firm and

[15:32] » Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. And they also have to carry uh

[15:35] environmental insurance. >> I see. So in case of any emergencies

[15:39] » and and they submit a report to the water board and then the water board

[15:44] examines it. So the water board doesn't do any of their own testing. Correct.

[15:48] » Uh no the testing is done by the groundwater testing out at Sarah Point

[15:55] um is done by the consultant Jacobson Engineering on a quarterly basis and on

[16:00] behalf of the association and those reports are sent to the waterboard. the

[16:04] water board reviews them if there's questions and you know they come back

[16:06] and ask for more information if there's issues with the but it's it's um

[16:12] uh the county department of health also has

[16:19] oversight over all former uh both current landfills and former landfills.

[16:24] So the county does do a quarterly inspection of zero point as well as the

[16:29] bayands landfill right now >> and for that matter all the landfills

[16:34] both active and closed in the and that ring the bay.

[16:37] » Okay. So let's say after you are done with your entire project. Yes.

[16:43] » So my my question is um at how how regularly will testing be done after

[16:50] everything is completed? Um well at the landfill

[16:57] in um I'm not sure on the railard side but there will be for groundwater

[17:02] quarterly testing and then a regular inspection of the landfill cap um that

[17:09] is done actually that is usually done by the

[17:14] regulators that inspection but it's a quarterly quarterly groundwater

[17:19] monitoring um

[17:21] » that's in in perpetuity. >> Uh in perpetuity, that's the way it's

[17:27] written or until you know there's I mean the cap will be in perpetuity. Okay.

[17:34] » But the groundwater monitoring if there's nothing if there's if it's not

[17:36] showing any any you know concerns in the groundwater those could be um you know

[17:43] uh either either not monitored anymore or monitored less frequently. So in fact

[17:49] at the Schllay lock site in San Francisco we did we were doing quarterly

[17:53] monitoring and now because the levels are so low we are into am I not

[17:57] misspeaking we are into semiannual on the on the lock side. Yeah. So in

[18:03] terms of this fund that's being set up by the owners how regularly will that

[18:10] you know monitoring be done from that fund?

[18:14] » Yeah that's quarter that's the quarterly monitoring I'm referring to. Yes.

[18:17] » Okay. Yes. Wow. Okay. Great. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it's worked very well

[18:21] out at Sar Point >> efficiently. Yeah.

[18:25] » Just to stay on topic and um I bring you up here two or three times. A couple

[18:30] questions. These may be for you or might be for staff or maybe for legal, I'm not

[18:34] sure. Um but my question is this this envisioned uh S SA

[18:42] to add to my acronym list. Um, how is that mandated and where is it in the

[18:48] documents? Is it embedded in in covenants that run with the land? Is it

[18:52] um is it going to be statutory? What what mandates it and what teeth are

[18:58] behind it?

[19:02] Anybody? >> Um Michelle with EKI. Do are you able to

[19:06] answer that? >> I can try to take a stab at it. Um

[19:11] Michelle King with EKI, the city's environmental um consultant that's been

[19:15] doing peer review. Um >> louder and closer to the

[19:19] » I will go closer to the mic. Thank you. So typically the regulatory agencies

[19:26] whether it's the DTSC or the water board will require some type of financial

[19:29] assurance mechanism as part of the remedy and that financial assurance

[19:35] mechanism can pass from owner to owner as parcels are sold. But in terms of

[19:42] where such a management organization comes in, it will be linked in some ways

[19:47] to this idea of financial assurance. So once the property is developed that

[19:51] whether it is an SS EMA or even if you had individual let's say homeowners

[19:57] associations or other entities that are doing it, it would come through the

[20:02] financial assurance mechanism because that's a big thing that the agencies

[20:05] when there is long-term management of waste, if you will, that's left in place

[20:10] that they want to make sure that there's money available to do it and a and a

[20:15] viable entity and not left to like individual homes. homeowners and things

[20:19] like that. >> And thank you. That that that starts to

[20:23] answer it. Let me let me add on to the questions. I'm trying to address what I

[20:27] perceive are are concerns in the community of what happens if people stop

[20:32] reporting, annual reports stop being done, testing just slips by the wayside.

[20:37] What entity has what power to enforce this with with remedies? And and

[20:42] » that would be the environmental regulatory agency, whether it's the DTSC

[20:46] or the water board. And just in terms of the wa the DTSC

[20:51] and I think there was a question about who does inspections. The DTSC actually

[20:56] does do annual more like driveby inspections like once some a site's been

[21:01] developed. They want to make sure is the land use the same? Do I see the building

[21:05] there that was built there? It's not like it's a thorough, oh, let me look

[21:09] and see if there's cracks in the pavement, but they're at least looking

[21:12] to make sure that the remedyy's intact and somehow big changes haven't been

[21:16] made. So, DTSC does do that type of driveby as well.

[21:20] » And to add a little bit more on onto that too, some of the the remedies would

[21:25] um change depending on where in the development process we are. So, for

[21:31] example, if there were a lack of testing or failure to complete to a certain

[21:36] level um before building permits were issued, the city would have the ability

[21:41] to withhold building permits. So there's um

[21:46] mechanisms built in throughout the remediation process to ensure that the

[21:51] standards that have been established by the appropriate regulatory um agencies

[21:56] are being met before the the project continues through to the next phase.

[22:02] Thank you. So I I sort of get that during building process there's all

[22:06] kinds of of hammers that we would have to make sure it's done before you can

[22:10] build. I guess the the I think as I read it the community concern is for the long

[22:15] long haul. >> Yep.

[22:16] » And I I'm hearing the answer that is the two regulatory agencies that have joint

[22:22] or overlapping juris or conjunct jurisdiction over these two pieces of

[22:27] the site. >> Yeah. And and I'm sure that um the

[22:30] applicant will elaborate on this, but yeah. and and that's if there were to be

[22:35] an incident that happened down the line during operations. In part, that's what

[22:40] the environmental insurance is there to help um provide for funds and resources

[22:46] to do additional remediation or take steps that might be necessary to respond

[22:52] should there be an unanticipated incident. That's that's part of the

[22:57] protection mechanism that's built in. But um I'm sure BDI might want to

[23:02] elaborate on that. >> Yes. The sites will also be um deed

[23:07] restricted through something called an land use covenant an LU and that does

[23:13] run with the property. Um so the next owner is now that is they're they are

[23:21] bound by the agency orders and by the land use covenant deed restrictions

[23:28] recorded deed restrictions um as well as the financial mechanisms that Michelle

[23:32] discussed. So there's many many many many

[23:37] belts and suspenders that keep the owners on the hook for regular

[23:43] environmental inspections, reviews and financial instruments in the case you

[23:48] know of an earthquake and you know something needs to be repaired.

[23:53] So if is that where the funding um mandates are is in the covenants

[24:00] » um >> funding for the association to

[24:02] » they often are but they're also written into uh the water board and DTSC's rules

[24:08] and regulations. Yeah. >> Okay. All right.

[24:10] » And they are often show up in the LUC's as well.

[24:13] » Thank you your question a lot. >> Oh no no no.

[24:17] I guess I'm I'm not 100% clear, so bear with me in asking this again. But so my

[24:24] so my concern is once you're done and it could be years, decades from now. My

[24:31] concern is a child is playing outside on the dirt, on the grass and whatever and

[24:38] something could have happened, something leaked and uh you know now you know that

[24:44] child is playing on perhaps contaminated soil. So my question is how regularly?

[24:50] So I'm I'm I'm hearing quarterly, I'm hearing annually.

[24:54] » No, quarterly. Yeah. No, quarterly inspections are done by and and that are

[24:59] paid for by these associations by the and they're done on a quarterly basis

[25:04] that inspect the caps inspect that make sure that everything is you know in

[25:09] place. The groundwater is the one I was talking about that is current quarterly

[25:14] can go to semiannually and can be discontinued if there's no longer any

[25:19] groundwater. The thing you're talking that I'm sorry, the issue you're

[25:23] referring to is is the cap in place and is people being protected and that is

[25:29] inspected on a quarterly basis by the environmental consultant that is hired

[25:33] by the association whether it be an an HOA um or a um a association like SEMA,

[25:44] the Sierra Point Environmental Management Association, which is made up

[25:47] of all of the property owners out and allowed on Sierra point

[25:51] » and then whenever there's testing done that report is given to a state agency

[25:58] » uh >> yeah it's yeah I'm sorry it's it's it's

[26:04] yeah it is all part of the regulatory process okay um and those reports are

[26:08] given to you know the water board andor the DTSC and the county and um

[26:15] I believe those can even be made available to the city as well. Yeah,

[26:19] that's that was my next question. So, could something like that automatically

[26:22] be given to the city? >> Yes, of course.

[26:27] » Okay. Um I'm not sure if I >> Do we need to put that in? Um

[26:31] [clears throat] >> well, I just I I have a question for

[26:35] Michelle B. Would would those reports also be available on the website um that

[26:40] DTSC and the waterboards maintain? >> Yeah. Yeah. So um there's the geot

[26:46] tracker website which is the waterboard's website that typically you

[26:50] know often the responsible party is the one who uploads those reports DTSC

[26:55] controls and virus store. So yeah typically they're uploaded and available

[26:58] to the public. Yeah. >> Um the other report I want to bring up

[27:02] just so everyone's aware that happens as well is 5-year reviews. So there's not

[27:07] only are these routine inspections happening but um mandated again in the

[27:13] regulations by the state are that every 5 years a more thorough assessment is

[27:18] done to look at the overall protectiveness of the remedy. So if

[27:22] there's been any changes in let's say the toxicity of some chemical there's

[27:26] some new concern that every 5 years this this protectiveness evaluation that's

[27:32] performed. Yep. >> Okay. So,

[27:35] » and again, those are performed by the environmental consultant that is hired

[27:38] and paid for by the association and um those are available on the DTSDs or the

[27:45] waterboard's website, but those also could be made available directly to the

[27:48] city. >> And I guess my followup is probably to

[27:51] staff. Could do we need to make a specific request that any report of that

[27:57] nature that is generated be automatically sent and upload into the

[28:02] city's website so that if anybody wants to know what's going on that they would

[28:07] have those reports available? >> Yeah, there there's two ways that that

[28:10] could be handled. Um, in attachment seven in the packet, there were some

[28:15] suggested um, additions to section 9 on implementation that were more focused on

[28:21] the city's approval processes and the steps during that. But you could direct

[28:27] staff to make another addition there to have a requirement to just have the city

[28:34] receive a copy of each one of these other reports. The other place that that

[28:38] could live is in the development agreement where that will be coming back

[28:42] to you in a few more weeks. Um, and there that could be a contractual

[28:47] obligation to provide courtesy copies of each ones of these reports that the city

[28:52] then publishes on its website and makes more easily accessible for members of

[28:57] the public so they don't have to use those the geo tracker and the different

[29:00] state resources to find to find them. So, um, either either of those places

[29:06] are ways that you could capture that. >> Okay. Thank you.

[29:12] » Uh, I guess I'm a little confused now. So, in this case, SPEA is an example of

[29:18] a a unit like this. Is there one that will be set up for sure? Is it sort of

[29:21] at the end of the project, we'll see sort of how it breaks down or what's the

[29:24] sort of um the HOAs and SSMAs and all the different possibilities there?

[29:34] We don't have we're not that far down the road yet. But yeah, I mean what we

[29:38] have disc the city and amongst our development team is that yeah we would

[29:43] to take the association approach for the long-term management of the

[29:47] environmental concerns. Yeah.

[29:58] as well.

[30:03] » Yeah, >> no questions right now.

[30:05] » Oh, actually I did remember something. Um

[30:08] uh at the last meeting um the Sierra Club and other environmental groups had

[30:15] had brought up uh wanting a conservation easements put in the specific plan and

[30:22] um I didn't see in your response if you had a position on that if if we were to

[30:27] recommend that if you know would that be an issue at all you know for for the

[30:33] developer.

[30:37] Yes. Again, I think what we discussed is there are a sizable portions of our open

[30:42] space and park um land like Visitation Creek which has a wetlands res

[30:47] restoration. Those are in perpetuity. So there would be no need for a

[30:52] conservation easement. Uh I think the rest of it is it's a lot of park. So

[30:57] we'd want to very carefully discuss yeah wouldn't close the door on it but I

[31:03] think we we need to have more discussion about yeah how that would actually work.

[31:07] » One more >> one more before you go. Um I also

[31:11] brought up um San Bruno Mountain Watch had requested that their mission blue

[31:16] nursery stay where they're at and be part of the uh community fields that you

[31:21] plan to um develop there. Um

[31:27] So, it do you have a position on that? Um,

[31:31] » we don't have a position on it at this time. Um, I mean, we're,

[31:36] as you all may know, um, Mission Blue Nursery has been a rent-free tenant of

[31:42] ours for over 20 years, I believe, and um, they're very much a part of our

[31:47] fabric. Um, and we we had incorporated them on another site to accommodate the

[31:53] community fields. um they have sent us sort of a conceptual sketch. We have we

[31:59] have yet to send that to our landscape architect um to make sure that that

[32:02] actually fits uh because it does what they have is a taken out kind of a chunk

[32:08] of the field and a chunk of the picnic area that had been planned for them and

[32:13] and um I think the answer is we want to work with Miss Blue Nursery. We're big

[32:18] fans of theirs and yeah, so we'll we're happy to work with them, but we just

[32:22] have not done the analysis yet on the >> and and have done the community outreach

[32:27] with the soccer proponents in town to make sure that

[32:32] that they were that it works together. >> Thank you.

[32:35] » But we will.

[32:40] » Okay. I do have a few questions also. Um going to drag us back to your attachment

[32:44] three, the mobility plan. Um, we had a response from um,

[32:49] the firm that was doing the traffic study. I've forgotten the name. I

[32:52] apologize. Um, do we have the ability plan folks here tonight?

[32:56] » Yes. Matt Glenn is here from Fair Pier. >> And thank you very much. What what they

[33:01] what you provided, as I understand it, was a template, if you will, for how

[33:06] this commission could, if it were inclined, include in its recommendations

[33:11] or or suggestions to council that we um omit the

[33:20] road diet portion of the plan. and you provided a template for what remaining

[33:24] pieces were part of the general bailands circulation plan that would be important

[33:28] to leave in there to accommodate those street issues. So, did I get that

[33:35] right very generally? >> Thank you, chair. Yes, that's correct.

[33:38] » Okay. My question is, and I I think Jeremiah began to address it. I'm not

[33:42] sure I understood it. Is there I know folks in town generally would

[33:48] have a a would love to have a real sidewalk on beayhore

[33:55] for areas south of and outside of the the boundaries of this project um for

[34:02] pedestrians for kids going to and from school for the the RV park to um

[34:08] residents to access the rest of town and and so forth. I is there a way

[34:15] I'm not sure how [clears throat] to use the right language here for traffic

[34:17] engineering. Is there a way to to create a sidewalk, you know, a decent one that

[34:22] matches up with, you know, what you guys usually do for bikes and pedestrians and

[34:27] so forth, um, without reducing the lanes from four to two in areas south of the

[34:33] project. >> Yeah. So there the right of way on

[34:39] beayshore is variable and so it's anything from just under 80 ft to over

[34:45] 100 100 plus feet. And so for a lot of those kind of wider segments or in

[34:50] between intersections you could pretty easily fit uh a class one path or a

[34:56] sidewalk on there. Um there are some constrained locations I think uh at the

[35:02] Brisbane Technology Park driveways for example where there are um what we call

[35:06] deceleration lanes and additional lanes so so cars can decelerate from 45 mph to

[35:12] turn in and then the kind of accelerate out as well. Um there's just that uh

[35:18] constrains the rightway. So the the answer is that it what Jeremiah said it

[35:24] would require a little bit more engineering studies to determine kind of

[35:27] how to approach those constrained locations and what sort of features you

[35:32] know are you sacrificing kind of pathway or sidewalk with or are you sacrificing

[35:37] other other components um that would have to be completed.

[35:41] » So so thank you for the answer. Um that that's that's clearer. Um, so would it

[35:46] be it would be feasible, I take it, for this commission to to recommend to the

[35:51] city council, um, hypothetically, to to retain the

[35:57] four-lane structure, but to pursue engineering feasibilities

[36:04] for a class one sidewalk area on the west side of Beayore.

[36:10] » That is correct. >> Okay. Thank Thank you very much.

[36:12] » I actually had a question. And I I was going to reserve this for our

[36:15] deliberation time, but it's on topic here. Um for the road diet, I think one

[36:21] of the concerns that has been expressed is the fact that it um you know,

[36:25] beayhore is one of the few like there's not many ways to get up and down

[36:30] say in case of emergencies. So let's say you did do the road diet.

[36:35] Would it be reversible in a in an emergency? Like are the medians going to

[36:40] be like could you just open it up in case they're

[36:43] Is that is that a consideration or would it be just inoperable that way?

[36:48] » Yes. Um and that's critical part of any um you know road diet facility these

[36:54] these days where particularly for something similar to beayshore what you

[36:58] can use is um emergency vehicle preeemption and your emergency service

[37:04] providers will have control over kind the how the traffic signals work at

[37:08] either end and you can go out and use them. for example, to say like let's say

[37:14] you needed to have two outbound lanes on on Beayshore. Um you can close uh you

[37:20] know the intersection. This would only be in that you know very rare

[37:23] circumstance um where you need to get people out of uh Brisbane for whatever

[37:27] reason and you could have two outbound lanes and then repurpose the multi-use

[37:32] path which is going to be wide enough for emergency vehicle service providers

[37:36] to come inbound. And so that's kind of the under the philosophy of of making

[37:41] sure that there's flexibility for providing everyday safety for the 99.9%

[37:47] of the time when you know traffic and people are moving normally and and

[37:52] giving emergency service providers the the keys to being able to as a part of

[37:57] their planning efforts you know reverse traffic directions or do things um that

[38:02] would allow them to continue to serve the community as they need Yeah.

[38:07] » Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh my next uh set of questions is

[38:12] about the um greenhouse gas issue and uh you folks attached to the agenda um a

[38:18] helpful um listing of exemplar projects um with net zero greenhouse gas

[38:27] emissions. And I noted that that most of them had as part of the the proposal in

[38:32] the process um regular I think annual reporting of um

[38:41] analyses of greenhouse gas emissions as the projects move on and become built

[38:46] and inhabited and used and occupied. Um and not sure this might be a staff

[38:52] question. I'm not really sure. Whoever wants it can have it. Um, is does our

[38:57] specific plan provide having taken out one of the greenhouse

[39:02] gas criteria or or measures metrics, does it still does it still provide for

[39:07] regular tracking of greenhouse gas emissions?

[39:12] » Um, ESA team, do you want to I don't know if you have Brian or Brian.

[39:21] » Sure, I can respond to that. >> Thank you.

[39:30] Yeah. Hi, I'm Brian Cher with ESA. Uh, I led the greenhouse gas energy and air

[39:36] quality analysis in the EIR. The removal of impact GHG1

[39:44] also removed any mandate to achieve a specific greenhouse

[39:49] gas target for the project and any tracking that goes along with that. The

[39:56] specific plan also does not have any requirements to track greenhouse gas

[40:00] emissions. So these projects in the table all have either

[40:07] uh um opted into legislative uh streamlining benefits through bills

[40:14] like AB900 now SB7 environmental leadership projects that among other

[40:19] things to gain the judicial streamlining benefits of those of those bills had to

[40:23] achieve net zero GHD emissions and those document ERS used net zero as a

[40:30] greenhouse gas threshold. In addition to that legislative

[40:33] requirement and in order to achieve that um the threshold of GHG zero GHG they

[40:40] had mitigation measures um to buy offsets and track emissions over time.

[40:44] So the the hook there was a combination of the sequent threshold requiring

[40:48] mitigation and the legislative requirement which the California Air

[40:53] Resources Board manages and and tracks. Um because the bay lands no longer has

[40:59] that net zero threshold through GHG1 which was removed in the final ER. There

[41:03] is not a SQA requirement to achieve or track the project's greenhouse gas

[41:10] emissions. That does not mean that you couldn't track emissions as part of the

[41:16] specific plan or as part of um city policy matter or development agreement.

[41:22] and um I can you know if the city wants to speak to that they're welcome to or

[41:26] if you have any follow-up questions I'm happy to respond to those as well.

[41:31] » Uh I had just one followup question to that I think in some of the

[41:34] correspondents we received or one of the responses was

[41:38] » uh I think it basically said it's it's like technically you can't really

[41:42] measure greenhouse gases directly. So is it like an indirect measure like the

[41:47] kind of vehicles that are being used, number of trips, that kind of thing?

[41:50] » Yeah, absolutely. It's like you similar to how you well how we estimated

[41:55] greenhouse gas emissions for the project before it's being built. Although

[41:58] measurement in the future measurement in quotes would be more accurate because

[42:01] you would actually be tracking activity. What you're tracking is you're you're

[42:05] you're measuring activity which produces greenhouse gas emissions. So similar to

[42:10] the way you do your greenhouse gas inventory for the city, you're tracking

[42:14] energy use. You're tracking VMT vehicle miles traveled. You're tracking water,

[42:19] wastewater generation, landfilling, all of the all of the actual activities that

[42:24] produce either direct or indirect emissions from power plants or landfills

[42:29] or vehicle tail pipes. You're not actually putting a tracker on people's

[42:33] cars. You're not asking them to submit their, you know, uh, uh, gas bills, but

[42:38] you're estimating the amount of greenhouse gases coming from vehicles

[42:41] based on, you know, district-wide, projectwide, um, activity metrics. And

[42:46] as the project builds out and you have, you know, actual estimated energy use

[42:51] and you can you can more accurately predict uh VMT based on the number of

[42:56] land uses and the number of occupants and the square footage of commercial

[43:00] development and the number of employees commuting and commute surveys and all of

[43:03] that. Um you can reasonably accurately predict um greenhouse gas emissions.

[43:09] » Okay. Brian, you you had spoken a little bit about you the modification to GHG1,

[43:16] the removal of some of the tracking. Um, but I think it also would be helpful to

[43:21] highlight then the things that the uh both the EIR and the specific plan still

[43:26] affirmatively do require in um with regard to both energy efficiency and GHG

[43:35] reduction measures. Um because I don't want um the response to leave uh people

[43:40] confused as to that oh we're we're not doing anything to address uh project

[43:46] energy use or emissions. I I know there's a very robust program, so maybe

[43:50] you could speak a little bit about that as well.

[43:53] » Yeah, the the the only thing that was removed really was the net zero

[43:58] requirement and the offsets measure, the measure to buy carbon offsets or

[44:04] combination of funding local programs that generate registry offsets and

[44:09] buying offsets from the carbon market to achieve net zero. Everything else is

[44:13] still required. So the the four other greenhouse gas mitigation measures,

[44:18] things like uh the uh renewable fuel shuttles and the renewable fuels for the

[44:24] wastewater water reclamation facility and low global warming potential

[44:28] refrigerants. Those are all part of the specific plan. So they migrated from

[44:34] being sequent mitigation measures into basically design standards in the

[44:37] specific plan requirements. The project also retains all of its solar, the solar

[44:43] field, all the building battery, which uh the specific plant allows up to 500

[44:47] megawatts of battery including the 250 megawatt utility scale solar. um the

[44:53] lead lead gold standards in Greenpoint rated design for residential and

[44:57] non-residential uh the you know the TDM program which

[45:00] reduces VMT regionally um by a substantial margin and all of the other

[45:05] project design features that reduce project emissions those are all still in

[45:10] place >> and I think as as a result the EI

[45:14] concludes that we would see a a regional reduction in GHG emissions is that still

[45:20] correct >> yeah so it's you know The traditional

[45:23] SQUA lens is what's happening at the site now. You know, draw a boundary

[45:28] around the site and then what would the project put there and what are the

[45:31] emissions coming from that project within that geographic boundary compared

[45:35] to what's there now. It's, you know, existing conditions versus project. Uh

[45:39] the the E does, you know, evaluate the project in isolation using the Bay Area

[45:44] Air District's greenhouse gas thresholds, which is standard SQA

[45:47] practice. So that's already still there that analysis, but it also looks at the

[45:53] regional effect of the project. So basically, what would the Bay Area

[45:58] region look like without the Baylands and what would it look like with the

[46:01] Baylands with all the Bayands development uh located within this the

[46:05] city and all of the benefits of jobs, you know, uh transit oriented

[46:10] development and infill housing and the TDM program and the renewable energy

[46:15] program and the all electric development and 100% renewable electricity for all

[46:19] electricity used on site combination of on-site and and grid supplied renewable

[46:23] electricity. what would the regional picture look like with the project built

[46:26] here and the conclusion in the EIR was that the project would reduce regional

[46:31] emissions through that lens. So it is a beneficial project from this like the

[46:35] len the scope of looking at development patterns within the region at large.

[46:44] Thank you. Um staying on the the general field of of energy and pollutants and

[46:51] energy and pollutants. Um [clears throat] I know the one of the

[46:56] the major features of this project that has been described by BDI as a an intent

[47:02] to to do is the the very large battery battery park. Is that a decent term?

[47:10] Um battery field. um which is is my

[47:15] understanding that is not technically speaking a requirement of the project in

[47:19] in the typical sense where it might be a condition of approval for a simple

[47:23] permit to build a house. Um, so perhaps to to to legal, Eric, is is there a a

[47:29] mechanism by which if if the commission chose to recommend this to council to

[47:35] make the construction of that battery park, which I think is at this point

[47:40] sort of uh anticipated 10ish years out, um to make it in some way mandatory or a

[47:47] condition or to have some some enforcement enforcability, I guess.

[47:52] » Yeah. at at this point that sort of um [snorts] specific project element and

[47:57] phasing and goes beyond the bounds of what's included in the specific plan and

[48:03] EIR um we will be revisiting phasing and different triggers and trade-offs in the

[48:09] context of the development agreement. So um I think we can explore the

[48:13] feasibility of that and have a um yeah a but have some the opportunity to

[48:21] get some feedback from the applicant about what and when might be feasible

[48:26] and uh the I think the development agreement is the best vehicle to address

[48:30] that particular concern. >> That's what I thought you might say.

[48:33] Thank you. Um because I think what I'm trying to address is I think a

[48:36] perception that some of these um very loudable aspects of the project are are

[48:43] may appear aspirational rather than than um promised um or enforceable. Um so

[48:50] anyway, I take it then what this commission

[48:54] might be able to do is simply recommend to the council to pursue that issue as

[48:59] part of the development agreement. >> Yes. and and the commission will also

[49:03] have the opportunity to to see a version of the development agreement and make a

[49:08] recommendation on that before that goes to council as well.

[49:10] » Right. Right. Oh, okay. We will we see it before council acts on it?

[49:14] » Yes, that's correct. >> Okay.

[49:16] » Thank you. All right. That's helpful. Um

[49:22] lastly, I think um our staff put together a a very helpful

[49:29] um sheet about their um impending recommendations to revise

[49:37] section 9 of for implementation to provide for um um more specific

[49:44] descriptions of the monitoring process. um that I encourage folks to look at.

[49:49] And I my understanding is that that you folks intend to to clarify

[49:54] among other things the fact that there will be reporting um on an annual basis

[50:00] following building construction that will be monitored by the city in

[50:03] coordination with the public agencies. Is that generally correct?

[50:08] » The intent behind the suggested revisions to chapter 9 is I just want to

[50:13] be really clear. It's not to impose any new or different regulatory uh

[50:19] procedures or processes beyond what the state mandates as through DTSC's in the

[50:24] waterboard's process. So, just to be clear, we're not proposing the city take

[50:28] additional action. Um, so yeah, the intent behind those changes are really

[50:32] to, like I said earlier, clarify and provide more information on what those

[50:39] state overseen and mandated procedures would look like, including for

[50:42] monitoring, and then make it more clear how that activity relates to and

[50:49] um and impacts city control processes like permitting. Um, we do have, uh, ESA

[50:57] team members, I think, on the call online who might be able to speak a

[51:00] little more to um, what those clarifications are are

[51:04] going to address when it comes to those relationships. I don't know if Eric is

[51:08] on.

[51:16] » Somebody joined us. >> Okay. [clears throat]

[51:18] » Thank you. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. Thanks.

[51:19] » Hi. uh Eric Callaway, principal planner at ESA. Um I think to just to specify

[51:27] particularly related to the annual question that you had, um there are

[51:32] reporting uh there are things that the city would report on that the the

[51:37] specific plan already speaks to. Um that would be annual reporting. Um and then

[51:43] that's related to the things that the city has oversight over. Um and then the

[51:50] thing the the reporting that is related to remediation the timing of that would

[51:55] be um determined by the regulating agencies. So you know as uh the

[52:00] applicant was just speaking to um that you know that could be related to the

[52:05] quarterly testing and whatever the whatever the agency requires. Um and so

[52:10] the as uh Julia was just saying the intention behind the revisions is to

[52:17] explicitly state that the reporting and the timing of the reporting um and the

[52:23] you know in perpetuity of the reporting um what needs to be reported that's that

[52:28] would be as required by the regulating agency but then also to um explicitly

[52:34] state which you know since the type of testing that you would be doing and and

[52:40] when um you would have to do some testing and then put together a report

[52:45] that has to for example be related to the installation of the cap versus when

[52:49] development occurs versus after there are buildings um and how that different

[52:53] kinds of testing and reporting relates to the city's oversight over um

[52:58] approvals of building and occupancy permits.

[53:04] » Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, any other questions about about those

[53:09] issues? I I have one last question, but just want to let folks have a chance to

[53:13] chime in? No. Okay. Um, sort of lastly, maybe this is

[53:19] I apologize for the breadth of this question potentially, but the the what

[53:24] staff is recommending is a modified alternative one um to the original 2026

[53:31] specific plan. Um and when I read the ER analysis of it, it highlighted um the

[53:40] major issues being reduction of the building heights, relocation of some of

[53:44] the buildings that the larger buildings um and um and then analyze the impact of

[53:51] those environmentally. Um would you be able to to

[53:56] synopsize any other major changes and modified alternative one from the the

[54:02] previous specific plan

[54:04] » from the develop from the developer proposal?

[54:06] » Yeah. >> Yeah. ESA teamm did you want to

[54:10] » Yeah, I can I can handle that one. Um modified alternative one um basically

[54:16] reduces the number of towers um in the Cal Train right ofway or you

[54:24] know in proximity within a/4 mile of the Cal Train ride ofway. And what it does

[54:29] then is it reduces the number of high density dwelling units as a result and

[54:36] then it increases low density and medium density dwelling units. uh f you know

[54:43] further to the east and then those [clears throat] excuse me building

[54:48] heights um increase you know somewhat nominally. So it

[54:53] really is the same number of dwelling units um but it reduces building heights

[54:59] um near uh in proximity to transit uses um

[55:06] and uh decreases high density and increases low and medium density. So,

[55:11] that's really the foundational difference.

[55:17] » Um, any other changes to that aren't um aren't about building heights?

[55:25] » Um, and thank you, directors. Yes. And it accommodates the LMF. So, it's um it,

[55:32] you know, it's um it accommodates the LMF,

[55:36] » right, which is the light maintenance light.

[55:38] » Yes. Light maintenance facility. the high yeah highspeed yeah light

[55:42] maintenance of facility. >> Okay. All right. [clears throat]

[55:46] Thank you very much. Um anybody else have any questions? Going once, going

[55:50] twice. Um

[55:58] all right. In that case, we are uh going to revisit the continued public hearing.

[56:04] Um and I have several slips here. Do we

[56:08] have anybody online yet? >> None with hands raised.

[56:13] » Okay, I'll just begin calling these folks and if you can give me a high sign

[56:16] if you get any online, I'll get to them. Um, the first slip I have is from Alli

[56:21] Sapperman. Sapperman.

[56:40] Good evening, commissioner commissioners. My name is Ally Saberman.

[56:44] I'm speaking again tonight on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and the Bay

[56:47] Area Council. We are here to urge you to take action and vote tonight on the

[56:51] Bayand specific plan and final EIR. As predicted based on my previous comments,

[56:56] on June 30th, the California Department of Housing and Community Development

[57:00] revoked its finding that Brisbane's housing element is compliant with state

[57:04] law. The consequences of delaying the Bayands are no longer hypothetical.

[57:08] Brisbane is now subject to the builder's remedy, loss of state funding, court

[57:12] imposed penalties, and referral to the attorney general. There is a clear and

[57:16] simple path back to compliance. Brisbane must adopt the Bayand specific plan and

[57:22] zoning. We recognize that this is a complicated project and that the city

[57:25] has devoted substantial effort to get to this point. But this is the fifth

[57:30] meeting of this body. After two comprehensiveformational workshops and

[57:34] now three public hearings, it's time to move forward. [gasps] There have already

[57:38] been countless meetings like this and extensive analysis over the 20 years

[57:42] since this project was first introduced. All the while, the housing crisis

[57:46] worsens and the bailands remains vacant. This city or region and the state can no

[57:51] longer afford further delays. We need an approved plan of the bayands that is

[57:55] economically feasible and capable of being built. State law prohibits a local

[57:59] agency from conditioning their approval in a manner that renders housing

[58:03] development infeasible. We therefore ask you to focus your remaining

[58:07] deliberations on the decisions necessary to deliver housing, restore Brisbane's

[58:11] compliance, and preserve the city's ability to guide its own future. Please

[58:14] act with the urgency of the moment requires and recommend approval of the

[58:18] bailand specific plan and final e. Thank you.

[58:23] » Thank you.

[58:26] » Uh next is um Darren Clark, please.

[58:40] » Good evening, chair, commissioners, staff. My name is Darren Clark. I'm a

[58:45] field representative for North Coast State's Carpenters Union working

[58:49] currently working out of Carpenters Local 217

[58:52] representing Sam Santo County. Before becoming a representative, I worked as a

[58:57] carpenter for 39 years. I have seen firsthand how projects like this can

[59:03] transform communities. The Brisbane Bayands project represents a tremendous

[59:08] opportunity for the residents of Brisbane and all of San Monteo County. A

[59:13] project of this scale will generate economic activity, support local

[59:17] businesses, and create good paying jobs for working families.

[59:22] Just as important, it will provide opportunities for the next generation to

[59:26] enter into the constru construction industry and build lasting careers

[59:31] through apprenticeships and journeyman upgrade training programs.

[59:35] From the carpenters's perspective, as this project moves forward, it is

[59:39] critical that it is built by a responsible general contractor,

[59:44] one committed to paying area standard wages, utilizing state accredited

[59:48] apprenticeship programs, and providing benefits such as healthcare. These

[59:53] standards help ensure that workers can support their families, stay healthy

[59:57] throughout their careers, and retire with dignity. This is a

[1:00:00] multi-generational project. Let's make sure it's built by a

[1:00:05] workforce that it reflects the highest standards of skill, safety, and

[1:00:09] responsibility so its benefits are felt for generations to come. Thank you.

[1:00:14] » Thank you very much.

[1:00:18] » Righty. Next, um, Art Turo Science.

[1:00:28] » Good evening, commissioners, staff. I'm Mortal Signs. I am a business rep for

[1:00:32] the Luna Labors Local 261 and we understand and respect the

[1:00:37] concerns of the Brisbane residents regarding the remediation of the Bayance

[1:00:41] site. City staff representatives of Baylands Inc. have provided extensive

[1:00:46] information about the safety measures that will be implemented and monitored

[1:00:50] throughout the remediation and construction process as well as the

[1:00:54] protections that will remain in place for decades after the development is

[1:00:57] completed. I would like also to offer the

[1:01:01] perspective of the workers who will be performing this important work. Their

[1:01:05] safety and the safety of the surrounding community

[1:01:08] must remain the top priority. Leono laborers are highly skilled

[1:01:13] professionals who receive extensive training, industry recognition,

[1:01:16] certification, hazardous material handling and environmental remediation,

[1:01:21] construction safety, and the proper use of personal protective equipment. They

[1:01:26] are trained to recognize potential hazards, follow established safety

[1:01:29] procedures, and respond appropriately to changing conditions on the job site.

[1:01:35] These skilled labor strictly follow all typical federal, state, and local safety

[1:01:40] regulations. Their training and expertise help protect not only the

[1:01:43] workers performing the remediation work, but also nearby residents, the

[1:01:48] surrounding environment, and the long-term safety and integrity of the

[1:01:52] completed development. So if this work is awarded to a

[1:01:57] responsible union contractor employing trained and certified LAUNA laborers,

[1:02:02] the city and the community can be confident that the remediation will be

[1:02:06] formed by workers who have the skills, the expertise, the commitment necessary

[1:02:11] to complete a project safely and responsibly.

[1:02:15] We therefore request the planning commission approve the Baywatch specific

[1:02:18] plan. Thank you for your time and

[1:02:21] consideration. Thank you.

[1:02:28] Next, um Aaron Becker, please.

[1:02:38] » Uh hello, I'm Aaron Becker. Thank you for taking public comment and for

[1:02:42] demonstrating that you guys are really paying attention to the public comments.

[1:02:45] Uh I submitted two letters about a month ago. A lot of that has actually been

[1:02:49] addressed in the in the meeting since. Um, but one thing I want to make make

[1:02:54] sure to remind you about before you get close to approving this is our existing

[1:02:58] ordinances. The bailance specific plan as written is kind of inconsistent and

[1:03:03] non-compliant with both the dark skies ordinance and the invasives regulation.

[1:03:09] I assume that our ordinances trump whatever they write in the specific

[1:03:13] plan. So instead, I'm going to remind you guys that when the dark skies

[1:03:17] ordinance was written, the Bayand zoning district did not exist. So I'm asking

[1:03:23] you to include in your recommendations that we also update the dark skies

[1:03:29] ordinance to include the Baylands district in the same lighting category

[1:03:34] as R2, R3, uh the mobile home park, uh MHP, um

[1:03:40] other other districts of similar size. Um, and that would determine their

[1:03:44] lighting levels, the the number of lumens per per square foot of developer

[1:03:48] area. Uh, second, um, I really hope you guys consider alternative number seven,

[1:03:55] which is the reduced density, reduced height alternative. It reduces the

[1:04:00] impacts of or it reduces four of the significant project impacts. Um, and in

[1:04:07] the EIR, it's kind of glossed over because of the state, you know, mandated

[1:04:13] housing increase, but it's 1,800 units is still 13% more than is being pushed

[1:04:19] down our throat. And there are other projects in Brisbane that will that will

[1:04:23] even add to that. So, we can always change zoning in 5 years, 10 years,

[1:04:28] whatever, if we need to. There's no reason now we have to commit to 2,200

[1:04:32] units. Measure measure JJ only says we have to do 1,800. Thank you.

[1:04:37] » Thank you. >> Uh stores homem please.

[1:04:48] [clears throat] >> Uh thank you for taking into

[1:04:51] consideration the complexity of this project. I have

[1:04:56] two comments that I'd like to make. Um first uh again uh concerning pile

[1:05:03] driving and noise um I would like to see that uh drilled shaft and rectangular

[1:05:12] barretes are also called out as options. These have been used successfully in San

[1:05:18] Francisco uh notably to retrofit

[1:05:23] uh the Millennia Tower and then the the Barretts were used uh for our gigantic

[1:05:32] Salesforce tower. Um and um and then on a different topic uh that I uh that

[1:05:44] tunnel road is currently used as a major thoroughfare for cycling for cyclists

[1:05:50] commuting both up into San Francisco and from San Francisco down to the South Bay

[1:05:58] uh or southern regions. And there have been some wonderful bike paths proposed

[1:06:06] in in the specific plan, but I would like to make sure that there is at least

[1:06:13] one path which is fast in the sense that there aren't a lot of intersections and

[1:06:22] stops. So cyclists can still commute quickly from San Francisco to Sierra

[1:06:29] Point or Oyster Point and and vice versa.

[1:06:34] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:06:37] » Uh through the chair, we do have three online if you want to switch.

[1:06:40] » Why don't we take uh take one of those, please?

[1:06:42] » Okay. Uh we're going to start with Melissa.

[1:06:49] Go ahead, Melissa. You may address the commission.

[1:06:54] Great. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Melissa Foley

[1:06:58] and I'm a science director at the San Francisco Estuary Institute or SFI. SFI

[1:07:03] reviewed the balance specific plan and provided independent ecological planning

[1:07:07] and design guidance that aligned feedback from local environmental

[1:07:10] organizations with the best available science and provided that guidance to

[1:07:14] BDI. The commitment to a high proportion of

[1:07:18] native plants throughout the project area and 100% native in the habitat

[1:07:22] restoration enhancement in other sensitive areas is commendable. A

[1:07:26] diverse assemblage of native vegetation will support local wildlife by providing

[1:07:30] higher quality food and habitat than non-natives. expand populations of

[1:07:34] locally adapted plants and reduce maintenance needs, particularly

[1:07:38] irrigation once plants are established by recognizing the importance of the

[1:07:43] balance for supporting regional habitat connectivity, wildlife movement, and

[1:07:47] human access to green space. The specific plan takes a landscape scale

[1:07:52] view that is needed to make our urban areas healthier for people and wildlife

[1:07:56] and more resilient to climate change. The wildlife safe design features

[1:08:01] included in the plan, particularly for lighting and building design, ensure

[1:08:04] that the developed areas introduce as few hazards as possible for wildlife

[1:08:08] while ensuring residents safety. Adopting guidance from the American Bird

[1:08:13] Conservancy and consulting exper experienced biologists as part of the

[1:08:17] planning process will help to ensure the latest advances in wildlife safe design

[1:08:21] are being implemented. The balance will be a firstofits-kind

[1:08:25] development in the Bay Area that brings together people and nature by employing

[1:08:29] a range of nature-based solutions to provide benefits ranging from access to

[1:08:33] nature to heat mitigation to biodiversity support that will support

[1:08:38] healthy and resilient outcomes for people and wildlife. The balance can

[1:08:42] serve as an example to cities throughout the Bay Area to show how communities and

[1:08:46] nature can thrive together.

[1:08:55] Thanks, Melissa. We have uh Jordan next. Go ahead, Jordan. You may address the

[1:09:01] commission. >> Thank you so much. Good evening,

[1:09:03] commissioners. My name is Jordan Grimes and I'm the legislative director for

[1:09:07] Green Belt Alliance. We are an environmental organization working

[1:09:10] throughout the Bay Area focused on conservation, climate resilience, and

[1:09:14] sustainable land use policy. For the last 68 years, we've championed

[1:09:18] conservation and infill housing solutions uh that protect open spaces,

[1:09:22] reduce GHGs, uh and create vibrant communities where people can live close

[1:09:27] to jobs, schools, and public transportation. In both our June uh 30th

[1:09:32] letter from this year uh and our comment letter from last September uh on the uh

[1:09:38] draft EIR, we raised concerns with GHG1E,

[1:09:43] the proposed mitigation measure that would require the bailance to purchase

[1:09:46] offset credits. Um we're very happy to have seen that removed. I was preparing

[1:09:51] to make a longer comment, but I think Mr. Schustster of ESA actually did a

[1:09:54] really great job explaining uh the regional benefits of GHD emission

[1:09:59] reduction that this project will provide over time. Um and I'll just say this

[1:10:03] project is not to hone Ranch. Uh it is not a subdivision in Leup or Tracy or

[1:10:08] Mantika which is what that program was designed for. This is a largecale TOD um

[1:10:15] uh project that will have huge GHD reduction benefits for the region when

[1:10:19] completed. I would also note uh that per the UC Berkeley local government climate

[1:10:25] policy tool, the policy that offers the single greatest potential for greenhouse

[1:10:29] gas reduction in Brisbane specifically is the creation of infill housing. So to

[1:10:33] that end, I actually really hope you won't pursue alternative 7, the reduced

[1:10:37] Titan density regulations. It really runs counter to our regional housing and

[1:10:41] climate goals at the same time. And then just finally, I'll say Green Belt has

[1:10:45] been supporting this project since uh 2011. Um, I think that's a really

[1:10:50] unfortunate um,

[1:10:54] indictment of our response to the housing and climate crisis and we do

[1:10:57] really need to do better. So, I would urge the planning commission uh, to

[1:11:01] advance the plan tonight. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it.

[1:11:05] » Thank you very much. >> All right. We have Eileen.

[1:11:10] Eileen, you may address the commission. >> Good evening, commissioners. It's Eileen

[1:11:16] Mclofflin from citizens committee to complete the refuge and co-signer of a

[1:11:20] letter with Sarah Cleb and others. Um and I thank you for um continuing to

[1:11:26] deliberate on this. I appreciate the questions you bring forward um and our

[1:11:31] and I just wanted to on the greenhouse gas emissions. We we're we are glad and

[1:11:36] I am glad that you've been very thorough in trying to make sure these the

[1:11:40] greenhouse gas emission plans that you have are are going to be continuous uh

[1:11:47] and monitored over time. So thank you for that. But I also wanted to speak to

[1:11:52] the uh point raised about the conservation easement which was in our

[1:11:56] letter. Um although uh some of the lands are marked in perpetuity, the question

[1:12:03] that I bring up is it does that actually go with the land? A conservation

[1:12:08] easement goes with the land. So once it's um put on there, it will stay and

[1:12:15] as um Melissa was talking about on habitat we're building, we want that is

[1:12:21] to stay once it's established, once it's encouraged to grow. uh [clears throat]

[1:12:27] we we'd want Brisbane to have this area that's remains as conserved area and and

[1:12:34] habitat that serves uh both the the species and all the people who would

[1:12:39] come to enjoy it. So I hope that you can consider that or if uh perhaps it needs

[1:12:46] to be included as a recommendation for the development agreement. Uh but I hope

[1:12:51] you get that into the plan uh some way. Thank you. Before

[1:13:00] we go to the next one, is that a question we can answer quickly and get

[1:13:02] it off the table whether that conservation easements run with the

[1:13:05] land? This a longer answer. We can do it some

[1:13:10] other forum. >> Yeah, easements do run with the land.

[1:13:12] They show up in the deed to the property.

[1:13:14] » Yeah. And and I think this was implicit in the director's answer, but other

[1:13:19] forms of um easements also run with the like an easement that's granted to the

[1:13:25] city in perpetuity also would would run with the land even if it's not um you

[1:13:30] know a dedicated and statutory conservation easement.

[1:13:34] » That that was my assumption. Thanks. >> Uh any other

[1:13:40] Okay. Yeah.

[1:13:51] Okay. Um, from inside the room, uh, next up is Linda Salmon, please.

[1:14:01] » Good evening again, commissioners. I don't envy your position. Um, I have a

[1:14:08] lot of comments, but one of the main problems I have with is with the idea of

[1:14:12] putting single family dwellings on clay caps. I know they show nice pictures of

[1:14:18] trees growing out of them in gardens for kids to play in, but it's not really

[1:14:22] possible in a five uh 5-ft clay cap, which are subject to uh problems with uh

[1:14:29] sea level rising and earthquakes in a big way. And I had suggested ages ago,

[1:14:35] one of the reasons I put the a the FS as they were in the 1994 general plan is

[1:14:41] that we could have dwelling units like rental properties on top of, you know,

[1:14:49] uh commercial enterprises in this area so that you actually can house far more

[1:14:54] people and uh uh with less um danger to children running around playing on toxic

[1:15:01] soil. um and a lot more housing for people who are working in the area and

[1:15:08] so on and so forth. And I really feel that this is what we have to do. We can

[1:15:13] do a lot more for the people who don't have houses, who can't afford to buy

[1:15:19] houses, but who can rent um with caps on the rent uh based on, you know, you you

[1:15:25] know, all kinds of other things that go on. Anyway, so that's that's my one of

[1:15:30] my main points. The other one is when we kept talking about the road diet and

[1:15:34] stuff like that. One of the solutions is to have the connection with the light

[1:15:38] rail that goes to San Francisco going all the way through to past Brisbane to

[1:15:44] South City. Um you know with a turnaround back and forth just a single

[1:15:48] single lane doesn't have to be the double thing that they have right now

[1:15:51] with the city. um and it's possible and that way save on greenhouse gases and um

[1:15:59] make with transportation easier for everyone. So there those are two major

[1:16:03] things that I don't think still haven't happened in terms of looking at all the

[1:16:09] possibilities of the general plan. Um, you really can't build a house and on a

[1:16:15] clay cap and have it be stable in an earthquake. Um, and with flooding and

[1:16:22] when the electricity goes out, your pumps are not going to work. Thank you.

[1:16:27] » Thank you.

[1:16:32] Uh, next up is Anthony. I think it's Anthony Walker. Am I right?

[1:16:42] Good evening. Good evening, commissioners. I Yes, my handwriting is

[1:16:46] terrible. Apologize. [laughter] Sorry. Um, my name is Anthony Walker.

[1:16:50] I'm uh chair of OSEK about speaking tonight in my individual capacity as a

[1:16:54] Brisbane resident. Um, I submitted a second letter that I believe was uh

[1:16:59] shared with you last night and I apologize for the length. I know it's a

[1:17:02] lot. Um, but I hope you'll take the time to read it carefully um because it uh

[1:17:08] focuses on two major uh questions, greenhouse gas accountability and

[1:17:12] measure measure JJ's uh energy neutrality uh requirement. There's a lot

[1:17:17] in there but um I want to highlight just one thing in the letter here um in the

[1:17:22] room and that is that um measure JJ does not simply say that the bay lands should

[1:17:26] be energy neutral without any context as to what that means. Um, it says the

[1:17:32] specific plan must be consistent with the principles of the sustainability

[1:17:35] framework, a named and dated document, and that that development shall be

[1:17:41] designed so as to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis. Um, my letter examines

[1:17:46] what those words mean um in further detail. I think there is actually a lot

[1:17:50] in there to dissect. Um but um the sustainability framework I want to call

[1:17:56] out one thing um establishes a clear order of operations. A maximize local

[1:18:03] on-site generation first um B evaluate additional uh community scale renewable

[1:18:10] generation within Brisbane. So that's offsite.

[1:18:14] uh and then C uh only then consider community choice aggregation procurement

[1:18:20] um which would be our eco 100 um solution. So my concern there is that

[1:18:26] we're we're sort of giving uh giving up on a half completed step a on-site

[1:18:30] generation. We're only getting to 53% and then skipping over B entirely. We're

[1:18:36] not I I haven't been able to turn up anything at all about uh off-site

[1:18:40] generation. uh and then going straight to step C um

[1:18:44] as the main solutions. So, and I want to be clear um you know, both of my

[1:18:48] requests in the letter um are not new. Um they're prioritizing on-site

[1:18:54] generation um is consistent with the sustainability framework. Um and where

[1:18:59] on-site energy neutrality cannot be achieved, requiring additional community

[1:19:03] scale uh renewable generation within Brisbane is simply step B uh in the

[1:19:09] framework's order of operations. Um, so I just want to highlight those ideas did

[1:19:13] not come from me. They're from Brisbane's own documents. Um,

[1:19:18] and uh, yeah, I I realize I'm over time, so I I I hope that um, you'll take a few

[1:19:23] minutes to read the the letter um, carefully because I think there there's

[1:19:26] a lot in there, a lot of context that will be helpful. Thank you very much.

[1:19:31] » Thank you.

[1:19:45] Okay. Um, next up is Nicole Westeramp, please.

[1:19:57] » Good evening. Um, thank you to the commission, the

[1:20:01] staff, the experts, um, all the people who've been joining to lift this very

[1:20:06] large process. Uh, my name is Nicole Westeramp. I've been in Brisbane as a

[1:20:10] resident for a little over a decade. Um, I'm also a mom, but even before kids,

[1:20:16] this project has um, I've wanted to join in, and it feels like drinking from a

[1:20:21] fire hose. So, um I just want to recognize the effort and focus and

[1:20:26] information that you all are digesting and I appreciate the thoughtful

[1:20:31] questions. Um the elementary school logo I believe is something like building

[1:20:35] thoughtful citizens and that takes time and labor. So, thank you. Um I don't

[1:20:42] know who again in this long detailed conversation might have already pointed

[1:20:47] out um to consider the stakeholders who do not have a voice in this process and

[1:20:54] I'd ask the commission to just spend a moment thinking of that. Um

[1:21:01] the stakeholders who don't have a voice and are not included in conversation

[1:21:05] often have the least power and privilege.

[1:21:09] This is a remarkable, unique piece of living land. And as I was thinking of

[1:21:14] what to say as I drove in, I really wonder what the original inhabitants and

[1:21:20] stewards of this land would be thinking of and advising us as we consider this

[1:21:25] generational project. I've heard a lot of voices um just in

[1:21:30] the last meeting and this one with lots of needs, lots of people, lots of

[1:21:35] interests for housing, for jobs, for you know just an unimaginable number of

[1:21:40] things to balance. And um one concern I'd like to bring is just that the

[1:21:45] residents who will be most directly impacted and who will impact this

[1:21:49] process might be having difficulty joining in the conversation. So, thank

[1:21:53] you for those continued efforts. And my ask um to are one, how do we keep

[1:22:00] informed, thoughtful citizens able to participate in this process and lend

[1:22:04] their expertise and second to just voice again that the land does not bring their

[1:22:12] voice here and needs our strongest protections from the outset. Um, I

[1:22:19] appreciated learning about the conservation easement that you know can

[1:22:23] slip away very easily and just ask you to ensure that from the onset now that

[1:22:29] the pro the process continues to include concrete actions in the process that

[1:22:34] keep us thoughtful. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much.

[1:22:41] » Next up is Michelle Sammon.

[1:22:50] Michelle Sammon. Tonight I'm speaking as a second generation lifelong Brisbane

[1:22:55] resident. Um I've read the drafty I read it the all of it. But I'm still very

[1:23:03] concerned about in why how toxic this site is. you know um in 2018 when um

[1:23:13] measure JJ failed I mean won and by 10% um the head of the then head of the

[1:23:20] company representing the owner of the property said that he would get right on

[1:23:26] getting the specific plan and that was in 2018. They did not submit a specific

[1:23:30] plan until 2023 and it was inadequate and was returned to them and then they

[1:23:35] did not submit it until 2025 almost 2026 which is why we're in the position we

[1:23:40] are now where the state is holding a gun to our head about housing. But what most

[1:23:47] people don't realize when they talk about infeasibility of housing here is

[1:23:53] how toxic this land really is. And I don't think uh a driveby or a five-year

[1:24:01] driveby or whatever is really adequate because in five years a child's nervous

[1:24:06] system can be completely destroyed by lead deposition in the area where they

[1:24:11] live. And I think it's um unfortunate that that Stephanie keeps comparing the

[1:24:18] bays to Sierra Point Marina and Park Sier

[1:24:22] Point. Sarah Point was a very different landfill. It was dyed. It was lined. It

[1:24:28] was manifested and layered and adequately closed over 40 years ago.

[1:24:34] It's starting to show definite signs of wear. That is very different than the

[1:24:38] Blands, which was undyed, unregulated landfill that had from 1936 on that God

[1:24:47] knows what's in there and no one really knows because it's never been thoroughly

[1:24:51] tested the way it should be. And that's what we're dealing with. And so when

[1:24:55] people are all housing, housing, housing at any cost, do you want another love

[1:24:59] canal in Brisbane? I think that we really need to look very carefully at,

[1:25:04] you know, you talk about sea level rise, etc. And I know that u the owners of the

[1:25:10] property are very anxious to get their entitlements and yet they haven't built

[1:25:14] with the entitlements they already have. And I I urge you not to um approve the

[1:25:21] mobility plan. And I think that it's really very negative for the people who

[1:25:25] already live in Brisbane and the northeast ridge and people coming over

[1:25:28] Crocker Park and basically it would kind of strand people in Brisbane. But I

[1:25:34] think you really do need to look at every protection

[1:25:37] uh for the future of this area and the people that will live there and

[1:25:42] conservation easements. Oh, and yes, Green Belt Alliance has been on this

[1:25:46] since 2011 when Jonathan Sharfman started donating to them heavily, who

[1:25:51] was the prior executive of of this estate. So, please do I so appreciate

[1:25:58] the work you've done and the questions you've answered tonight and sitting

[1:26:00] through this for three times and I I can't tell you enough of that, but

[1:26:06] please make the right choices and please make the conservative choices in terms

[1:26:10] of the environment and and protect the future future of of the children, the

[1:26:15] future of the people who don't have a voice here yet. Thank you.

[1:26:20] » Thank you.

[1:26:24] Uh, next is uh Cynthia Gomez, please.

[1:26:37] Good evening, commissioners. Cynthia Gomez, United here, local 2, the hotel

[1:26:41] workers union. And again, we have roughly 6,000 members who live in the

[1:26:45] communities immediately surrounding the project area. I will reference but not

[1:26:49] repeat the comments that I've made earlier about our various critiques of

[1:26:53] the project. You've heard them. We've sent letters. The only thing I will

[1:26:56] repeat tonight is the simple reality that there is no state law that requires

[1:27:02] Brisbane to accept 7 million square ft of commercial development.

[1:27:07] That is the kind of jobs housing imbalance at 19,000 jobs versus 2200

[1:27:13] housing units that has the potential to make the housing crisis precisely the

[1:27:18] opposite of the way it's being promoted. That has the potential to make the

[1:27:22] housing crisis worse, not better. And there is no state law that requires

[1:27:28] that you accept that kind of ratio. So that is what I would like to leave you

[1:27:33] with. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:27:41] Um, do we have anybody else on? Uh, no. Okay. Uh, last slip I have currently is

[1:27:48] Elena Shot, please.

[1:27:55] » Good evening. I speed read, but that's probably nothing compared to how much

[1:27:59] you guys have to weigh through over the course of your average month. I had just

[1:28:03] a few comments on this. Um, one quickie on the mobility. Currently, I can get

[1:28:08] from home in central Brisbane to the top of Tunnel Avenue as I'm going onto

[1:28:12] Highway 101 in 10 minutes, 15 minutes on a bad day. My understanding or rather

[1:28:19] expectation is that the construction that's going to be done as a part of

[1:28:22] producing the bays is going to shut down Tunnel Avenue at which point that

[1:28:26] transportation out is route is out. If we then force everybody who currently

[1:28:31] zips along Tunnel Avenue to take Beayshore, the immobility plan is going

[1:28:35] to destroy that, too, and we'll all be spending 25 or 30 minutes just to make

[1:28:39] it to 101. That strikes me as an unreasonable non-compromise.

[1:28:45] I see a lot of language in the report about how we can all switch to scooters,

[1:28:49] but I'm not taking a trunk full of groceries home from San Francisco

[1:28:53] downtown on a scooter. So, you know, bus and then scooter is not a better option.

[1:29:00] Um, so that was transportation noise. My understanding is from the meeting that I

[1:29:06] participated in on June 30th, they made no promise whatsoever not to pile dry

[1:29:10] all through the night. They'd considered that as an option and it hadn't been

[1:29:14] closed out. So, uh, does Brisbane have the noise ordinances and will Brisbane

[1:29:20] enforce the noise ordinances to make sure that residents in our parabolic

[1:29:24] bowl get 8 hours of sleep every night? My understanding so far is not

[1:29:29] necessarily. And I'd actually like to get to work coherent and competent

[1:29:33] rather than destroyed by listening to pile dryers until 6 a.m. That was number

[1:29:39] two. And then I think one of the big issues for city resistance overall is

[1:29:44] and we're stuck with it now because of the whole California state laws. When

[1:29:48] you have a town of only a thousand homes and they're saying whoops, we need to

[1:29:52] add 2,000 more. Our local votes are gone. So in 5 years, you know, I won't

[1:30:00] be seeing any of you and you won't be seeing any of us because we'll have been

[1:30:03] replaced. That's a silly fear in terms of national and immigration. But I think

[1:30:08] a real and sensible fear to some extent here within our small local voting

[1:30:13] district. I'd have much loved it if we'd started in 2015 and added 100 units a

[1:30:18] year so that the new arrivals would have become Brisbaneians.

[1:30:22] Thank you. >> Thank you through the chair. We do have

[1:30:26] one more online. >> Okay.

[1:30:29] » Christina, you may address the commission.

[1:30:35] » Thank you. I really deeply appreciate the care the commission's taking with

[1:30:39] this project and the questions you're asking and not allowing yourself to be

[1:30:43] bullied by outside forces. Listening to the comments of labor

[1:30:48] representatives, I'm sympathetic to your those comments, but I do wonder how many

[1:30:53] of the housing units that you'll be building will be within the reach of the

[1:30:57] incomes of your membership. the slam the community is going to take

[1:31:04] with this development. I I don't think people from outside of

[1:31:08] the housing advocates, again, I'm I'm deeply sympathetic, don't understand

[1:31:13] what's going on here. It's a 684 acre development.

[1:31:19] First got 2,000 acres of land. Even if we subtract the lagoon about 135 acres,

[1:31:28] that's 28% of the city in a si single swoop is going to get transformed. As

[1:31:35] the previous speaker mentioned, that totally changes the city of

[1:31:42] Bersbane. Even if that takes place over say five, seven years,

[1:31:49] what other community has been expected to undergo that level of transformation

[1:31:56] in a single development and do it in a manner that leaves the community

[1:32:01] healthy, ensures that the community is healthy.

[1:32:07] And when you take into account the commercial impacts as were described um

[1:32:13] that just complicates the situation even further. So again deep appreciation to

[1:32:19] the commission. This is a very difficult project and we're being asked to accept

[1:32:24] it in total rather than incrementally. And I just don't see I I don't just

[1:32:32] don't see a healthy way of of embracing this thinking.

[1:32:38] Thank you. Anyone else? Thanks. Right. We also are going to have

[1:32:44] a one more presentation from the applicant at this time.

[1:32:56] Good evening again, Chair. Gooding, honorable commissioners.

[1:33:02] Um, once again, my name is Stephanie Shakovski. I am the environmental lead

[1:33:07] for the bayens development team. Um, commissioners, before you

[1:33:14] tonight are documents that reflect 20 years of planning, environmental review,

[1:33:20] community engagement, and a voter initiative.

[1:33:25] Recommending approval of this specific plan and the final EIR

[1:33:31] is an affirmative act by this commission.

[1:33:35] proving that Brisbane is a community that confronts this housing shortage,

[1:33:41] restores its ecological assets, builds around transit to reduce GHGs, and holds

[1:33:49] itself to the highest standard of sustainable development.

[1:33:55] We because we continue to have questions from the commission and from the public

[1:34:01] regarding the environmental cleanup. We did bring with us tonight our um

[1:34:06] environmental consultants and our um uh engineer of record. And I'd like for him

[1:34:12] to um if we just take a few minutes for him to walk the commissioners through

[1:34:19] the actual cleanup process. And I also encourage you to please um interrupt

[1:34:26] him, ask him questions. Um he's quite used to being interrupted working with

[1:34:31] me. But I do um would like to ask Jay Morani, our senior engineer at Geioint

[1:34:38] to come up and answer the questions for or give us your short presentation and

[1:34:42] answer any questions from the commissioners. And please feel free to

[1:34:46] interrupt his presentation.

[1:34:53] Thanks. Uh my name is Jamie. I'm the engineer on the remedy for the railart

[1:35:00] railard area. I just want to talk through the implementation approach and

[1:35:04] what we'll be doing at at the site. So there's a few slides there. I don't know

[1:35:09] if you can see them in front of you. Okay. Awesome. Um [cough]

[1:35:14] so as you know the site's pretty flat between beayhore and the cal train

[1:35:17] tracks. Um, and so that's what I'm showing here is just a flat area where

[1:35:22] there's the existing soil. The first step in the project is actually going to

[1:35:25] be removing any uh contamination that could present future issues. So there's

[1:35:30] some chlorinated solvents in soil that were encountered during the

[1:35:33] investigations and those will be removed and disposed of offsite before any

[1:35:37] future action.

[1:35:41] So following the removal of of that area, fill would be imported that's been

[1:35:47] approved. um by the waterboard for for use on the site. Um we'll excavate also

[1:35:53] corridors for future utility installation. And so that's what's shown

[1:35:56] on the on the side there. And those may penetrate the imported fill or they may

[1:36:00] go a little bit deeper into the existing soil. But those are going to be used uh

[1:36:04] and filled with clean fill so that in the future when utilities are installed

[1:36:08] or maintenance is needed that it's a simpl simpler process.

[1:36:15] Following the imported fill, the next step is to install the cover system. Um,

[1:36:20] and that consists of a demarcation layer and a clean soil cap soil cap layer. Uh,

[1:36:26] the demarcation layer is a orange just really brightly colored fabric that's

[1:36:31] put over the entire site as a as a marker so that if anyone's digging, they

[1:36:36] can see that as a very obvious change that there's g there is something

[1:36:41] different. and it'll just make sure that if contractors out there that they they

[1:36:44] go back and uh reassess their their approach. Um following that is the

[1:36:50] placement of the the clean soil cap which is the 5ft layer. Um you see on

[1:36:55] here there's a searchcharge pile in many portions of the site. We'll be adding

[1:36:59] additional clean soil fill. Uh and that's to drive settlement in the

[1:37:04] material below the existing soil. There's there's bay mud so very soft

[1:37:07] clays throughout the site. Uh and what that does is drive more of the

[1:37:11] settlement in advance so that when it is removed and any construction of roads or

[1:37:16] shallow building foundations are put in that there's less differential

[1:37:19] settlement, less potential for cracking, less potential for potholes.

[1:37:23] Um so then the next step is to remove the searchcharge pile and create this

[1:37:31] development grade. So just basically a a clean site for for future developers.

[1:37:36] And one thing I want to note is that throughout this entire process, there's

[1:37:40] a many checks. Um, so there would be a construction quality assurance

[1:37:44] consultant that's on site continuously with the contractor making sure that

[1:37:48] everything the contractor does is done in line with the design and the approved

[1:37:53] design. In addition to that, the construction manager and the

[1:37:56] construction quality assurance team will be making sure that the agencies are

[1:38:02] also aware of what's going on throughout the process. So weekly they're going to

[1:38:06] provide construction reports that are providing updates to the to the agencies

[1:38:11] about what's happening and how it's been going. If there's been any changes, if

[1:38:14] there's been any issues, uh that that report will be in there. Yes.

[1:38:18] » When we say agencies, are we talking DTSC and the waterboard?

[1:38:21] » Yes. >> Thank you.

[1:38:22] » I say agencies because it is multiple. Um

[1:38:27] additionally, the construction quality assurance team would prepare a report at

[1:38:31] the very end of the project. uh that could be at the end of phases or at the

[1:38:34] very end depending on what the phasing structure is. That would describe all of

[1:38:39] the work that was done, any potential changes, the dis the discussions that

[1:38:43] went with the agencies, uh survey that shows that any excavated areas were

[1:38:48] excavated to the elevations that were that were required by the design. Uh and

[1:38:52] all that will be packaged up into a construction completion report for the

[1:38:56] agency waterboarder or DTSC. they would have to approve that construction

[1:39:00] completion report before any future development activities can can occur.

[1:39:07] Um so [clears throat] move forward. So another thing that is so that would

[1:39:13] remove the potential exposure pathways to the contamination. However, the only

[1:39:17] remaining exposure pathway is soil vapor. So prior to any buildings that

[1:39:23] would have uh occupancy, we would do soil vapor sampling at two times during

[1:39:29] the year. So the the soil vapor sampling occurs between the groundwater table and

[1:39:32] the surface. And because the groundwater table fluctuates in the wet season and

[1:39:36] the dry season, we would do two instances of the sampling to get a range

[1:39:40] of the concentrations that may be present. And using that data, we would

[1:39:44] evaluate whether a vapor intrusion mitigation system is necessary for any

[1:39:48] of the buildings that are going to be constructed at the site.

[1:39:52] If it's found that a vapor intrusion mitigation system is necessary, then it

[1:39:57] could consist of of the components shown on this drawing. So the the main

[1:40:01] component is really the vapor proof membrane that would go under a

[1:40:05] foundation. But additionally, if needed, there could be a um capture and

[1:40:10] conveyance system. So that like a gravel bedding or perforated pipe to collect

[1:40:15] any potential gases and and vent them uh prior so that it prevents any of that

[1:40:20] from getting into the into the structure.

[1:40:25] » Before I forget my question, uh are the the tests uh the bianual tests also

[1:40:30] provided to the agencies? >> Yeah, so all all of the stuff that that

[1:40:34] anyone does on the site is going to have to be uploaded to Geotracker or Envir

[1:40:38] Store. So, similar to the groundwater data that that Stephanie was talking

[1:40:42] about, all of that data is compiled and and uploaded to those to those public

[1:40:46] networks. >> Thank you.

[1:40:48] » Additionally, if a vapor intrusion mitigation system is found to be

[1:40:52] necessary in these buildings, there would be additional indoor air sampling.

[1:40:56] So, prior to the occupancy after construction, there would be additional

[1:41:00] indoor air sampling to make sure that the system is working. That would

[1:41:04] actually continue at regular frequencies during the life of the building.

[1:41:11] I guess is there no concern about the vapor surrounding the building? Is it

[1:41:14] only sort of within the foundation of the building? What about like the the

[1:41:17] region next to the building? >> It's only if it has a place to collect.

[1:41:21] So like it's if it could have a place to pull otherwise it vents the atmosphere

[1:41:25] and it's diluted. [clears throat]

[1:41:31] And then is there um a minimum imported fill size there? Like a minimum depth

[1:41:35] for the imported fill or is it sort of variable across the property?

[1:41:39] » Uh the clean soil fill above the imported fill is at least 5 ft

[1:41:43] everywhere. The imported fill ranges in thickness um from zero at the edges

[1:41:48] where it's just the clean soil cap where we're tying into Beayshore Boulevard or

[1:41:51] the Cal Train tracks and then it gets to 15 to 20 feet towards the um the middle

[1:41:56] of the site. Mhm.

[1:42:00] » Is is the the demarcation fabric uh that's never going to be penetrated? It

[1:42:06] doesn't look like it is for this building, but what if you're building a

[1:42:09] you know 200 ft uh residential tower? Is there a need to for the anchors to be

[1:42:16] » So yeah, for for piles, they would go through the through the demarcation

[1:42:20] layer in the exact location of the pile. We wouldn't put demarcation layer. It

[1:42:25] would go to the edge and then the clean soil cap would be maintained in those

[1:42:28] upper five feet or restored if needed if there's an

[1:42:33] excavation. Um, yeah.

[1:42:39] » When you take a sample, isn't that >> through the chair? Is your mic on?

[1:42:45] Thanks. >> When you guys take samples,

[1:42:48] um, isn't that demarcation barrier penetrated?

[1:42:52] uh if we need to do sampling below the demarcation layer then the demarcation

[1:42:57] layer and the above soil would be replaced. And so in the remedial design

[1:43:01] plan there's um there's what's called a soil and groundwater management plans

[1:43:05] for that any soil disturbing activities including sampling there there's a set

[1:43:09] of procedures that would need to be followed and that would include

[1:43:12] reconstruction of the cap

[1:43:22] And that that's the end of my slides. >> Any other questions from the commission?

[1:43:29] » Thank you. >> All right. Uh any further staff

[1:43:34] presentation or are we done?

[1:43:39] » No additional staff presentation. >> Thank you.

[1:43:41] » Thank you. >> All right. Um

[1:43:46] we have had I think somebody said at least five meetings with public comments

[1:43:50] and we have really really appreciated them. We've read the written

[1:43:54] communications. Um and we thank you all for your input.

[1:43:57] It's been valuable. I I hope some of our questions have reflected the fact that

[1:44:02] we have um listened to your comments and and applied them to the the task at

[1:44:07] hand. Um, with that being said, I think it is time for the chair to entertain a

[1:44:12] motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll make a motion to close the public

[1:44:16] hearing. >> I'll second that.

[1:44:18] » All in favor? >> Any opposed?

[1:44:22] » Motion passes with five eyes. We are now entering the deliberation

[1:44:28] phase of this meeting and any other me. I'm not sure we're going to get through

[1:44:32] everything tonight, folks. It's a large thing to get our hands around, but we're

[1:44:37] going to get a start. Um, my suggestion is um that we start with the Bayand's

[1:44:44] mobility plan um or the Bayore mobility plan, excuse me. um for the simple

[1:44:50] reason that it is discreet and separable from the other aspects of of um the

[1:44:56] larger picture. Um and um sort of the the easiest piece to grab and chew on

[1:45:04] first. Um so I'd like to entertain any any thoughts, opinions, deliberations

[1:45:09] about that. Uh let's start with Darius. Yeah, I mean, uh, you know, I have a

[1:45:16] hard time wrapping my head around how the the road dieting would help, even

[1:45:19] though that's what, you know, everyone says would help. So, I think I like the

[1:45:22] idea of sort of breaking it up, um, into subcomponents there. Uh,

[1:45:27] I'm still chewing through it, so no additional sort of questions or comments

[1:45:30] for me other than I I don't like the idea of road diet or sort of restricting

[1:45:33] that there. Um, so I kind of park it for that right now.

[1:45:38] Um well, [clears throat] I'm in favor of uh keeping two lanes

[1:45:44] each way. And um I liked what uh Chair Gooding um asked our expert there about

[1:45:52] um if we can keep the two lanes each way, but all but enhance beayhore in

[1:45:58] other ways. So for example, with the sidewalks and things like that. Um,

[1:46:05] yeah, that would be my only objection to to the Beayore mobility plan is just the

[1:46:11] reduction in lanes.

[1:46:16] » Uh, well, I may be the u the [clears throat] lone voice here. I'm

[1:46:20] actually very intrigued by the philosophy of the complete street thing

[1:46:23] and I think the the road diet may be sort of pjorative. I like the idea

[1:46:28] behind it. You know, I think that uh it is a I think philosophically a different

[1:46:32] way of looking at how streets function and enabling um more modes of

[1:46:37] transportation. In the end, you may be able to move more people. It's not just

[1:46:41] about moving more cars. Um and I think also part of it is looking to the future

[1:46:46] state, not so much um what it is now. So I I think it does um the road diet and a

[1:46:55] complete streets model represents kind of a change in the way we think about um

[1:47:02] about roads. So I'm actually maybe a little more open to it than um uh

[1:47:09] than maybe some other members of the commission. I think it I think it needs

[1:47:12] further study. I'm a little bit worried about how

[1:47:16] uh for example, you put a road diet just in a certain stretch of beayshore, it

[1:47:20] could represent kind of a a plug in a way and maybe kind of a token,

[1:47:26] aspirational token to changing the way you think about roads. uh that in the

[1:47:33] big picture may not make much difference, but I think we all want,

[1:47:39] you know, we want to be able to move around in ways that aren't completely

[1:47:42] dependent on cars. Um so I I I'm open to opening keeping my mind open to uh to

[1:47:52] this model. >> Great. Alex,

[1:47:55] » I have concerns and I'd be opposed to the

[1:48:00] road diet and reduction. I'd be opposed and concerned about reduction of lanes

[1:48:08] um with the road diet and believe there's probably opportunities for

[1:48:12] alternative um

[1:48:16] ways to try to manage uh traffic and mobility um without reducing the lanes.

[1:48:24] Yeah, my my concerns for my two cents is is as follows. Is that as I understand

[1:48:30] that the plan that the beayhore would remain two lanes in each direction north

[1:48:36] of I just blanked on the name of the street. The one north of Geneva

[1:48:41] um >> no north

[1:48:46] um the north in San Francisco. Sunnydale.

[1:48:51] Thank you.

[1:48:54] It's late. Um, and then it siphons down to one lane all

[1:48:59] the way down to San Bruno Avenue. So, essentially the the area that is put at

[1:49:05] um the area where the traffic is condensed and and compressed is

[1:49:10] basically Brisbane and the Baylands and that north

[1:49:14] and south of it sort of business as usual. And I I not a traffic engineer,

[1:49:19] but you know, I drive that street as much as anybody else in this room or

[1:49:24] listening on TV. Um I just don't have the the faith that that's an answer to

[1:49:32] the problem. And I'm not even positive what what the problem is that's being

[1:49:36] addressed other than the perception perhaps that traffic along Beayshore

[1:49:40] tends to get fast. um haven't seen a lot of that but even

[1:49:47] assuming that to be true I my opinion is that there's there are ways to deal with

[1:49:52] with that there are calming methods there's narrowing of lanes there's

[1:49:56] turning the lanes both Vaness and Petrero are examples of where there's

[1:50:01] been lots of calming things done to make traffic flow better and I take both of

[1:50:07] those streets a lot and it does works anyway so my

[1:50:12] one opinion out of five is is that I'm opposed to the the road diet concept.

[1:50:18] However, listening to folks over the past, you know, five sessions tells at

[1:50:23] least me and I think all of us that there's a perception of a need for

[1:50:28] improving the um the pedestrian and and um you know multimmodal safety of people

[1:50:36] using beayshore um bicycles and e e scooters and all that. Um, so that's

[1:50:45] why I'd asked the question of staff and and ESA about the feasibility of of

[1:50:50] being able to continue. Um there are things being done to Beayshore under the

[1:50:56] mobility plan where it adjoins bay lands that make decent sense that are kind of

[1:51:02] really sensible to allow new streets coming into it that I that I think um

[1:51:08] um the traffic folks document they submitted for this this

[1:51:13] meeting was very helpful that we can leave in things that directly benefit

[1:51:17] and are important for the flow and the circulation for the bayands. um without

[1:51:22] the road diet piece. And my suggestion would be to pass on to the to the

[1:51:29] council a recommendation that those aspects be retained and that they um

[1:51:38] pursue or inquire further of the traffic experts whether or not uh I think they

[1:51:43] turn a class one um area adjacent to Beayshore, I guess it would be the west

[1:51:48] side probably, would work for this for the entire stretch of of of Beayshore.

[1:51:54] um that is subject to the mobility plan. Um they might be trying to eat our you

[1:51:58] know eat our cake and have it too or whatever the saying is. Um there may or

[1:52:02] may not be right away room but I think you know getting a hard answer to that

[1:52:06] would be really beneficial and that would be my suggestion as to what what

[1:52:10] to pass along to the council. And and I just want to add like other

[1:52:15] reasons why I think we should keep beayhore two lanes each way is you know

[1:52:20] um a lot of the folks who spoke talked about potential emergencies, the need

[1:52:24] for more lanes. Um you know coming and going um you know and and you know and I

[1:52:31] think I think we need the additional um lanes for for for those situations. And

[1:52:37] and we also have to keep in mind, I mean, we have Crocker Park, we have all

[1:52:40] the trucks and semis, we have the quarry, um whatever development that's

[1:52:45] going to go there, probably more more trucks and semis. Um you know, and and I

[1:52:51] think if if the concern is we want to calm Shore down, I think we could think

[1:52:57] about putting in um speeding cameras. you know, San

[1:53:02] Francisco um is in their trial period and um uh there was a study that said

[1:53:07] that speed cameras not only brought in um a lot of revenues for for for the

[1:53:13] city, but it it changed behavior. It I think it reduced beating by about 80%.

[1:53:19] So that's definitely something um I think that we can consider rather than

[1:53:24] you know taking away extra lanes. So >> you know along with that I mean talk of

[1:53:31] like if trying to reduce traffic speed we installed a signal mast on what

[1:53:37] Sierra Point and Beayshore that hasn't been activated that was placed a couple

[1:53:43] years ago. Um and certainly if a signal light was installed there and working

[1:53:49] you know that certainly I think would reduce

[1:53:52] ashore traffic speed. So there's I think there's other alternatives that make

[1:53:59] that can be looked at.

[1:54:03] » So So how would you want are we voting on each thing now or how are we going to

[1:54:09] » I think that the the a workable plan is to the extent it's these pieces are are

[1:54:15] chunks that we can separate out is discuss one vote on it discuss the other

[1:54:20] vote on it and on. >> Okay. Um, there's a couple more coming

[1:54:23] up that I think we can maybe knock out as well. And I'm I'm intentionally

[1:54:28] leaving for last the actual Bayland specific plan because it's it's the

[1:54:32] elephant in the room. Um, and you know, 10:30 at night might not be the time to

[1:54:36] start deliberating on that. Um, but let's do what we can as as we can. So,

[1:54:43] um, dealing with this piece, um, one suggestion I have for for a motion,

[1:54:48] and we can tweak it if people want to, is is as follows, is that we, um, we

[1:54:53] would recommend, remember, this this body is recommending to the city council

[1:54:57] X, Y, and Z. We have no policym power. Our job here is to look at it, analyze

[1:55:04] it, listen to you folks, and then come up with our recommendations and or

[1:55:07] suggestions to the council as to how to proceed. and they are the ultimate

[1:55:11] deciders. So Matt like my first take and this would be to

[1:55:17] recommend adoption of the bailance mobility plan.

[1:55:24] rewind to the being sentence is to adopt. Um the one document I didn't

[1:55:29] print out was the track engineers report of their suggestion as to how to handle

[1:55:33] it. And may I should probably just punt to that. Um there is in the um document

[1:55:39] submitted with this agenda uh a document from um help me with the name of the

[1:55:45] firm. >> Fen Pierce.

[1:55:47] » Thank you. um that sets forth exactly what sections of the mobility plan as it

[1:55:53] pertains to Beayshore um are feasible to do that would benefit the circulation

[1:56:01] plan for the Bayance development that would not entail

[1:56:05] reducing it from two lanes to one. that my motion would be to recommend to a

[1:56:10] council adoption of th those portions of the mobility plan um but not the

[1:56:16] portions that that provide the road diet. Um and then furthermore that we um

[1:56:24] recommend to the council that um

[1:56:30] they make further inquiries with the the

[1:56:34] traffic experts as to the feasibility of um a class one or comparable um sidewalk

[1:56:42] improvements to the remainder of Beayshore. um that is not accomplished

[1:56:46] by the parts of the mobility plan that are directly um benefiting the core

[1:56:54] project. It's a long motion >> and yes I will second that motion

[1:57:01] » before does that make enough sense for you

[1:57:05] folks to handle it? >> Yeah. The the one clarification that we

[1:57:08] might um ask is that there is a draft resolution in your packet um as part of

[1:57:12] attachment one. It's um draft planning commission resolution PC126

[1:57:20] um which has the recommendation to council to consider adoption of the

[1:57:27] mobility plan. Um if the commission agrees, you could put your motion in the

[1:57:35] context of approving that resolution with the changes that the chair just

[1:57:39] described. >> Right. That's what I

[1:57:42] » I think that's what you meant. That's what I wish I had said as well.

[1:57:46] Um, but do the do the changes that I um read out are they clear enough that you

[1:57:54] folks can can wordsmith that into the final process?

[1:57:58] » Yes, we can revise the resolution with those should the

[1:58:02] » We have a second. Um, all in favor? >> I

[1:58:06] » I Any opposed? >> None opposed? Um, I'm just going to

[1:58:10] register a symbolic no just because I've thought about it and I think there's

[1:58:14] value in um in thinking about it some more.

[1:58:17] » Okay, perfectly fine. Great. The motion passes with uh four eyes and one no.

[1:58:23] » Sorry. Through the chair, were you the you made the original motion?

[1:58:27] » Sorry. >> Did you make the original motion or say

[1:58:31] ducted? Okay. Thank you. >> And the second

[1:58:36] um progress

[1:58:42] I think staff that that was looking at this that we can turn our attention to

[1:58:47] the some of the general plan amendments and the title 17 amendments that are

[1:58:53] probably not contingent upon um a recommendation of the entirety of

[1:59:01] the specific plan.

[1:59:05] Well, they are intended to uh ensure consistency between the

[1:59:10] general plan and the specific plan >> um as proposed by staff. And

[1:59:15] » I think we've talked before too about when the commission is ready to make a

[1:59:21] recommendation on those. There's a certain order of operations we would

[1:59:24] look to the commission to make. um they're outlined in the resolution

[1:59:30] the other resolution attached to the June 25th staff report.

[1:59:33] » Sorry, I didn't get to that. >> So, I think well well I guess what I'm

[1:59:36] trying to say is I do think that your action on in consideration of the

[1:59:39] general plan amendments do relate to how you ultimately um

[1:59:45] want to vote on the specific plan. [clears throat]

[1:59:48] » Okay. Um

[1:59:55] let me let me see if I can break it up this way. Um in your recommendation in

[2:00:00] attachment one um

[2:00:04] you had um recommended approval of the project

[2:00:09] entitlements which include amending the general plan land use element in

[2:00:14] accordance with several sections to realign the northern boundary to

[2:00:18] correspond to the boundary of the bailand specific plan. Um and then to

[2:00:23] amend the general plan circulation element in accordance with government

[2:00:27] code blah blah to realign Lagoon Road extend your point

[2:00:32] » add bay lands roadways designate the Geneva Avenue exp

[2:00:36] extension and add a new roadway type for green local streets. Is that the same

[2:00:41] thing as green shared streets? Just

[2:00:44] » oh could catch >> terminology. I think it is but

[2:00:47] » yeah it is. Okay. Um,

[2:00:54] it I don't think we can discuss this, but my take is that these amendments to

[2:01:01] the general plan are probably not real controversial in this body other than

[2:01:07] possibility possibly the the green shared streets issue. Um, but this is

[2:01:14] the time for other folks to chime in.

[2:01:22] I mean, >> I'm sorry, Commissioner S. I don't think

[2:01:25] any of the things that you listed have really been surfaced in in the public

[2:01:30] comments or have come up as a concern even for in my evaluations,

[2:01:34] » right? I go ahead. >> Yeah. No, I I was just concerned if

[2:01:40] staff was saying that we couldn't vote on that yet because maybe other

[2:01:46] individual things we will be discussing impacts that is was was that a concern?

[2:01:53] » Yeah. And and to clar at the the staff packet included two total

[2:02:00] resolutions. One you already voted on. So, the second resolution encompasses

[2:02:05] the recommendation to the city council for the remaining suite of documents um

[2:02:11] recommending certification of the EIR, adoption of the general plan and zoning

[2:02:16] modifications that Chair Gooding just outlined and adoption of the specific

[2:02:21] plan. So, at the ultimately we'd look for one vote from the commission on that

[2:02:29] resolution. Um, but if you want to go through and see if there's consensus on

[2:02:36] on those individual elements before you vote, you can keep a pin in that and

[2:02:43] then be aware at the end of your deliberations if there's any changes you

[2:02:48] want to direct staff to make in connection with your motion. Um, then

[2:02:52] you can make that for each of the elements that might need to change. But

[2:02:57] we won't need a vote until you've [snorts]

[2:03:01] » reached your deliberations on that package.

[2:03:04] » There's no point in voting until we vote on the whole tamalei. But we can talk

[2:03:07] about the pieces we may want to parse out and and

[2:03:11] » exactly. So >> with or make suggestions otherwise

[2:03:14] » if Yeah. So if if the commission had decided that you were comfortable with

[2:03:18] the recommendations for the general plan amendments, you could

[2:03:24] have that understanding amongst yourselves. move on to the next topic,

[2:03:27] but you wouldn't need to vote until you were ready to move that entire package.

[2:03:32] » That makes sense. Thank you. Um so sticking with with the general plan um

[2:03:39] land use element amendments for the moment. Does anybody

[2:03:44] have any issues, concerns or any understandings of concerns out there

[2:03:48] about anything street and circulation wise

[2:03:54] other than what I raised about the green shared

[2:03:58] streets? Well, for example, um my question about conservation easements,

[2:04:05] would would that not impact the vote that you were requesting we make for

[2:04:12] voting on the other stuff? No. Um, no. The my understanding of our

[2:04:19] conversation previously is that if the commission were to make that

[2:04:23] recommendation, that would likely be something discussed as part of

[2:04:27] potentially a DA um

[2:04:33] rather than a revision to the >> I'm not sure I understand your your

[2:04:36] question or concern about the the conservation easements.

[2:04:41] » Okay. Okay. >> As it pertains to the the street issues

[2:04:44] here. >> Okay. So, I mean,

[2:04:47] I I was just concerned that that that making that recommendation might impact

[2:04:53] all those other things that you were listing and and and if I'm wrong and and

[2:04:57] it doesn't, so we I mean, I'm fine with moving forward on on that then.

[2:05:02] » I wonder if also like I mean like has been suggested, we put a pin in it.

[2:05:05] We're not committing to it. we discover later

[2:05:14] but for now as general principle I think I agree we can

[2:05:18] » kind of say well this is like probably in general seems okay we might have to

[2:05:22] revisit it but we can move on to the meaty things which might be for example

[2:05:30] uh you know things we won't have you know whatever the e the specific plan as

[2:05:33] a whole I know we're going to talk about many details about for each of those and

[2:05:37] in particular the specific plan. I'm sure we have a lot of comments and uh

[2:05:41] deliberation there. >> Okay. Um

[2:05:48] so let me try to stick to this one bullet point that's obviously a B in my

[2:05:52] bonnet um about the green shared streets. Does anybody else have any any

[2:05:56] opinions or or >> what's the B? I don't I don't I I like

[2:06:00] green streets. Green shared streets. the the the green shared streets that are in

[2:06:05] the the specific plan that are envisioned by it are the streets that

[2:06:10] are that run east west um between the sort of north south

[2:06:16] arterials in the residential district that are that carry traffic

[2:06:22] um that is pedestrian traffic or bicycle traffic or motor vehicle traffic um from

[2:06:29] the north south street you come in on from through the residential

[2:06:34] neighborhood either into a garage or the park whatever

[2:06:37] » or to the next arterial over that runs north south.

[2:06:40] » Yeah. >> I I had initially brought up my concerns

[2:06:43] regarding safety because I didn't think cars, ebikes, scooters, pedestrians,

[2:06:51] dogs should all be mixed together because I

[2:06:55] think that's a recipe for disaster. But, you know, unless someone else I mean,

[2:07:00] you know, we've we've heard from staff and some of the experts that they felt

[2:07:04] that that wouldn't be an issue, but uh it's just I've experienced San Francisco

[2:07:09] and parts where they have that and um didn't make me feel comfortable. So,

[2:07:15] having it here wasn't something, you know, I thought, you know, at least I

[2:07:20] had the concern about. >> Yeah. I I think uh for some of those I

[2:07:25] like what I did when I was looking at the road diet thing is like well are

[2:07:28] there other examples I think Valencia in the city is an example you think about

[2:07:32] what's the objective of a road diet well one of it is safety so regardless of

[2:07:36] your impressions of place like Valencia I think by that metric the road diet

[2:07:42] there has been successful and I know we're not talking about road diet now

[2:07:46] we're talking about green shared streets but you could do just do the same thing

[2:07:49] there look what are the what are the stated goals of these green shared

[2:07:54] streets and have they met their those objectives in the areas where they have

[2:07:58] been built and I haven't actually looked at that but I suspect they probably do

[2:08:04] um you know in in neighborhoods I think we saw a lot of them that come up in San

[2:08:07] Francisco over the last few years right during co um

[2:08:12] just to um and but something we clearly were

[2:08:17] need to look at a little bit more but I actually did not appreciate,

[2:08:21] Commissioner Gooding, that it was a concern of of yours, you know, or or of

[2:08:25] yours. Any other takes on this one?

[2:08:34] Okay. Um well,

[2:08:39] I'll just put a pin in that then. Um

[2:08:44] never know what happens to those pins, but um

[2:08:49] All right. So I'm not carrying the the commission on

[2:08:54] the shared streets thing. So I'll let that slide. It appears to me that that

[2:08:58] without being able to do a separate resolution just about

[2:09:04] amending the general plan that nobody here has any significant concerns with

[2:09:07] the the pieces of the amendments that are requing

[2:09:22] title 17 zoning of the prison municipal code to implement the Bayand specific

[2:09:26] plan in accordance with the government code. Um this involves changing the

[2:09:31] zoning designations of land within the the plan area from commercial mixed use

[2:09:36] um from Marsh Lagoon Bayront and

[2:09:40] manufacturing to Bayland specific plan BSP designation. It involves

[2:09:46] establishing the land use regulations and development standards set forth in

[2:09:49] the specific plan as the regulatory authority governing it and amending the

[2:09:54] city zoning map to reflect those zoning changes.

[2:09:58] Um,

[2:10:06] this all seems rather administrative and ministerial. I don't think there's any

[2:10:10] particular policy things buried in this. It's simply calling them things that are

[2:10:16] then make the implementation plan make make sense almost grammatically. So any

[2:10:21] other takes than that and this would suggest something like the noise

[2:10:25] ordinance or other parts from town would already apply to this regardless of what

[2:10:28] we call it. So whether we call it BSP or that sort of the same policy still apply

[2:10:32] to that region. It's just sort of renaming what we call it. I I think so.

[2:10:35] And that but that's a good question to to um one of the callers or speakers um

[2:10:41] had a question about whether um pile driving could occur

[2:10:45] at night outside of what are generally otherwise the noise

[2:10:51] the noise ordinances that currently in place. Um any comment on that one?

[2:10:57] » Well, first the city's noise ordinance applies citywide. So regardless of what

[2:11:04] designation applies, it applies right now. It would apply if the

[2:11:09] area were reszoned BSP. just to make that clear. Um we do have ESA team

[2:11:17] members who can probably speak in more detail to this, but um the the EI's

[2:11:24] discussion of noise impacts um related to pile driving is not related to to

[2:11:30] that activity occurring at night. Um obviously the noise ordinance does limit

[2:11:35] construction activity to certain hours. Um, the only activity that the E

[2:11:40] discusses as occurring potentially during nighttime hours, which would need

[2:11:44] to go through a noise exception permit process would be other activities like

[2:11:49] um pouring concrete or um non-pile driving activity. Um, that's the only

[2:11:56] thing addressed in the ER that I could see. I don't know if anyone on ESA's

[2:12:00] team might have a little more information on um its analysis of noise

[2:12:05] impacts related to pile driving specifically.

[2:12:08] » We yeah, we can also look at at mitigation measure NOI1

[2:12:12] and pile driving is expressly limited there between 8:00 a.m. and 400 p.m.

[2:12:18] Monday through Friday um and prohibited on weekends and holidays. So that again

[2:12:24] st those standard um noise restrictions from the noise ordinance and the

[2:12:29] mitigation uh program apply for for those limitations.

[2:12:34] » Thank you. Um while we're on topic of existing Brisbane laws applying to the

[2:12:40] bay lands um can anybody clarify the dark sky issue? My understanding is that

[2:12:45] the project is subject to the building project and the completed

[2:12:51] project are both subject to dark sky laws. Um, am I correct?

[2:12:57] » You're correct. So, the dark sky ordinance does have standards applicable

[2:13:02] to construction activity and and those are referenced in the ER as well. Um the

[2:13:07] existing dark sky ordinance obviously does not reference the BSP as a district

[2:13:13] because it didn't exist at the time or still doesn't exist um when the

[2:13:17] ordinance was drafted. What it does address though in section

[2:13:22] 1588050 which sets lighting standards by zoning

[2:13:26] district. Um the last row of of that table with the standards says that any

[2:13:31] other zoning district or uses that aren't explicitly named. So like future

[2:13:36] districts that might not have existed at the time we wrote the ordinance uh would

[2:13:41] be determined at the time of the application involved. Um so the director

[2:13:46] essentially the community development director would make a interpretation of

[2:13:49] what's the closest applicable district. So that's how the the noise ordinance

[2:13:52] addresses it this kind of situation. Now, um, you know, should the commission

[2:13:57] want to make a recommendation to council that standards be specified and that

[2:14:02] ordinance be amended, um, to specifically call out the BSP,

[2:14:06] which obviously would have a lot of different neighborhoods and land use

[2:14:10] types, right? You'd want to look very carefully at that. Um, that's something

[2:14:14] you could add to your recommendation to council.

[2:14:19] So the recommendation would sound something like to consider amending the

[2:14:22] dark dark side ordinance to specify the newly created districts.

[2:14:27] » Yeah. To to develop lighting uh levels for the BSP district. Well, and it just

[2:14:33] one minor clarification on there because at this point you that

[2:14:38] um that section of the ordinance isn't something that has been noticed

[2:14:43] [clears throat] or is being considered for amendment right

[2:14:48] now. Though the the specific plan um in section 3.3 does have um lighting design

[2:14:54] standards um that are intended to promote dark sky

[2:15:00] preservation. And then a a subdivision of that, the performance standards does

[2:15:04] specify that all lighting um shall comply with the city's dark sky

[2:15:08] ordinance. So um the specific plan already kind of incorporates those um

[2:15:14] standards through reference as well. >> Okay.

[2:15:18] And may may I chime in as well, counselor and directors, we also have a

[2:15:23] mitigation measure in the EIR apart from um identifying compliance with municipal

[2:15:30] code chapter 15.88, 88. It does identify uh lumen requirements for site specific

[2:15:39] development projects within the specific plan and it's quite detailed and I will

[2:15:44] spare you the um recitation of all the lumens.

[2:15:49] » Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah, it's in sorry thanks

[2:15:52] for pointing that out Terry. It's in section S.3.1.4

[2:15:59] for >> and also mitigation measure um AES

[2:16:03] aesthetics uh 4B sky globe prevention. So if if so Eric if it does say that the

[2:16:11] specific plan

[2:16:14] implementation must comply with the dark sky ordinance that seems to settle it.

[2:16:19] Yeah, I would I would agree with that. Okay.

[2:16:22] Okay. Okay. Um

[2:16:27] where to next? Um

[2:16:32] the issue of certifying the final EIR would appear to be

[2:16:39] separable from recommending the specific plan itself,

[2:16:44] would it not?

[2:16:49] » Yeah. >> A separate item to deliberate on.

[2:16:51] Correct. >> Yeah, they're they're included in the

[2:16:53] same resolution though. And at this point you have staff recommends but

[2:16:58] recommendation to certify recommendation to adopt though commission's

[2:17:03] deliberations can modify the staff recommendations. So yeah, you could

[2:17:08] in I guess more direct response to your question, you could end up after

[2:17:11] deliberation with a recommendation to certify the EIR

[2:17:18] but for some reason not adopt the specific plan or adopt the specific plan

[2:17:22] with changes so that you don't have to accept both staff recommendations on on

[2:17:30] both of those items. >> Great.

[2:17:36] Does anybody in up here have any issue with with the commission certifying the

[2:17:41] IR as a as a standalone issue just before we get to the plan?

[2:17:48] » Uh I do not my understanding is that often commissions don't don't aren't

[2:17:52] specifically asked to uh to recommend approving the AR. It's just a it's a

[2:17:57] document. They don't I I think most of the

[2:18:01] substantive deliberations are going to be about the specific plan itself. So I

[2:18:06] I I think it would be a great timesaver if we could say yeah let's certify the

[2:18:12] AR and move on to uh the plan itself. My understanding is that this the city

[2:18:20] council must certify that the IR has been completed in accordance with SQA as

[2:18:25] a predicate to adopting a special plan. >> Yep. That that is correct. So before the

[2:18:29] the city council takes any final actions um they will need to make a

[2:18:34] determination and they would if they were going to approve anything they

[2:18:39] would need to first certify the EIR um here for planning commission. um

[2:18:47] incumbent as part of your recommendation would be that council certify the EIR.

[2:18:56] » Okay.

[2:19:00] » Okay. So, I'll make a motion that we recommend that the city council

[2:19:06] certified the ER. >> I'll second.

[2:19:10] » Well, and and just sorry to interject one more time. It is part of the same

[2:19:14] resolution. So just just like the same conversation you had with the general

[2:19:18] plan land use and circulation elements, you don't need a separate vote on it. Um

[2:19:23] but if there's consensus among the planning commission, you can move on to

[2:19:28] your deliberations on the specific plan and just I've written down we can all

[2:19:33] remember when you're making your motion. You don't need to change that aspect of

[2:19:37] the resolution because that's consistent with staff's recommendation. [laughter]

[2:19:41] you know, one one general one question I had uh some of the discussions we've had

[2:19:46] like about the dark sky ordinance. I think that very addresses a very

[2:19:50] specific concern that was raised by the public and I'm sure it'll be minuteed,

[2:19:55] but I think that would be that would be helpful. I think because that was it

[2:19:59] made me worried that we were missing something. But if the specific plan

[2:20:04] makes sure that it's at least as restrictive as described in the existing

[2:20:08] ordinance, I think we we can all be satisfied with that.

[2:20:13] » Yeah, I was pretty sure that I'd read language saying that it is subject to

[2:20:17] the dark side ordinance, but I appreciate the clarification. Um,

[2:20:24] okay.

[2:20:38] in the in the staff uh recommendations. There's

[2:20:44] also stuff in here about um land use designations and development

[2:20:50] standards for among other things uh a middle school. Um,

[2:20:56] is that something that this commission has any jurisdiction over or are we just

[2:21:00] talking about a designation without any actual

[2:21:05] inclusion in the plan of anything about a middle school?

[2:21:10] » That's a >> Are are you looking at the wording of

[2:21:13] » That was a 10:15 p.m. question. [laughter]

[2:21:16] Okay. >> Uh are you looking at the wording of

[2:21:19] adoption of the staff recommended specific plan which would include land

[2:21:23] use designations and standards etc. [snorts]

[2:21:26] » Um I I mean that's again part and parcel of what the specific plan is proposing

[2:21:32] right that's that's what is called out for in the specific plan. So, um,

[2:21:38] to the extent that commission, well, I'm not sure where you're going

[2:21:42] with it, so I won't try to, uh, comment on it if you

[2:21:45] » Yeah, but we can we can try and tease it apart.

[2:21:47] » Really nebulous question. Where I'm going with it is it somewhere in ask

[2:21:51] papers. We were told that we did not have any

[2:21:55] governance over the issue of a middle school directly, but that was going to

[2:21:59] be the school districts >> that Yeah. So, so that's so the specific

[2:22:04] plan as the director was just explaining as before you has land that would be

[2:22:10] able to be dedicated for middle school. Whether that is accepted and established

[2:22:17] is under the control of the school district. So the land use decision and

[2:22:23] the designation within the plan is within your purview. though planning for

[2:22:29] it is not the same as actually establishing it. That's a separate

[2:22:32] decision that the school that the school district will make.

[2:22:35] » We're just creating slots that they can fill up with the middle school if they

[2:22:37] choose to. >> Correct.

[2:22:38] » Okay.

[2:22:52] All right. Um, I think we have no choice but to move on

[2:22:56] to discussing the Bayand specific plan. Um, and maybe the best way to handle

[2:23:03] this massive issue is to go around the table and and elicit any comments about

[2:23:11] um things you want to change or things you

[2:23:14] want to recommend the council consider changing or or looking into further. Um,

[2:23:20] and then seeing if we can roll those up into a um

[2:23:25] into a an amended resolution >> through the chair, if I may. Um, your

[2:23:30] typical adjournment time is 10:30. If you wanted to entertain a motion to

[2:23:34] extend the meeting, this might be the time to do it before just putting that

[2:23:39] out there before you go around to everyone.

[2:23:43] » Thoughts? Thoughts?

[2:23:48] How how late can we extend it to?

[2:23:53] » Um I don't think there is a limitation in your procedures. Um I can verify

[2:23:58] that. Um we did start 20 minutes late tonight. So

[2:24:03] I would just put that out there for you to consider. Um yeah, we can look real

[2:24:08] quick, but I don't believe there's a actual limit. You probably could meet as

[2:24:12] late as you wanted to, but we'll confirm.

[2:24:16] Keep going. >> Keep going.

[2:24:21] » Do you think that uh is your goal to finish the deliberations tonight and

[2:24:26] vote? >> I I have no I'm not wedded to that. I'm

[2:24:30] just >> get as much done as the time allowed.

[2:24:34] » Um >> I'm just wondering if if we can uh like

[2:24:38] I I've liked your approach so far of taking discreet things and knocking them

[2:24:41] off. I wonder if we should um do this. Is there one more thing

[2:24:46] because uh no it's not a huge can of worms but it is it is a kind of worm you

[2:24:52] know there will be a lot of topics that we have to go in in depth on

[2:24:56] » yeah I think that the issue about amending title 17 to create designations

[2:25:00] and yada yada is is administrative ministerial about creating slots and

[2:25:06] labels and terminology. So, I I think that's

[2:25:10] going to slip in just fine once we approve or not approve of of the plan

[2:25:16] with or without recommendations. Um, so the short answer is I think we're we've

[2:25:22] exhausted the chunks we can bite off without tackling the the big one.

[2:25:28] » Um, if Yeah,

[2:25:31] » but I'm not sure. Um,

[2:25:38] not sure we can do do justice to this thing

[2:25:41] by this time of night. >> I wonder if I mean one one thing we

[2:25:45] might might do is going down the line and see what is like top of each of our

[2:25:51] minds and then you can decide if any of those are worth

[2:25:56] » potentially knocking off tonight, you know.

[2:25:58] » Yep. Okay. Um, so I guess the the the broad

[2:26:03] question is commissioner one, commissioner 2, three, four, what

[2:26:10] what issues do you have that you would if you were the only say that you would

[2:26:14] want to change, recommend looking at,

[2:26:20] modify? I guess for me broadly, it's sort of the

[2:26:25] long-term accountability for testing and sort of looking at uh the remediation

[2:26:29] and cleanup efforts. So maybe some more accountability around that based on some

[2:26:32] of today's discussions. I think that would be top of my list.

[2:26:36] » So, and maybe we just haven't gotten to that point yet, but what how would you

[2:26:40] formulate something to to say to the city council about that?

[2:26:44] » Yeah, something about maybe some of the details from some of these plans pulling

[2:26:48] into sort of the longerterm testing and the details of who's responsible for

[2:26:50] those sort of the formation of the the organization that would look after uh

[2:26:54] land remediation, sort of clean up longer term. Yeah, still sort of not

[2:26:59] sure how that would come together in a recommendation.

[2:27:02] » Okay. All right. We can we can tweak the words later, but so about remediation

[2:27:07] and also the long-term monitoring is >> Yeah. specifically around greenhouse

[2:27:11] gases as well. I think that comment around sort of monitoring those over

[2:27:14] time as well. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay.

[2:27:15] » But are those are those questions or recommendations we are part of

[2:27:19] recommendation are those like things about which we need more feedback

[2:27:23] because we've had a lot of feedback on those issues. And I wonder if there's

[2:27:26] something more we need to learn. >> Yeah. I don't know if there's any more

[2:27:30] feedback necessary. I think I'd like to have something in there that sort of

[2:27:32] just holds accountability there longer term. I'm not sure. Maybe I maybe I just

[2:27:35] don't have it quite right. But I feel like there's a little bit of that. Uh

[2:27:37] it's unclear to me still. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I understand what you're

[2:27:40] saying. I'm just trying to understand the like some of the uh what we heard

[2:27:44] tonight about the frequency of testing, the fact that there's going to be test

[2:27:47] at different times a year. If that's already documented somewhere, would that

[2:27:52] satisfy I want one thing to suggest as a vehicle

[2:28:00] for articulating that to to the council.

[2:28:05] Excuse me. And that is that um staff had had provided tonight a a

[2:28:10] document that was that described their intended um recommendations to revise

[2:28:16] section 9, which is where the hazardous stuff is. um and to add to add some

[2:28:22] language and to clarify some some um activities and responsibilities and

[2:28:28] timelines. And perhaps we could couch this to the council as saying that we

[2:28:35] you know we don't object or disapprove of of section 9,

[2:28:40] but we would recommend that they focus on whatever the staff has provided

[2:28:47] between now and the time it goes to the council. um implementing

[2:28:51] um their suggested um

[2:28:57] recommended revisions. Recommended revisions. Is this making sense with

[2:29:01] your language? Thank you. Okay. Um that's one way to do it. So anyway, so

[2:29:07] that's that's one issue we have. Got it. Remediation monitoring. Um anything else

[2:29:11] from from you, Darius? Well, I think I think related to that, um

[2:29:18] I think I think we should recommend something to the city council to have

[2:29:22] some kind of like the city be a clearing house for whatever testing that's being

[2:29:29] done, the reports that's um you know been prepared

[2:29:35] um whatever testing that's done quarterly, whatever that's being done

[2:29:39] annually. have the city

[2:29:45] automatically receive all of that so that the public can just go to one site

[2:29:50] in the city and know what's being done and maybe at the very least because

[2:29:55] because we also heard something about some some testing or or some review

[2:30:00] being done every five years. So I'm confused as to that. So at the at

[2:30:04] minimum I would want in perpetuity annual testing done of the

[2:30:12] baylands of the of the water of the soil. I just want to make sure that

[2:30:17] place is safe forever for whoever's living there for whoever's working there

[2:30:23] just to be for certain at minimum once a

[2:30:28] year. So, I would recommend some kind of language to recommend to the city

[2:30:33] council that that be done. >> I I think and I I totally agree with

[2:30:40] with your sentiment and and your goal. I think that's already in there, but I

[2:30:47] think staff's suggestion that they revise the language of section 9 to to

[2:30:52] make that clearer and and and more um you know categorically laid out would

[2:30:57] would be uh a really good thing. Um

[2:31:06] » I you know one of the uh what we heard along the way just to be a bit of a

[2:31:11] counterpoint is that there are um you know once something falls below a

[2:31:16] level of regulatory concern for a certain number of years

[2:31:21] there may not be much point in testing at the same frequency. And I just I'm

[2:31:25] kind of sympathetic to that point of view. If it's for 10 years in a row,

[2:31:28] it's just like undetectable, then maybe you can at least change the frequency.

[2:31:34] And I think I would rely on experts to to some extent to advise on the

[2:31:41] frequency of testing that's actually necessary.

[2:31:44] » What about if we had a period of rains or earthquakes that and the ground

[2:31:50] shifts and things like that happen? I mean, don't you want to, you know, you

[2:31:55] want regular testing to make sure that something is happening in your

[2:31:59] environment that's impacting the safety of the land?

[2:32:04] » Yes, I' I'd imagine that that would be reflected in like, hey, something popped

[2:32:09] up. Now, we're committed again for testing for 20 years. I just think the

[2:32:13] imperpetuity thing is like let's say you go through a bunch of earthquakes and um

[2:32:17] and floods and it turns out that the cap is completely robust through every

[2:32:22] single cataclysmic thing you've said. Are you going to keep testing in

[2:32:25] perpetuity? I think I would tend to be more differential to what the people who

[2:32:32] study these things recommend in situations like that.

[2:32:35] » Okay. And and for me, I would weigh what is the cost of the testing versus the

[2:32:42] potential harm. Even if it's the one in 1,000 chance, the harm is potentially

[2:32:48] death or serious illness, cancer, whatnot. And

[2:32:53] what is the cost? I haven't heard a number cited as to how much if we were

[2:32:58] to require at minimum a yearly test, how much that would be. And given the scale

[2:33:03] of this project and the costs, I I would think that yearly testing would be

[2:33:08] minuscule in comparison, but I don't want to risk even one child potentially

[2:33:13] getting cancer because on the off chance, you know, something went wrong

[2:33:17] and we didn't test every year.

[2:33:22] » I concede. It's fine. I'm happy with that.

[2:33:27] So, [clears throat] so I don't want to put words in in the

[2:33:32] mouths of staff, but is is it your intent uh was it your intent about this

[2:33:38] recommendation to revise certain things um in mostly the wording and verbiage of

[2:33:43] it to make it more clear? Does it will it address things like what Commissioner

[2:33:47] Saison was talking about about frequency of monitoring and testing? Yeah, that's

[2:33:51] the intent behind the clarifications is to really clearly outline again, not

[2:33:57] change but outline what you know the cadence of testing, inspections,

[2:34:05] etc. are as determined by the regulating agencies.

[2:34:10] um cuz clearly I think we've learned through these meetings that it is kind

[2:34:15] of confusing to keep track of you know when are those 5-year um inspections for

[2:34:21] example that EK was was talking about. So yeah that's the intent of clarifying

[2:34:25] that is to have it be presented in one place so that it's not just disperate

[2:34:31] information but again we're not recommending any changes to what the

[2:34:35] regulatory agencies require. >> No just make it clear. Yeah. Um, and and

[2:34:40] and by the way, this is probably a worthwhile point to interject that

[2:34:46] I don't think the city of Brisbane has the legal jurisdiction to alter the

[2:34:51] testing requirements of DTSC or the water board regarding hazardous

[2:34:55] remediation. Um,

[2:34:58] » I don't think we have the the jurisdiction

[2:35:01] in terms of the state agency, but there's nothing to prevent us to from

[2:35:05] supplementing what they're doing. I mean, is there

[2:35:13] I I will try to answer part of this. Well, actually, no, I won't. Um, I don't

[2:35:19] know, city attorney's office, if you want to contribute anything related to,

[2:35:23] for example, liability concerns and financial risk and also the city's kind

[2:35:28] of police power and authority to do certain things. Yeah, I mean that that's

[2:35:34] that's part of the the

[2:35:38] benefit to the city and relying on these other agencies is that that keeps the

[2:35:44] the city out of the loop for being,

[2:35:50] you know, responsible. Um it's these the property owners and the management

[2:35:57] agencies and the regulatory agencies that are responsible for monitoring,

[2:36:04] detecting, troubleshooting. We actually want to

[2:36:10] keep ourselves a little bit at at arms length from that process. Um to defer to

[2:36:16] their expertise and their um regulatory jurisdiction

[2:36:23] al just to um yeah to to keep the city a little bit at at distance from that

[2:36:29] decision. >> So Eric, can I follow up with you on on

[2:36:32] that? Um so there was discussions about um a management association the SS EMA

[2:36:40] or an HOA um having oversight over over the

[2:36:45] monitoring and testing. So could though uh we recommend to the city council that

[2:36:50] they make that as a requirement that whatever entity

[2:36:55] is going to do that do that at least once a year

[2:37:06] » to do I'm sorry do what? to to do annual testing of the water, of the soil, just

[2:37:12] make sure everything is safe. Just yearly

[2:37:15] » every year. >> I mean, I'm not sure what the actual

[2:37:20] cadence >> Yeah. is

[2:37:21] » if if you would allow I would like to, if possible, ask Michelle to clarify the

[2:37:26] cadence of testing um to because again, I think we're

[2:37:31] conflating like inspections, testing. Um,

[2:37:35] » yeah, I mean, yeah, the the the plans lay out the monitoring that's required,

[2:37:41] but monitoring doesn't always mean collecting samples.

[2:37:46] So, a lot of the monitoring of the cap is making sure the cap is intact and in

[2:37:51] place. It's not like you're collecting soil samples, just to make sure that's

[2:37:55] clear. But it is the regulator the environmental regulatory agencies DTSC

[2:37:59] and waterboard that are approving the frequency of these monitoring the

[2:38:04] monitoring. So, let me ask a broader question and

[2:38:08] I'm sorry to spring this on you because it's kind of a

[2:38:13] might be a research item, but the the agencies DTSC and Waterboard just

[2:38:18] agencies for short, they I take it have the statutory power to impose

[2:38:27] um monitoring, testing and reporting requirements on developers.

[2:38:33] » Absolutely. Does their statutory jurisdiction

[2:38:37] preempt municipalities from imposing stricter

[2:38:42] requirements than those created by the agencies?

[2:38:48] » I don't think there's anything that I'm aware of. I'm not an attorney, but I'll

[2:38:53] defer to the city attorney. >> Yeah. And and we haven't

[2:38:59] this isn't something that we've specifically researched yet, so I I

[2:39:02] don't know. Um

[2:39:09] Okay. Um, so yeah, the the the question of whether you are fully preempted is

[2:39:15] not one that we've researched. Um, that hasn't been an

[2:39:20] issue that that we've looked at here. But I guess I'd also question what

[2:39:26] um actual basis the city has for

[2:39:33] um additional testing if all of the established jurisdictional regulatory

[2:39:38] thresholds have already been met. Um for examp like what what then basis is the

[2:39:45] city does the city have to impose a a higher standard? Um, and that that

[2:39:53] doesn't that question doesn't seem like it's been answered.

[2:39:57] » I'm not going to opine because it's not in my pay grade. Um, but

[2:40:04] I can't help having the background that I have and and I think the answer is I

[2:40:09] suspect the answer is we are preempted and we're arguing about something we

[2:40:12] have no power to do anything about. But if we're wrong, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[2:40:18] » Through the chair, it is 10:31. Did you want to vote to extend the meeting?

[2:40:23] And if so, to what time? >> Yeah, I don't think we're gonna get done

[2:40:28] today, so might as well just so I I can see defeat.

[2:40:35] » I mean, again, you do not have to stop. You could vote to extend the meeting,

[2:40:38] but if you don't, >> no one is leaving.

[2:40:41] [laughter] >> I I think the reality is that each and

[2:40:45] every one of us is going to have some issues. Obviously, toxicity is the elf

[2:40:51] in the room, but I've got a list of about five more here

[2:40:57] that discuss at some point, and we're not going to get to tonight. Um,

[2:41:03] six more. Um, and we've we've established, I think,

[2:41:09] that we have no no open dates until the date of our next scheduled hearing,

[2:41:15] correct? Or meeting? Uh we did pull the commission to see if there were any

[2:41:20] availability prior to August 13th and >> there was not.

[2:41:25] » I think we were all pretty interested in in this being a vote of all five of us

[2:41:29] rather than >> um some lower quorum or lower amount

[2:41:34] that is a quorum. Um okay. Shall we move on move on the agenda to other

[2:41:42] items and then adjourn till the 13th? Um, and through the chair, sorry, before

[2:41:47] you move, I could suggest, would we want, if you're continuing to the 13th,

[2:41:51] consider a special start time, an earlier start time just for your

[2:41:56] consideration. >> I would be in favor of that.

[2:41:59] » Yeah, agreed. Thank you for that suggestion. Um and and what I would also

[2:42:02] um before we move on to the rest of the agenda, which won't take long, if I

[2:42:07] could encourage everyone to make a make a list of, you know, focus down on

[2:42:11] whatever you whatever you if you were in charge would change about this specific

[2:42:15] plan or recommend, excuse me, whatever you recommend the city council consider

[2:42:19] changing. Um so we can get right down to everybody's issues. One, two, three,

[2:42:23] four, five. >> Make sense?

[2:42:25] » Uh yes. Can I ask one more clarifying question? You're asking about changes

[2:42:31] that we might recommend. Are there any like supplements that you could

[2:42:35] recommend like for example um more detail about certain things?

[2:42:41] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Is that is that considered a change or

[2:42:43] is that an amendment or a supplement or something like that? You know,

[2:42:47] » anything you want. >> Okay. All right.

[2:42:54] um through the chair if commissioners could individually they could provide

[2:42:59] that information to staff as well. Obviously compliance to the brand act

[2:43:03] not with your fellow commissioners but that is something you can share

[2:43:06] individually with staff. >> A good idea that's all shoot notes to to

[2:43:10] staff that way they're ready for or blind side questions like I just

[2:43:16] asked. Um, okay. Moving on the agenda, if I can

[2:43:21] find it.

[2:43:29] » We have any items initiated by staff? >> Not this evening.

[2:43:34] » Please don't. Any items initiated by the commission?

[2:43:38] No. In that case, we are adjourned until our next regular meeting of

[2:43:43] » Apologies. Did you want to adjust the time before you make your motion?

[2:43:47] » Uh, I have a motion to uh start it at 6:30 on the 13th.

[2:43:51] » I'll make a motion to start at 6:30 on the 13th.

[2:43:54] » Second. >> All in favor?

[2:43:56] » I. >> All in favor?

[2:43:59] » Thank you. We are adjourned until August the 13th at 6:30 p.m. Thank you

[2:44:07] all for your patience.

[2:44:13] All right.

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript