Good evening. The July 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Brisbane Planning
Commission will now come to order. May we have a roll call, please?
» Yes. Commissioner Funka >> here.
» Commissioner Laauo, >> present.
» Commissioner Saison, >> here.
» Commissioner Watziaak >> here.
» And Chair Gooding >> here.
Thank you. Uh, may I have a motion to adopt the agenda, please?
» I'll make a motion. >> I'll second that.
» All in favor? >> I. Motion passes with five eyes.
» Uh is are is there any commissioner who would like to remove any item from the
consent calendar?
» Hearing none. [clears throat]
Right. The consent calendar, as I understand it, includes uh adoption of
the uh meeting minutes for the last three meetings of the commission. Um,
and we have a motion to adopt the consent calendar.
» I so move. I'll second. >> All in favor?
» I >> I.
» Motion passes with five eyes.
» Um, we have time now for any oral
communications from anyone who wishes to speak to the commission on items not on
tonight's agenda. Repeat, not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone who
would like to address the commission uh in that manner either in the room or
online?
Seeing none in the room and none online, we'll move on. Thank
you.
Uh moving on to written communications. We will acknowledge that we have
received written communications from um at least the following. uh Anthony
Walker regarding um greenhouse gases. Uh the Beayshore Sanitary District
regarding um um compliance and agreement between uh our our proposed plan and
their uh protocols. Um from Kim Folian uh generally in support of the specific
plan. um from Clara Johnson regarding uh
numerous items in the EI uh from BDI in response to questions um
from the last meeting and from Chris Florowski regarding the Geneva extension
and I are there any other written communications that we've received since
then?
» Uh he acknowledges Claire Johnson. None none additional. Thank you very much.
» All right, going on to new business.
We will be hearing tonight's item D. There's a continued public hearing
regarding the Baylands sub area environmental review 2021-ER1
specific plan 2021- SP1 zoning amendment 2021-RZ-3
general plan amendment 2021- GPA-2
and does that include the mobility plan? Yes.
» Yes. Thank you. I thought it did. Thank you.
» Okay. >> So, first up, uh, do we have any staff
presentations for this? >> Yes. Thank you. Good evening, chair and
commission. So, at last Thank you. Okay. At uh the last meeting
on June 30th, staff brought some information to the commission per the
commission's request um on five topics. So, those are summarized in the report.
I won't revisit them here. Um, tonight we will also address additional topics
brought up by the commission um at that meeting. We'll also go over
some proposed modification staff recommended modifications to the
specific plan um to clarify average minimum densities uh provisions related
to hospitality uses and building types and clarifying state regulated
remediation and the monitoring process relative to city issued uh permits and
development procedures. and we'll also revisit staff's recommendation on the
commission's actions related to this project. Um, I want to acknowledge the
city team here tonight. So, in addition to myself, we have Jeremiah Robbins,
senior planner, um, the city's new city engineer and deputy public works
director, Roland Dip, who's been here for about a month. Um, Eric Phillips,
special counsel with the city attorney's office. On the consultant team, we have
a mix of inerson and virtual attendees from um ESA, environmental science
associates, including Terry Ovula, um as well as team members specializing in air
quality, energy, GHG, noise, cultural resources, hazards, and water. Um ESA
team members specializing in land use and planning and subconultants fair and
peers regarding transportation and site lab regarding urban design. And finally,
we're also joined by um our consultants with EKI. So, we have Michelle King here
in person from EKI and I believe John Montgomery Brown online. Um, and again,
they're the city's consultant team reviewing the Baylands remediation
planning documents for us.
» Okay, I'm going to hand it now over to Jeremiah.
» Thank you. Staff included four attachments to tonight's report to
respond to topics raised by the commission on June 30th which included
clarifying information on the topics on the screen here. Staff uh has summarized
them here. Uh the first one is uh on the base mobility plan. There was request
for expanded discussion of how the BMP integrates with regional transportation
plans and the feasibility of constructing right ofway improvements
proposed within the BMP without implementing a road diet. Regional and
state transportation plans recognize Beayshore Boulevard as an important
corridor, but none of them require it to stay four-lane a four-lane regional
route. Instead, they emphasize safety, multimodal access, and operational
improvements. This ultimately provides the city with flexibility in how it uh
redesigns the corridor. As for rightaway improvements, the feasibility of
implementing a continuous class one bike path while maintaining the existing
four-lane roadway configuration varies throughout the corridor, potentially
requiring reducing the width of the bike path. Uh additional right ofway
acquisition, retaining walls, utility relocation andor removal of other
transportation featur features uh meaning additional engineering
evaluation would be necessary. The second one was uh to provide examples of
development projects in California with required or voluntary net zero
greenhouse gas emissions. The projects included on that table in the attachment
to SAS report are either required by local or regional regulations or
voluntarily pursued for streamlining project approvals and judicial review of
SQL lawsuits. Neither of these scenarios apply to the bail specific plan. The
third one was to get more information on the remediation requirements of the
Schlage lock site in San Francisco and whether it impacts development and
remediation of the Brisbane Baylands. So development in the bridgebane baylands
will be required to prevent exposure to chlorinated volatile organic compounds
CVOCC's by either demonstrating through a sight specific risk assessment that no
significant risk is present or by blocking or minimizing the vapor
intrusion pathway from those CVOCC's in soil vapor that originate from the
Schlage operating unit. That's the one in San Francisco groundwater plume.
These requirements are included in the approved remedial action plan and
accompanying human health risk assessment prepared for the operable
unit SM. That's the one in Brisbane on the northern portion of the Bayland
site. And then the last one here is to get some more information on the role of
sight specific environmental management associations SSAs
um and how they might be used for large contamin contaminated sites. So um the
both the DTSC and the waterboard will utilize SSMAs to manage sitewise
contamination and regulatory compliance on sites that will be subdivided in the
future. A local example is SPEMA. That's the Southern Pacific Environmental
Management Association. Uh, and it's a mandatory association of property owners
created in 1999 by order of the water board to handle the joint environmental
affairs of all current and future land owners on the former zero point landfill
for both cleanup and ongoing abatement actions.
» All right, thanks Jeremiah. Oops. Okay. Um, we also provided
information in the staff report on recommended clarifications to the
specific plan. Um, and this is building on topics we've already introduced uh at
prior hearings. Um, but at this point, staff is making a recommendation on
them. So for chapter 3, um we are recommending that the plan be clarified
regarding how minimum density and intensities are averaged throughout the
specific plan area, including within the uh station area around the Cal Train
station. Um, we're also suggesting some changes
to uh modify how hospitality uses are permitted in the plan. Um, to
essentially permit them in both highdensity commercial and mid-density
commercial designations um and to allow those building types to
similarly be permitted in uh mid-density districts.
Um we
we're also recommending some clarifications to chapter 9 of the plan
which addresses implementation. So, these changes are really geared toward
clarifying and spelling out in a little more detail how the remediation process,
which is um overseen by state regulatory agencies, um interacts with or relates
to city control processes like uh permits and um other development review
procedures. Um we did have some detailed information in the attachment. We won't
go over it tonight, but we're available to answer questions on it. Um, but
again, it's just to emphasize um existing processes and procedures, how
they relate to each other when it comes to the state, the city, property owner
uh obligations. [snorts]
Okay. Okay. So, just revisiting for everyone's benefit tonight um staff's
recommendation to the commission is that the commission recommends certification
of the final EIR for the specific plan um and approval of the project
entitlements including general plan land use and circulation element um
amendments and um adoption of the specific plan
itself as recommended by staff with additional clarifications that we've
presented uh tonight. um as well as amendments to title 17 of the municipal
code to implement the specific plan and zoning uh in the zoning ordinance.
Um and finally also to approve the bayore mobility plan um which calls for
enhancing mobility along beayshore and compliance with uh circulation element
policies in the general plan.
So this is we'll keep our presentation short tonight um and leave lots of room
for questions. Um procedurally tonight after questions of
staff and consultants um the commission should accept additional public comment
including from the um applicant team ask clarifying questions related to
testimony provided and then afterwards the commission can close the public
hearing uh and commence deliberations. And that is it for our presentation.
We're happy to answer questions.
Thank you. Are there any presentations from the consultants or should we just
ask them questions as Yeah, you can ask questions.
» Thank you. >> Um I have a few but I'll I'll wait my
turn till the end. Um Darius, any questions?
Commissioner Saison? >> Um yes, I have questions concerning
» through the chair. Is your mic on? >> Sorry. Thank you.
» Yes, I have questions concerning what uh was submitted. Um following our last
meeting um let me see um the first concerns um
um I had asked about um whether the city should have independent testing done and
you submitted I thought was was a good response as to what the plan is that um
that the owners would put a fund together and that they would um see to
it that uh you know the um the the area is monitored for any issues and that any
maintenance be done. So my my question with that is um so so the owners are
responsible for that. I guess there's a a an association that manages it. How
are those people selected and and um who are those individuals like like what
what what are their qualifications?
» Does anybody >> for environmental management
associations so for example how the actual management is is determined? Um I
don't know if we
» Okay. Um yeah, the the applicant the applicant may be able to address that
question. Um if you feel
» Yeah. If the applicant has an answer, they're welcome to provide it.
Good evening, commissioners and commissioner Cesana. Yeah, the way that
um the Sarah Point Environmental Management Association works is it is
comprised of all of the land owners out there. So they make up the association.
So everybody who and it's and they pay quarterly dues
to the association which has a trustee which hires an environmental management
consultant. the case of Sierra Point, it's Jacobs Engineering who does all of
their monitoring, quarterly reports, reports that are sent to the waterboard
and the county department of health and that is all in a recorded um association
that it takes is in perpetuity. So once a land owner is in the association, even
when they sell the if they sell the property, the next owner is now in the
um is required to be part of the association and pay the dues, but it is
managed by an environmental consulting firm and
» Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. And they also have to carry uh
environmental insurance. >> I see. So in case of any emergencies
» and and they submit a report to the water board and then the water board
examines it. So the water board doesn't do any of their own testing. Correct.
» Uh no the testing is done by the groundwater testing out at Sarah Point
um is done by the consultant Jacobson Engineering on a quarterly basis and on
behalf of the association and those reports are sent to the waterboard. the
water board reviews them if there's questions and you know they come back
and ask for more information if there's issues with the but it's it's um
uh the county department of health also has
oversight over all former uh both current landfills and former landfills.
So the county does do a quarterly inspection of zero point as well as the
bayands landfill right now >> and for that matter all the landfills
both active and closed in the and that ring the bay.
» Okay. So let's say after you are done with your entire project. Yes.
» So my my question is um at how how regularly will testing be done after
everything is completed? Um well at the landfill
in um I'm not sure on the railard side but there will be for groundwater
quarterly testing and then a regular inspection of the landfill cap um that
is done actually that is usually done by the
regulators that inspection but it's a quarterly quarterly groundwater
monitoring um
» that's in in perpetuity. >> Uh in perpetuity, that's the way it's
written or until you know there's I mean the cap will be in perpetuity. Okay.
» But the groundwater monitoring if there's nothing if there's if it's not
showing any any you know concerns in the groundwater those could be um you know
uh either either not monitored anymore or monitored less frequently. So in fact
at the Schllay lock site in San Francisco we did we were doing quarterly
monitoring and now because the levels are so low we are into am I not
misspeaking we are into semiannual on the on the lock side. Yeah. So in
terms of this fund that's being set up by the owners how regularly will that
you know monitoring be done from that fund?
» Yeah that's quarter that's the quarterly monitoring I'm referring to. Yes.
» Okay. Yes. Wow. Okay. Great. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it's worked very well
out at Sar Point >> efficiently. Yeah.
» Just to stay on topic and um I bring you up here two or three times. A couple
questions. These may be for you or might be for staff or maybe for legal, I'm not
sure. Um but my question is this this envisioned uh S SA
to add to my acronym list. Um, how is that mandated and where is it in the
documents? Is it embedded in in covenants that run with the land? Is it
um is it going to be statutory? What what mandates it and what teeth are
behind it?
Anybody? >> Um Michelle with EKI. Do are you able to
answer that? >> I can try to take a stab at it. Um
Michelle King with EKI, the city's environmental um consultant that's been
doing peer review. Um >> louder and closer to the
» I will go closer to the mic. Thank you. So typically the regulatory agencies
whether it's the DTSC or the water board will require some type of financial
assurance mechanism as part of the remedy and that financial assurance
mechanism can pass from owner to owner as parcels are sold. But in terms of
where such a management organization comes in, it will be linked in some ways
to this idea of financial assurance. So once the property is developed that
whether it is an SS EMA or even if you had individual let's say homeowners
associations or other entities that are doing it, it would come through the
financial assurance mechanism because that's a big thing that the agencies
when there is long-term management of waste, if you will, that's left in place
that they want to make sure that there's money available to do it and a and a
viable entity and not left to like individual homes. homeowners and things
like that. >> And thank you. That that that starts to
answer it. Let me let me add on to the questions. I'm trying to address what I
perceive are are concerns in the community of what happens if people stop
reporting, annual reports stop being done, testing just slips by the wayside.
What entity has what power to enforce this with with remedies? And and
» that would be the environmental regulatory agency, whether it's the DTSC
or the water board. And just in terms of the wa the DTSC
and I think there was a question about who does inspections. The DTSC actually
does do annual more like driveby inspections like once some a site's been
developed. They want to make sure is the land use the same? Do I see the building
there that was built there? It's not like it's a thorough, oh, let me look
and see if there's cracks in the pavement, but they're at least looking
to make sure that the remedyy's intact and somehow big changes haven't been
made. So, DTSC does do that type of driveby as well.
» And to add a little bit more on onto that too, some of the the remedies would
um change depending on where in the development process we are. So, for
example, if there were a lack of testing or failure to complete to a certain
level um before building permits were issued, the city would have the ability
to withhold building permits. So there's um
mechanisms built in throughout the remediation process to ensure that the
standards that have been established by the appropriate regulatory um agencies
are being met before the the project continues through to the next phase.
Thank you. So I I sort of get that during building process there's all
kinds of of hammers that we would have to make sure it's done before you can
build. I guess the the I think as I read it the community concern is for the long
long haul. >> Yep.
» And I I'm hearing the answer that is the two regulatory agencies that have joint
or overlapping juris or conjunct jurisdiction over these two pieces of
the site. >> Yeah. And and I'm sure that um the
applicant will elaborate on this, but yeah. and and that's if there were to be
an incident that happened down the line during operations. In part, that's what
the environmental insurance is there to help um provide for funds and resources
to do additional remediation or take steps that might be necessary to respond
should there be an unanticipated incident. That's that's part of the
protection mechanism that's built in. But um I'm sure BDI might want to
elaborate on that. >> Yes. The sites will also be um deed
restricted through something called an land use covenant an LU and that does
run with the property. Um so the next owner is now that is they're they are
bound by the agency orders and by the land use covenant deed restrictions
recorded deed restrictions um as well as the financial mechanisms that Michelle
discussed. So there's many many many many
belts and suspenders that keep the owners on the hook for regular
environmental inspections, reviews and financial instruments in the case you
know of an earthquake and you know something needs to be repaired.
So if is that where the funding um mandates are is in the covenants
» um >> funding for the association to
» they often are but they're also written into uh the water board and DTSC's rules
and regulations. Yeah. >> Okay. All right.
» And they are often show up in the LUC's as well.
» Thank you your question a lot. >> Oh no no no.
I guess I'm I'm not 100% clear, so bear with me in asking this again. But so my
so my concern is once you're done and it could be years, decades from now. My
concern is a child is playing outside on the dirt, on the grass and whatever and
something could have happened, something leaked and uh you know now you know that
child is playing on perhaps contaminated soil. So my question is how regularly?
So I'm I'm I'm hearing quarterly, I'm hearing annually.
» No, quarterly. Yeah. No, quarterly inspections are done by and and that are
paid for by these associations by the and they're done on a quarterly basis
that inspect the caps inspect that make sure that everything is you know in
place. The groundwater is the one I was talking about that is current quarterly
can go to semiannually and can be discontinued if there's no longer any
groundwater. The thing you're talking that I'm sorry, the issue you're
referring to is is the cap in place and is people being protected and that is
inspected on a quarterly basis by the environmental consultant that is hired
by the association whether it be an an HOA um or a um a association like SEMA,
the Sierra Point Environmental Management Association, which is made up
of all of the property owners out and allowed on Sierra point
» and then whenever there's testing done that report is given to a state agency
» uh >> yeah it's yeah I'm sorry it's it's it's
yeah it is all part of the regulatory process okay um and those reports are
given to you know the water board andor the DTSC and the county and um
I believe those can even be made available to the city as well. Yeah,
that's that was my next question. So, could something like that automatically
be given to the city? >> Yes, of course.
» Okay. Um I'm not sure if I >> Do we need to put that in? Um
[clears throat] >> well, I just I I have a question for
Michelle B. Would would those reports also be available on the website um that
DTSC and the waterboards maintain? >> Yeah. Yeah. So um there's the geot
tracker website which is the waterboard's website that typically you
know often the responsible party is the one who uploads those reports DTSC
controls and virus store. So yeah typically they're uploaded and available
to the public. Yeah. >> Um the other report I want to bring up
just so everyone's aware that happens as well is 5-year reviews. So there's not
only are these routine inspections happening but um mandated again in the
regulations by the state are that every 5 years a more thorough assessment is
done to look at the overall protectiveness of the remedy. So if
there's been any changes in let's say the toxicity of some chemical there's
some new concern that every 5 years this this protectiveness evaluation that's
performed. Yep. >> Okay. So,
» and again, those are performed by the environmental consultant that is hired
and paid for by the association and um those are available on the DTSDs or the
waterboard's website, but those also could be made available directly to the
city. >> And I guess my followup is probably to
staff. Could do we need to make a specific request that any report of that
nature that is generated be automatically sent and upload into the
city's website so that if anybody wants to know what's going on that they would
have those reports available? >> Yeah, there there's two ways that that
could be handled. Um, in attachment seven in the packet, there were some
suggested um, additions to section 9 on implementation that were more focused on
the city's approval processes and the steps during that. But you could direct
staff to make another addition there to have a requirement to just have the city
receive a copy of each one of these other reports. The other place that that
could live is in the development agreement where that will be coming back
to you in a few more weeks. Um, and there that could be a contractual
obligation to provide courtesy copies of each ones of these reports that the city
then publishes on its website and makes more easily accessible for members of
the public so they don't have to use those the geo tracker and the different
state resources to find to find them. So, um, either either of those places
are ways that you could capture that. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Uh, I guess I'm a little confused now. So, in this case, SPEA is an example of
a a unit like this. Is there one that will be set up for sure? Is it sort of
at the end of the project, we'll see sort of how it breaks down or what's the
sort of um the HOAs and SSMAs and all the different possibilities there?
We don't have we're not that far down the road yet. But yeah, I mean what we
have disc the city and amongst our development team is that yeah we would
to take the association approach for the long-term management of the
environmental concerns. Yeah.
as well.
» Yeah, >> no questions right now.
» Oh, actually I did remember something. Um
uh at the last meeting um the Sierra Club and other environmental groups had
had brought up uh wanting a conservation easements put in the specific plan and
um I didn't see in your response if you had a position on that if if we were to
recommend that if you know would that be an issue at all you know for for the
developer.
Yes. Again, I think what we discussed is there are a sizable portions of our open
space and park um land like Visitation Creek which has a wetlands res
restoration. Those are in perpetuity. So there would be no need for a
conservation easement. Uh I think the rest of it is it's a lot of park. So
we'd want to very carefully discuss yeah wouldn't close the door on it but I
think we we need to have more discussion about yeah how that would actually work.
» One more >> one more before you go. Um I also
brought up um San Bruno Mountain Watch had requested that their mission blue
nursery stay where they're at and be part of the uh community fields that you
plan to um develop there. Um
So, it do you have a position on that? Um,
» we don't have a position on it at this time. Um, I mean, we're,
as you all may know, um, Mission Blue Nursery has been a rent-free tenant of
ours for over 20 years, I believe, and um, they're very much a part of our
fabric. Um, and we we had incorporated them on another site to accommodate the
community fields. um they have sent us sort of a conceptual sketch. We have we
have yet to send that to our landscape architect um to make sure that that
actually fits uh because it does what they have is a taken out kind of a chunk
of the field and a chunk of the picnic area that had been planned for them and
and um I think the answer is we want to work with Miss Blue Nursery. We're big
fans of theirs and yeah, so we'll we're happy to work with them, but we just
have not done the analysis yet on the >> and and have done the community outreach
with the soccer proponents in town to make sure that
that they were that it works together. >> Thank you.
» But we will.
» Okay. I do have a few questions also. Um going to drag us back to your attachment
three, the mobility plan. Um, we had a response from um,
the firm that was doing the traffic study. I've forgotten the name. I
apologize. Um, do we have the ability plan folks here tonight?
» Yes. Matt Glenn is here from Fair Pier. >> And thank you very much. What what they
what you provided, as I understand it, was a template, if you will, for how
this commission could, if it were inclined, include in its recommendations
or or suggestions to council that we um omit the
road diet portion of the plan. and you provided a template for what remaining
pieces were part of the general bailands circulation plan that would be important
to leave in there to accommodate those street issues. So, did I get that
right very generally? >> Thank you, chair. Yes, that's correct.
» Okay. My question is, and I I think Jeremiah began to address it. I'm not
sure I understood it. Is there I know folks in town generally would
have a a would love to have a real sidewalk on beayhore
for areas south of and outside of the the boundaries of this project um for
pedestrians for kids going to and from school for the the RV park to um
residents to access the rest of town and and so forth. I is there a way
I'm not sure how [clears throat] to use the right language here for traffic
engineering. Is there a way to to create a sidewalk, you know, a decent one that
matches up with, you know, what you guys usually do for bikes and pedestrians and
so forth, um, without reducing the lanes from four to two in areas south of the
project. >> Yeah. So there the right of way on
beayshore is variable and so it's anything from just under 80 ft to over
100 100 plus feet. And so for a lot of those kind of wider segments or in
between intersections you could pretty easily fit uh a class one path or a
sidewalk on there. Um there are some constrained locations I think uh at the
Brisbane Technology Park driveways for example where there are um what we call
deceleration lanes and additional lanes so so cars can decelerate from 45 mph to
turn in and then the kind of accelerate out as well. Um there's just that uh
constrains the rightway. So the the answer is that it what Jeremiah said it
would require a little bit more engineering studies to determine kind of
how to approach those constrained locations and what sort of features you
know are you sacrificing kind of pathway or sidewalk with or are you sacrificing
other other components um that would have to be completed.
» So so thank you for the answer. Um that that's that's clearer. Um, so would it
be it would be feasible, I take it, for this commission to to recommend to the
city council, um, hypothetically, to to retain the
four-lane structure, but to pursue engineering feasibilities
for a class one sidewalk area on the west side of Beayore.
» That is correct. >> Okay. Thank Thank you very much.
» I actually had a question. And I I was going to reserve this for our
deliberation time, but it's on topic here. Um for the road diet, I think one
of the concerns that has been expressed is the fact that it um you know,
beayhore is one of the few like there's not many ways to get up and down
say in case of emergencies. So let's say you did do the road diet.
Would it be reversible in a in an emergency? Like are the medians going to
be like could you just open it up in case they're
Is that is that a consideration or would it be just inoperable that way?
» Yes. Um and that's critical part of any um you know road diet facility these
these days where particularly for something similar to beayshore what you
can use is um emergency vehicle preeemption and your emergency service
providers will have control over kind the how the traffic signals work at
either end and you can go out and use them. for example, to say like let's say
you needed to have two outbound lanes on on Beayshore. Um you can close uh you
know the intersection. This would only be in that you know very rare
circumstance um where you need to get people out of uh Brisbane for whatever
reason and you could have two outbound lanes and then repurpose the multi-use
path which is going to be wide enough for emergency vehicle service providers
to come inbound. And so that's kind of the under the philosophy of of making
sure that there's flexibility for providing everyday safety for the 99.9%
of the time when you know traffic and people are moving normally and and
giving emergency service providers the the keys to being able to as a part of
their planning efforts you know reverse traffic directions or do things um that
would allow them to continue to serve the community as they need Yeah.
» Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh my next uh set of questions is
about the um greenhouse gas issue and uh you folks attached to the agenda um a
helpful um listing of exemplar projects um with net zero greenhouse gas
emissions. And I noted that that most of them had as part of the the proposal in
the process um regular I think annual reporting of um
analyses of greenhouse gas emissions as the projects move on and become built
and inhabited and used and occupied. Um and not sure this might be a staff
question. I'm not really sure. Whoever wants it can have it. Um, is does our
specific plan provide having taken out one of the greenhouse
gas criteria or or measures metrics, does it still does it still provide for
regular tracking of greenhouse gas emissions?
» Um, ESA team, do you want to I don't know if you have Brian or Brian.
» Sure, I can respond to that. >> Thank you.
Yeah. Hi, I'm Brian Cher with ESA. Uh, I led the greenhouse gas energy and air
quality analysis in the EIR. The removal of impact GHG1
also removed any mandate to achieve a specific greenhouse
gas target for the project and any tracking that goes along with that. The
specific plan also does not have any requirements to track greenhouse gas
emissions. So these projects in the table all have either
uh um opted into legislative uh streamlining benefits through bills
like AB900 now SB7 environmental leadership projects that among other
things to gain the judicial streamlining benefits of those of those bills had to
achieve net zero GHD emissions and those document ERS used net zero as a
greenhouse gas threshold. In addition to that legislative
requirement and in order to achieve that um the threshold of GHG zero GHG they
had mitigation measures um to buy offsets and track emissions over time.
So the the hook there was a combination of the sequent threshold requiring
mitigation and the legislative requirement which the California Air
Resources Board manages and and tracks. Um because the bay lands no longer has
that net zero threshold through GHG1 which was removed in the final ER. There
is not a SQA requirement to achieve or track the project's greenhouse gas
emissions. That does not mean that you couldn't track emissions as part of the
specific plan or as part of um city policy matter or development agreement.
and um I can you know if the city wants to speak to that they're welcome to or
if you have any follow-up questions I'm happy to respond to those as well.
» Uh I had just one followup question to that I think in some of the
correspondents we received or one of the responses was
» uh I think it basically said it's it's like technically you can't really
measure greenhouse gases directly. So is it like an indirect measure like the
kind of vehicles that are being used, number of trips, that kind of thing?
» Yeah, absolutely. It's like you similar to how you well how we estimated
greenhouse gas emissions for the project before it's being built. Although
measurement in the future measurement in quotes would be more accurate because
you would actually be tracking activity. What you're tracking is you're you're
you're measuring activity which produces greenhouse gas emissions. So similar to
the way you do your greenhouse gas inventory for the city, you're tracking
energy use. You're tracking VMT vehicle miles traveled. You're tracking water,
wastewater generation, landfilling, all of the all of the actual activities that
produce either direct or indirect emissions from power plants or landfills
or vehicle tail pipes. You're not actually putting a tracker on people's
cars. You're not asking them to submit their, you know, uh, uh, gas bills, but
you're estimating the amount of greenhouse gases coming from vehicles
based on, you know, district-wide, projectwide, um, activity metrics. And
as the project builds out and you have, you know, actual estimated energy use
and you can you can more accurately predict uh VMT based on the number of
land uses and the number of occupants and the square footage of commercial
development and the number of employees commuting and commute surveys and all of
that. Um you can reasonably accurately predict um greenhouse gas emissions.
» Okay. Brian, you you had spoken a little bit about you the modification to GHG1,
the removal of some of the tracking. Um, but I think it also would be helpful to
highlight then the things that the uh both the EIR and the specific plan still
affirmatively do require in um with regard to both energy efficiency and GHG
reduction measures. Um because I don't want um the response to leave uh people
confused as to that oh we're we're not doing anything to address uh project
energy use or emissions. I I know there's a very robust program, so maybe
you could speak a little bit about that as well.
» Yeah, the the the only thing that was removed really was the net zero
requirement and the offsets measure, the measure to buy carbon offsets or
combination of funding local programs that generate registry offsets and
buying offsets from the carbon market to achieve net zero. Everything else is
still required. So the the four other greenhouse gas mitigation measures,
things like uh the uh renewable fuel shuttles and the renewable fuels for the
wastewater water reclamation facility and low global warming potential
refrigerants. Those are all part of the specific plan. So they migrated from
being sequent mitigation measures into basically design standards in the
specific plan requirements. The project also retains all of its solar, the solar
field, all the building battery, which uh the specific plant allows up to 500
megawatts of battery including the 250 megawatt utility scale solar. um the
lead lead gold standards in Greenpoint rated design for residential and
non-residential uh the you know the TDM program which
reduces VMT regionally um by a substantial margin and all of the other
project design features that reduce project emissions those are all still in
place >> and I think as as a result the EI
concludes that we would see a a regional reduction in GHG emissions is that still
correct >> yeah so it's you know The traditional
SQUA lens is what's happening at the site now. You know, draw a boundary
around the site and then what would the project put there and what are the
emissions coming from that project within that geographic boundary compared
to what's there now. It's, you know, existing conditions versus project. Uh
the the E does, you know, evaluate the project in isolation using the Bay Area
Air District's greenhouse gas thresholds, which is standard SQA
practice. So that's already still there that analysis, but it also looks at the
regional effect of the project. So basically, what would the Bay Area
region look like without the Baylands and what would it look like with the
Baylands with all the Bayands development uh located within this the
city and all of the benefits of jobs, you know, uh transit oriented
development and infill housing and the TDM program and the renewable energy
program and the all electric development and 100% renewable electricity for all
electricity used on site combination of on-site and and grid supplied renewable
electricity. what would the regional picture look like with the project built
here and the conclusion in the EIR was that the project would reduce regional
emissions through that lens. So it is a beneficial project from this like the
len the scope of looking at development patterns within the region at large.
Thank you. Um staying on the the general field of of energy and pollutants and
energy and pollutants. Um [clears throat] I know the one of the
the major features of this project that has been described by BDI as a an intent
to to do is the the very large battery battery park. Is that a decent term?
Um battery field. um which is is my
understanding that is not technically speaking a requirement of the project in
in the typical sense where it might be a condition of approval for a simple
permit to build a house. Um, so perhaps to to to legal, Eric, is is there a a
mechanism by which if if the commission chose to recommend this to council to
make the construction of that battery park, which I think is at this point
sort of uh anticipated 10ish years out, um to make it in some way mandatory or a
condition or to have some some enforcement enforcability, I guess.
» Yeah. at at this point that sort of um [snorts] specific project element and
phasing and goes beyond the bounds of what's included in the specific plan and
EIR um we will be revisiting phasing and different triggers and trade-offs in the
context of the development agreement. So um I think we can explore the
feasibility of that and have a um yeah a but have some the opportunity to
get some feedback from the applicant about what and when might be feasible
and uh the I think the development agreement is the best vehicle to address
that particular concern. >> That's what I thought you might say.
Thank you. Um because I think what I'm trying to address is I think a
perception that some of these um very loudable aspects of the project are are
may appear aspirational rather than than um promised um or enforceable. Um so
anyway, I take it then what this commission
might be able to do is simply recommend to the council to pursue that issue as
part of the development agreement. >> Yes. and and the commission will also
have the opportunity to to see a version of the development agreement and make a
recommendation on that before that goes to council as well.
» Right. Right. Oh, okay. We will we see it before council acts on it?
» Yes, that's correct. >> Okay.
» Thank you. All right. That's helpful. Um
lastly, I think um our staff put together a a very helpful
um sheet about their um impending recommendations to revise
section 9 of for implementation to provide for um um more specific
descriptions of the monitoring process. um that I encourage folks to look at.
And I my understanding is that that you folks intend to to clarify
among other things the fact that there will be reporting um on an annual basis
following building construction that will be monitored by the city in
coordination with the public agencies. Is that generally correct?
» The intent behind the suggested revisions to chapter 9 is I just want to
be really clear. It's not to impose any new or different regulatory uh
procedures or processes beyond what the state mandates as through DTSC's in the
waterboard's process. So, just to be clear, we're not proposing the city take
additional action. Um, so yeah, the intent behind those changes are really
to, like I said earlier, clarify and provide more information on what those
state overseen and mandated procedures would look like, including for
monitoring, and then make it more clear how that activity relates to and
um and impacts city control processes like permitting. Um, we do have, uh, ESA
team members, I think, on the call online who might be able to speak a
little more to um, what those clarifications are are
going to address when it comes to those relationships. I don't know if Eric is
on.
» Somebody joined us. >> Okay. [clears throat]
» Thank you. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. Thanks.
» Hi. uh Eric Callaway, principal planner at ESA. Um I think to just to specify
particularly related to the annual question that you had, um there are
reporting uh there are things that the city would report on that the the
specific plan already speaks to. Um that would be annual reporting. Um and then
that's related to the things that the city has oversight over. Um and then the
thing the the reporting that is related to remediation the timing of that would
be um determined by the regulating agencies. So you know as uh the
applicant was just speaking to um that you know that could be related to the
quarterly testing and whatever the whatever the agency requires. Um and so
the as uh Julia was just saying the intention behind the revisions is to
explicitly state that the reporting and the timing of the reporting um and the
you know in perpetuity of the reporting um what needs to be reported that's that
would be as required by the regulating agency but then also to um explicitly
state which you know since the type of testing that you would be doing and and
when um you would have to do some testing and then put together a report
that has to for example be related to the installation of the cap versus when
development occurs versus after there are buildings um and how that different
kinds of testing and reporting relates to the city's oversight over um
approvals of building and occupancy permits.
» Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, any other questions about about those
issues? I I have one last question, but just want to let folks have a chance to
chime in? No. Okay. Um, sort of lastly, maybe this is
I apologize for the breadth of this question potentially, but the the what
staff is recommending is a modified alternative one um to the original 2026
specific plan. Um and when I read the ER analysis of it, it highlighted um the
major issues being reduction of the building heights, relocation of some of
the buildings that the larger buildings um and um and then analyze the impact of
those environmentally. Um would you be able to to
synopsize any other major changes and modified alternative one from the the
previous specific plan
» from the develop from the developer proposal?
» Yeah. >> Yeah. ESA teamm did you want to
» Yeah, I can I can handle that one. Um modified alternative one um basically
reduces the number of towers um in the Cal Train right ofway or you
know in proximity within a/4 mile of the Cal Train ride ofway. And what it does
then is it reduces the number of high density dwelling units as a result and
then it increases low density and medium density dwelling units. uh f you know
further to the east and then those [clears throat] excuse me building
heights um increase you know somewhat nominally. So it
really is the same number of dwelling units um but it reduces building heights
um near uh in proximity to transit uses um
and uh decreases high density and increases low and medium density. So,
that's really the foundational difference.
» Um, any other changes to that aren't um aren't about building heights?
» Um, and thank you, directors. Yes. And it accommodates the LMF. So, it's um it,
you know, it's um it accommodates the LMF,
» right, which is the light maintenance light.
» Yes. Light maintenance facility. the high yeah highspeed yeah light
maintenance of facility. >> Okay. All right. [clears throat]
Thank you very much. Um anybody else have any questions? Going once, going
twice. Um
all right. In that case, we are uh going to revisit the continued public hearing.
Um and I have several slips here. Do we
have anybody online yet? >> None with hands raised.
» Okay, I'll just begin calling these folks and if you can give me a high sign
if you get any online, I'll get to them. Um, the first slip I have is from Alli
Sapperman. Sapperman.
Good evening, commissioner commissioners. My name is Ally Saberman.
I'm speaking again tonight on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and the Bay
Area Council. We are here to urge you to take action and vote tonight on the
Bayand specific plan and final EIR. As predicted based on my previous comments,
on June 30th, the California Department of Housing and Community Development
revoked its finding that Brisbane's housing element is compliant with state
law. The consequences of delaying the Bayands are no longer hypothetical.
Brisbane is now subject to the builder's remedy, loss of state funding, court
imposed penalties, and referral to the attorney general. There is a clear and
simple path back to compliance. Brisbane must adopt the Bayand specific plan and
zoning. We recognize that this is a complicated project and that the city
has devoted substantial effort to get to this point. But this is the fifth
meeting of this body. After two comprehensiveformational workshops and
now three public hearings, it's time to move forward. [gasps] There have already
been countless meetings like this and extensive analysis over the 20 years
since this project was first introduced. All the while, the housing crisis
worsens and the bailands remains vacant. This city or region and the state can no
longer afford further delays. We need an approved plan of the bayands that is
economically feasible and capable of being built. State law prohibits a local
agency from conditioning their approval in a manner that renders housing
development infeasible. We therefore ask you to focus your remaining
deliberations on the decisions necessary to deliver housing, restore Brisbane's
compliance, and preserve the city's ability to guide its own future. Please
act with the urgency of the moment requires and recommend approval of the
bailand specific plan and final e. Thank you.
» Thank you.
» Uh next is um Darren Clark, please.
» Good evening, chair, commissioners, staff. My name is Darren Clark. I'm a
field representative for North Coast State's Carpenters Union working
currently working out of Carpenters Local 217
representing Sam Santo County. Before becoming a representative, I worked as a
carpenter for 39 years. I have seen firsthand how projects like this can
transform communities. The Brisbane Bayands project represents a tremendous
opportunity for the residents of Brisbane and all of San Monteo County. A
project of this scale will generate economic activity, support local
businesses, and create good paying jobs for working families.
Just as important, it will provide opportunities for the next generation to
enter into the constru construction industry and build lasting careers
through apprenticeships and journeyman upgrade training programs.
From the carpenters's perspective, as this project moves forward, it is
critical that it is built by a responsible general contractor,
one committed to paying area standard wages, utilizing state accredited
apprenticeship programs, and providing benefits such as healthcare. These
standards help ensure that workers can support their families, stay healthy
throughout their careers, and retire with dignity. This is a
multi-generational project. Let's make sure it's built by a
workforce that it reflects the highest standards of skill, safety, and
responsibility so its benefits are felt for generations to come. Thank you.
» Thank you very much.
» Righty. Next, um, Art Turo Science.
» Good evening, commissioners, staff. I'm Mortal Signs. I am a business rep for
the Luna Labors Local 261 and we understand and respect the
concerns of the Brisbane residents regarding the remediation of the Bayance
site. City staff representatives of Baylands Inc. have provided extensive
information about the safety measures that will be implemented and monitored
throughout the remediation and construction process as well as the
protections that will remain in place for decades after the development is
completed. I would like also to offer the
perspective of the workers who will be performing this important work. Their
safety and the safety of the surrounding community
must remain the top priority. Leono laborers are highly skilled
professionals who receive extensive training, industry recognition,
certification, hazardous material handling and environmental remediation,
construction safety, and the proper use of personal protective equipment. They
are trained to recognize potential hazards, follow established safety
procedures, and respond appropriately to changing conditions on the job site.
These skilled labor strictly follow all typical federal, state, and local safety
regulations. Their training and expertise help protect not only the
workers performing the remediation work, but also nearby residents, the
surrounding environment, and the long-term safety and integrity of the
completed development. So if this work is awarded to a
responsible union contractor employing trained and certified LAUNA laborers,
the city and the community can be confident that the remediation will be
formed by workers who have the skills, the expertise, the commitment necessary
to complete a project safely and responsibly.
We therefore request the planning commission approve the Baywatch specific
plan. Thank you for your time and
consideration. Thank you.
Next, um Aaron Becker, please.
» Uh hello, I'm Aaron Becker. Thank you for taking public comment and for
demonstrating that you guys are really paying attention to the public comments.
Uh I submitted two letters about a month ago. A lot of that has actually been
addressed in the in the meeting since. Um, but one thing I want to make make
sure to remind you about before you get close to approving this is our existing
ordinances. The bailance specific plan as written is kind of inconsistent and
non-compliant with both the dark skies ordinance and the invasives regulation.
I assume that our ordinances trump whatever they write in the specific
plan. So instead, I'm going to remind you guys that when the dark skies
ordinance was written, the Bayand zoning district did not exist. So I'm asking
you to include in your recommendations that we also update the dark skies
ordinance to include the Baylands district in the same lighting category
as R2, R3, uh the mobile home park, uh MHP, um
other other districts of similar size. Um, and that would determine their
lighting levels, the the number of lumens per per square foot of developer
area. Uh, second, um, I really hope you guys consider alternative number seven,
which is the reduced density, reduced height alternative. It reduces the
impacts of or it reduces four of the significant project impacts. Um, and in
the EIR, it's kind of glossed over because of the state, you know, mandated
housing increase, but it's 1,800 units is still 13% more than is being pushed
down our throat. And there are other projects in Brisbane that will that will
even add to that. So, we can always change zoning in 5 years, 10 years,
whatever, if we need to. There's no reason now we have to commit to 2,200
units. Measure measure JJ only says we have to do 1,800. Thank you.
» Thank you. >> Uh stores homem please.
[clears throat] >> Uh thank you for taking into
consideration the complexity of this project. I have
two comments that I'd like to make. Um first uh again uh concerning pile
driving and noise um I would like to see that uh drilled shaft and rectangular
barretes are also called out as options. These have been used successfully in San
Francisco uh notably to retrofit
uh the Millennia Tower and then the the Barretts were used uh for our gigantic
Salesforce tower. Um and um and then on a different topic uh that I uh that
tunnel road is currently used as a major thoroughfare for cycling for cyclists
commuting both up into San Francisco and from San Francisco down to the South Bay
uh or southern regions. And there have been some wonderful bike paths proposed
in in the specific plan, but I would like to make sure that there is at least
one path which is fast in the sense that there aren't a lot of intersections and
stops. So cyclists can still commute quickly from San Francisco to Sierra
Point or Oyster Point and and vice versa.
Thank you. >> Thank you.
» Uh through the chair, we do have three online if you want to switch.
» Why don't we take uh take one of those, please?
» Okay. Uh we're going to start with Melissa.
Go ahead, Melissa. You may address the commission.
Great. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Melissa Foley
and I'm a science director at the San Francisco Estuary Institute or SFI. SFI
reviewed the balance specific plan and provided independent ecological planning
and design guidance that aligned feedback from local environmental
organizations with the best available science and provided that guidance to
BDI. The commitment to a high proportion of
native plants throughout the project area and 100% native in the habitat
restoration enhancement in other sensitive areas is commendable. A
diverse assemblage of native vegetation will support local wildlife by providing
higher quality food and habitat than non-natives. expand populations of
locally adapted plants and reduce maintenance needs, particularly
irrigation once plants are established by recognizing the importance of the
balance for supporting regional habitat connectivity, wildlife movement, and
human access to green space. The specific plan takes a landscape scale
view that is needed to make our urban areas healthier for people and wildlife
and more resilient to climate change. The wildlife safe design features
included in the plan, particularly for lighting and building design, ensure
that the developed areas introduce as few hazards as possible for wildlife
while ensuring residents safety. Adopting guidance from the American Bird
Conservancy and consulting exper experienced biologists as part of the
planning process will help to ensure the latest advances in wildlife safe design
are being implemented. The balance will be a firstofits-kind
development in the Bay Area that brings together people and nature by employing
a range of nature-based solutions to provide benefits ranging from access to
nature to heat mitigation to biodiversity support that will support
healthy and resilient outcomes for people and wildlife. The balance can
serve as an example to cities throughout the Bay Area to show how communities and
nature can thrive together.
Thanks, Melissa. We have uh Jordan next. Go ahead, Jordan. You may address the
commission. >> Thank you so much. Good evening,
commissioners. My name is Jordan Grimes and I'm the legislative director for
Green Belt Alliance. We are an environmental organization working
throughout the Bay Area focused on conservation, climate resilience, and
sustainable land use policy. For the last 68 years, we've championed
conservation and infill housing solutions uh that protect open spaces,
reduce GHGs, uh and create vibrant communities where people can live close
to jobs, schools, and public transportation. In both our June uh 30th
letter from this year uh and our comment letter from last September uh on the uh
draft EIR, we raised concerns with GHG1E,
the proposed mitigation measure that would require the bailance to purchase
offset credits. Um we're very happy to have seen that removed. I was preparing
to make a longer comment, but I think Mr. Schustster of ESA actually did a
really great job explaining uh the regional benefits of GHD emission
reduction that this project will provide over time. Um and I'll just say this
project is not to hone Ranch. Uh it is not a subdivision in Leup or Tracy or
Mantika which is what that program was designed for. This is a largecale TOD um
uh project that will have huge GHD reduction benefits for the region when
completed. I would also note uh that per the UC Berkeley local government climate
policy tool, the policy that offers the single greatest potential for greenhouse
gas reduction in Brisbane specifically is the creation of infill housing. So to
that end, I actually really hope you won't pursue alternative 7, the reduced
Titan density regulations. It really runs counter to our regional housing and
climate goals at the same time. And then just finally, I'll say Green Belt has
been supporting this project since uh 2011. Um, I think that's a really
unfortunate um,
indictment of our response to the housing and climate crisis and we do
really need to do better. So, I would urge the planning commission uh, to
advance the plan tonight. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it.
» Thank you very much. >> All right. We have Eileen.
Eileen, you may address the commission. >> Good evening, commissioners. It's Eileen
Mclofflin from citizens committee to complete the refuge and co-signer of a
letter with Sarah Cleb and others. Um and I thank you for um continuing to
deliberate on this. I appreciate the questions you bring forward um and our
and I just wanted to on the greenhouse gas emissions. We we're we are glad and
I am glad that you've been very thorough in trying to make sure these the
greenhouse gas emission plans that you have are are going to be continuous uh
and monitored over time. So thank you for that. But I also wanted to speak to
the uh point raised about the conservation easement which was in our
letter. Um although uh some of the lands are marked in perpetuity, the question
that I bring up is it does that actually go with the land? A conservation
easement goes with the land. So once it's um put on there, it will stay and
as um Melissa was talking about on habitat we're building, we want that is
to stay once it's established, once it's encouraged to grow. uh [clears throat]
we we'd want Brisbane to have this area that's remains as conserved area and and
habitat that serves uh both the the species and all the people who would
come to enjoy it. So I hope that you can consider that or if uh perhaps it needs
to be included as a recommendation for the development agreement. Uh but I hope
you get that into the plan uh some way. Thank you. Before
we go to the next one, is that a question we can answer quickly and get
it off the table whether that conservation easements run with the
land? This a longer answer. We can do it some
other forum. >> Yeah, easements do run with the land.
They show up in the deed to the property.
» Yeah. And and I think this was implicit in the director's answer, but other
forms of um easements also run with the like an easement that's granted to the
city in perpetuity also would would run with the land even if it's not um you
know a dedicated and statutory conservation easement.
» That that was my assumption. Thanks. >> Uh any other
Okay. Yeah.
Okay. Um, from inside the room, uh, next up is Linda Salmon, please.
» Good evening again, commissioners. I don't envy your position. Um, I have a
lot of comments, but one of the main problems I have with is with the idea of
putting single family dwellings on clay caps. I know they show nice pictures of
trees growing out of them in gardens for kids to play in, but it's not really
possible in a five uh 5-ft clay cap, which are subject to uh problems with uh
sea level rising and earthquakes in a big way. And I had suggested ages ago,
one of the reasons I put the a the FS as they were in the 1994 general plan is
that we could have dwelling units like rental properties on top of, you know,
uh commercial enterprises in this area so that you actually can house far more
people and uh uh with less um danger to children running around playing on toxic
soil. um and a lot more housing for people who are working in the area and
so on and so forth. And I really feel that this is what we have to do. We can
do a lot more for the people who don't have houses, who can't afford to buy
houses, but who can rent um with caps on the rent uh based on, you know, you you
know, all kinds of other things that go on. Anyway, so that's that's my one of
my main points. The other one is when we kept talking about the road diet and
stuff like that. One of the solutions is to have the connection with the light
rail that goes to San Francisco going all the way through to past Brisbane to
South City. Um you know with a turnaround back and forth just a single
single lane doesn't have to be the double thing that they have right now
with the city. um and it's possible and that way save on greenhouse gases and um
make with transportation easier for everyone. So there those are two major
things that I don't think still haven't happened in terms of looking at all the
possibilities of the general plan. Um, you really can't build a house and on a
clay cap and have it be stable in an earthquake. Um, and with flooding and
when the electricity goes out, your pumps are not going to work. Thank you.
» Thank you.
Uh, next up is Anthony. I think it's Anthony Walker. Am I right?
Good evening. Good evening, commissioners. I Yes, my handwriting is
terrible. Apologize. [laughter] Sorry. Um, my name is Anthony Walker.
I'm uh chair of OSEK about speaking tonight in my individual capacity as a
Brisbane resident. Um, I submitted a second letter that I believe was uh
shared with you last night and I apologize for the length. I know it's a
lot. Um, but I hope you'll take the time to read it carefully um because it uh
focuses on two major uh questions, greenhouse gas accountability and
measure measure JJ's uh energy neutrality uh requirement. There's a lot
in there but um I want to highlight just one thing in the letter here um in the
room and that is that um measure JJ does not simply say that the bay lands should
be energy neutral without any context as to what that means. Um, it says the
specific plan must be consistent with the principles of the sustainability
framework, a named and dated document, and that that development shall be
designed so as to be energy neutral on an ongoing basis. Um, my letter examines
what those words mean um in further detail. I think there is actually a lot
in there to dissect. Um but um the sustainability framework I want to call
out one thing um establishes a clear order of operations. A maximize local
on-site generation first um B evaluate additional uh community scale renewable
generation within Brisbane. So that's offsite.
uh and then C uh only then consider community choice aggregation procurement
um which would be our eco 100 um solution. So my concern there is that
we're we're sort of giving uh giving up on a half completed step a on-site
generation. We're only getting to 53% and then skipping over B entirely. We're
not I I haven't been able to turn up anything at all about uh off-site
generation. uh and then going straight to step C um
as the main solutions. So, and I want to be clear um you know, both of my
requests in the letter um are not new. Um they're prioritizing on-site
generation um is consistent with the sustainability framework. Um and where
on-site energy neutrality cannot be achieved, requiring additional community
scale uh renewable generation within Brisbane is simply step B uh in the
framework's order of operations. Um, so I just want to highlight those ideas did
not come from me. They're from Brisbane's own documents. Um,
and uh, yeah, I I realize I'm over time, so I I I hope that um, you'll take a few
minutes to read the the letter um, carefully because I think there there's
a lot in there, a lot of context that will be helpful. Thank you very much.
» Thank you.
Okay. Um, next up is Nicole Westeramp, please.
» Good evening. Um, thank you to the commission, the
staff, the experts, um, all the people who've been joining to lift this very
large process. Uh, my name is Nicole Westeramp. I've been in Brisbane as a
resident for a little over a decade. Um, I'm also a mom, but even before kids,
this project has um, I've wanted to join in, and it feels like drinking from a
fire hose. So, um I just want to recognize the effort and focus and
information that you all are digesting and I appreciate the thoughtful
questions. Um the elementary school logo I believe is something like building
thoughtful citizens and that takes time and labor. So, thank you. Um I don't
know who again in this long detailed conversation might have already pointed
out um to consider the stakeholders who do not have a voice in this process and
I'd ask the commission to just spend a moment thinking of that. Um
the stakeholders who don't have a voice and are not included in conversation
often have the least power and privilege.
This is a remarkable, unique piece of living land. And as I was thinking of
what to say as I drove in, I really wonder what the original inhabitants and
stewards of this land would be thinking of and advising us as we consider this
generational project. I've heard a lot of voices um just in
the last meeting and this one with lots of needs, lots of people, lots of
interests for housing, for jobs, for you know just an unimaginable number of
things to balance. And um one concern I'd like to bring is just that the
residents who will be most directly impacted and who will impact this
process might be having difficulty joining in the conversation. So, thank
you for those continued efforts. And my ask um to are one, how do we keep
informed, thoughtful citizens able to participate in this process and lend
their expertise and second to just voice again that the land does not bring their
voice here and needs our strongest protections from the outset. Um, I
appreciated learning about the conservation easement that you know can
slip away very easily and just ask you to ensure that from the onset now that
the pro the process continues to include concrete actions in the process that
keep us thoughtful. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much.
» Next up is Michelle Sammon.
Michelle Sammon. Tonight I'm speaking as a second generation lifelong Brisbane
resident. Um I've read the drafty I read it the all of it. But I'm still very
concerned about in why how toxic this site is. you know um in 2018 when um
measure JJ failed I mean won and by 10% um the head of the then head of the
company representing the owner of the property said that he would get right on
getting the specific plan and that was in 2018. They did not submit a specific
plan until 2023 and it was inadequate and was returned to them and then they
did not submit it until 2025 almost 2026 which is why we're in the position we
are now where the state is holding a gun to our head about housing. But what most
people don't realize when they talk about infeasibility of housing here is
how toxic this land really is. And I don't think uh a driveby or a five-year
driveby or whatever is really adequate because in five years a child's nervous
system can be completely destroyed by lead deposition in the area where they
live. And I think it's um unfortunate that that Stephanie keeps comparing the
bays to Sierra Point Marina and Park Sier
Point. Sarah Point was a very different landfill. It was dyed. It was lined. It
was manifested and layered and adequately closed over 40 years ago.
It's starting to show definite signs of wear. That is very different than the
Blands, which was undyed, unregulated landfill that had from 1936 on that God
knows what's in there and no one really knows because it's never been thoroughly
tested the way it should be. And that's what we're dealing with. And so when
people are all housing, housing, housing at any cost, do you want another love
canal in Brisbane? I think that we really need to look very carefully at,
you know, you talk about sea level rise, etc. And I know that u the owners of the
property are very anxious to get their entitlements and yet they haven't built
with the entitlements they already have. And I I urge you not to um approve the
mobility plan. And I think that it's really very negative for the people who
already live in Brisbane and the northeast ridge and people coming over
Crocker Park and basically it would kind of strand people in Brisbane. But I
think you really do need to look at every protection
uh for the future of this area and the people that will live there and
conservation easements. Oh, and yes, Green Belt Alliance has been on this
since 2011 when Jonathan Sharfman started donating to them heavily, who
was the prior executive of of this estate. So, please do I so appreciate
the work you've done and the questions you've answered tonight and sitting
through this for three times and I I can't tell you enough of that, but
please make the right choices and please make the conservative choices in terms
of the environment and and protect the future future of of the children, the
future of the people who don't have a voice here yet. Thank you.
» Thank you.
Uh, next is uh Cynthia Gomez, please.
Good evening, commissioners. Cynthia Gomez, United here, local 2, the hotel
workers union. And again, we have roughly 6,000 members who live in the
communities immediately surrounding the project area. I will reference but not
repeat the comments that I've made earlier about our various critiques of
the project. You've heard them. We've sent letters. The only thing I will
repeat tonight is the simple reality that there is no state law that requires
Brisbane to accept 7 million square ft of commercial development.
That is the kind of jobs housing imbalance at 19,000 jobs versus 2200
housing units that has the potential to make the housing crisis precisely the
opposite of the way it's being promoted. That has the potential to make the
housing crisis worse, not better. And there is no state law that requires
that you accept that kind of ratio. So that is what I would like to leave you
with. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Um, do we have anybody else on? Uh, no. Okay. Uh, last slip I have currently is
Elena Shot, please.
» Good evening. I speed read, but that's probably nothing compared to how much
you guys have to weigh through over the course of your average month. I had just
a few comments on this. Um, one quickie on the mobility. Currently, I can get
from home in central Brisbane to the top of Tunnel Avenue as I'm going onto
Highway 101 in 10 minutes, 15 minutes on a bad day. My understanding or rather
expectation is that the construction that's going to be done as a part of
producing the bays is going to shut down Tunnel Avenue at which point that
transportation out is route is out. If we then force everybody who currently
zips along Tunnel Avenue to take Beayshore, the immobility plan is going
to destroy that, too, and we'll all be spending 25 or 30 minutes just to make
it to 101. That strikes me as an unreasonable non-compromise.
I see a lot of language in the report about how we can all switch to scooters,
but I'm not taking a trunk full of groceries home from San Francisco
downtown on a scooter. So, you know, bus and then scooter is not a better option.
Um, so that was transportation noise. My understanding is from the meeting that I
participated in on June 30th, they made no promise whatsoever not to pile dry
all through the night. They'd considered that as an option and it hadn't been
closed out. So, uh, does Brisbane have the noise ordinances and will Brisbane
enforce the noise ordinances to make sure that residents in our parabolic
bowl get 8 hours of sleep every night? My understanding so far is not
necessarily. And I'd actually like to get to work coherent and competent
rather than destroyed by listening to pile dryers until 6 a.m. That was number
two. And then I think one of the big issues for city resistance overall is
and we're stuck with it now because of the whole California state laws. When
you have a town of only a thousand homes and they're saying whoops, we need to
add 2,000 more. Our local votes are gone. So in 5 years, you know, I won't
be seeing any of you and you won't be seeing any of us because we'll have been
replaced. That's a silly fear in terms of national and immigration. But I think
a real and sensible fear to some extent here within our small local voting
district. I'd have much loved it if we'd started in 2015 and added 100 units a
year so that the new arrivals would have become Brisbaneians.
Thank you. >> Thank you through the chair. We do have
one more online. >> Okay.
» Christina, you may address the commission.
» Thank you. I really deeply appreciate the care the commission's taking with
this project and the questions you're asking and not allowing yourself to be
bullied by outside forces. Listening to the comments of labor
representatives, I'm sympathetic to your those comments, but I do wonder how many
of the housing units that you'll be building will be within the reach of the
incomes of your membership. the slam the community is going to take
with this development. I I don't think people from outside of
the housing advocates, again, I'm I'm deeply sympathetic, don't understand
what's going on here. It's a 684 acre development.
First got 2,000 acres of land. Even if we subtract the lagoon about 135 acres,
that's 28% of the city in a si single swoop is going to get transformed. As
the previous speaker mentioned, that totally changes the city of
Bersbane. Even if that takes place over say five, seven years,
what other community has been expected to undergo that level of transformation
in a single development and do it in a manner that leaves the community
healthy, ensures that the community is healthy.
And when you take into account the commercial impacts as were described um
that just complicates the situation even further. So again deep appreciation to
the commission. This is a very difficult project and we're being asked to accept
it in total rather than incrementally. And I just don't see I I don't just
don't see a healthy way of of embracing this thinking.
Thank you. Anyone else? Thanks. Right. We also are going to have
a one more presentation from the applicant at this time.
Good evening again, Chair. Gooding, honorable commissioners.
Um, once again, my name is Stephanie Shakovski. I am the environmental lead
for the bayens development team. Um, commissioners, before you
tonight are documents that reflect 20 years of planning, environmental review,
community engagement, and a voter initiative.
Recommending approval of this specific plan and the final EIR
is an affirmative act by this commission.
proving that Brisbane is a community that confronts this housing shortage,
restores its ecological assets, builds around transit to reduce GHGs, and holds
itself to the highest standard of sustainable development.
We because we continue to have questions from the commission and from the public
regarding the environmental cleanup. We did bring with us tonight our um
environmental consultants and our um uh engineer of record. And I'd like for him
to um if we just take a few minutes for him to walk the commissioners through
the actual cleanup process. And I also encourage you to please um interrupt
him, ask him questions. Um he's quite used to being interrupted working with
me. But I do um would like to ask Jay Morani, our senior engineer at Geioint
to come up and answer the questions for or give us your short presentation and
answer any questions from the commissioners. And please feel free to
interrupt his presentation.
Thanks. Uh my name is Jamie. I'm the engineer on the remedy for the railart
railard area. I just want to talk through the implementation approach and
what we'll be doing at at the site. So there's a few slides there. I don't know
if you can see them in front of you. Okay. Awesome. Um [cough]
so as you know the site's pretty flat between beayhore and the cal train
tracks. Um, and so that's what I'm showing here is just a flat area where
there's the existing soil. The first step in the project is actually going to
be removing any uh contamination that could present future issues. So there's
some chlorinated solvents in soil that were encountered during the
investigations and those will be removed and disposed of offsite before any
future action.
So following the removal of of that area, fill would be imported that's been
approved. um by the waterboard for for use on the site. Um we'll excavate also
corridors for future utility installation. And so that's what's shown
on the on the side there. And those may penetrate the imported fill or they may
go a little bit deeper into the existing soil. But those are going to be used uh
and filled with clean fill so that in the future when utilities are installed
or maintenance is needed that it's a simpl simpler process.
Following the imported fill, the next step is to install the cover system. Um,
and that consists of a demarcation layer and a clean soil cap soil cap layer. Uh,
the demarcation layer is a orange just really brightly colored fabric that's
put over the entire site as a as a marker so that if anyone's digging, they
can see that as a very obvious change that there's g there is something
different. and it'll just make sure that if contractors out there that they they
go back and uh reassess their their approach. Um following that is the
placement of the the clean soil cap which is the 5ft layer. Um you see on
here there's a searchcharge pile in many portions of the site. We'll be adding
additional clean soil fill. Uh and that's to drive settlement in the
material below the existing soil. There's there's bay mud so very soft
clays throughout the site. Uh and what that does is drive more of the
settlement in advance so that when it is removed and any construction of roads or
shallow building foundations are put in that there's less differential
settlement, less potential for cracking, less potential for potholes.
Um so then the next step is to remove the searchcharge pile and create this
development grade. So just basically a a clean site for for future developers.
And one thing I want to note is that throughout this entire process, there's
a many checks. Um, so there would be a construction quality assurance
consultant that's on site continuously with the contractor making sure that
everything the contractor does is done in line with the design and the approved
design. In addition to that, the construction manager and the
construction quality assurance team will be making sure that the agencies are
also aware of what's going on throughout the process. So weekly they're going to
provide construction reports that are providing updates to the to the agencies
about what's happening and how it's been going. If there's been any changes, if
there's been any issues, uh that that report will be in there. Yes.
» When we say agencies, are we talking DTSC and the waterboard?
» Yes. >> Thank you.
» I say agencies because it is multiple. Um
additionally, the construction quality assurance team would prepare a report at
the very end of the project. uh that could be at the end of phases or at the
very end depending on what the phasing structure is. That would describe all of
the work that was done, any potential changes, the dis the discussions that
went with the agencies, uh survey that shows that any excavated areas were
excavated to the elevations that were that were required by the design. Uh and
all that will be packaged up into a construction completion report for the
agency waterboarder or DTSC. they would have to approve that construction
completion report before any future development activities can can occur.
Um so [clears throat] move forward. So another thing that is so that would
remove the potential exposure pathways to the contamination. However, the only
remaining exposure pathway is soil vapor. So prior to any buildings that
would have uh occupancy, we would do soil vapor sampling at two times during
the year. So the the soil vapor sampling occurs between the groundwater table and
the surface. And because the groundwater table fluctuates in the wet season and
the dry season, we would do two instances of the sampling to get a range
of the concentrations that may be present. And using that data, we would
evaluate whether a vapor intrusion mitigation system is necessary for any
of the buildings that are going to be constructed at the site.
If it's found that a vapor intrusion mitigation system is necessary, then it
could consist of of the components shown on this drawing. So the the main
component is really the vapor proof membrane that would go under a
foundation. But additionally, if needed, there could be a um capture and
conveyance system. So that like a gravel bedding or perforated pipe to collect
any potential gases and and vent them uh prior so that it prevents any of that
from getting into the into the structure.
» Before I forget my question, uh are the the tests uh the bianual tests also
provided to the agencies? >> Yeah, so all all of the stuff that that
anyone does on the site is going to have to be uploaded to Geotracker or Envir
Store. So, similar to the groundwater data that that Stephanie was talking
about, all of that data is compiled and and uploaded to those to those public
networks. >> Thank you.
» Additionally, if a vapor intrusion mitigation system is found to be
necessary in these buildings, there would be additional indoor air sampling.
So, prior to the occupancy after construction, there would be additional
indoor air sampling to make sure that the system is working. That would
actually continue at regular frequencies during the life of the building.
I guess is there no concern about the vapor surrounding the building? Is it
only sort of within the foundation of the building? What about like the the
region next to the building? >> It's only if it has a place to collect.
So like it's if it could have a place to pull otherwise it vents the atmosphere
and it's diluted. [clears throat]
And then is there um a minimum imported fill size there? Like a minimum depth
for the imported fill or is it sort of variable across the property?
» Uh the clean soil fill above the imported fill is at least 5 ft
everywhere. The imported fill ranges in thickness um from zero at the edges
where it's just the clean soil cap where we're tying into Beayshore Boulevard or
the Cal Train tracks and then it gets to 15 to 20 feet towards the um the middle
of the site. Mhm.
» Is is the the demarcation fabric uh that's never going to be penetrated? It
doesn't look like it is for this building, but what if you're building a
you know 200 ft uh residential tower? Is there a need to for the anchors to be
» So yeah, for for piles, they would go through the through the demarcation
layer in the exact location of the pile. We wouldn't put demarcation layer. It
would go to the edge and then the clean soil cap would be maintained in those
upper five feet or restored if needed if there's an
excavation. Um, yeah.
» When you take a sample, isn't that >> through the chair? Is your mic on?
Thanks. >> When you guys take samples,
um, isn't that demarcation barrier penetrated?
uh if we need to do sampling below the demarcation layer then the demarcation
layer and the above soil would be replaced. And so in the remedial design
plan there's um there's what's called a soil and groundwater management plans
for that any soil disturbing activities including sampling there there's a set
of procedures that would need to be followed and that would include
reconstruction of the cap
And that that's the end of my slides. >> Any other questions from the commission?
» Thank you. >> All right. Uh any further staff
presentation or are we done?
» No additional staff presentation. >> Thank you.
» Thank you. >> All right. Um
we have had I think somebody said at least five meetings with public comments
and we have really really appreciated them. We've read the written
communications. Um and we thank you all for your input.
It's been valuable. I I hope some of our questions have reflected the fact that
we have um listened to your comments and and applied them to the the task at
hand. Um, with that being said, I think it is time for the chair to entertain a
motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing. >> I'll second that.
» All in favor? >> Any opposed?
» Motion passes with five eyes. We are now entering the deliberation
phase of this meeting and any other me. I'm not sure we're going to get through
everything tonight, folks. It's a large thing to get our hands around, but we're
going to get a start. Um, my suggestion is um that we start with the Bayand's
mobility plan um or the Bayore mobility plan, excuse me. um for the simple
reason that it is discreet and separable from the other aspects of of um the
larger picture. Um and um sort of the the easiest piece to grab and chew on
first. Um so I'd like to entertain any any thoughts, opinions, deliberations
about that. Uh let's start with Darius. Yeah, I mean, uh, you know, I have a
hard time wrapping my head around how the the road dieting would help, even
though that's what, you know, everyone says would help. So, I think I like the
idea of sort of breaking it up, um, into subcomponents there. Uh,
I'm still chewing through it, so no additional sort of questions or comments
for me other than I I don't like the idea of road diet or sort of restricting
that there. Um, so I kind of park it for that right now.
Um well, [clears throat] I'm in favor of uh keeping two lanes
each way. And um I liked what uh Chair Gooding um asked our expert there about
um if we can keep the two lanes each way, but all but enhance beayhore in
other ways. So for example, with the sidewalks and things like that. Um,
yeah, that would be my only objection to to the Beayore mobility plan is just the
reduction in lanes.
» Uh, well, I may be the u the [clears throat] lone voice here. I'm
actually very intrigued by the philosophy of the complete street thing
and I think the the road diet may be sort of pjorative. I like the idea
behind it. You know, I think that uh it is a I think philosophically a different
way of looking at how streets function and enabling um more modes of
transportation. In the end, you may be able to move more people. It's not just
about moving more cars. Um and I think also part of it is looking to the future
state, not so much um what it is now. So I I think it does um the road diet and a
complete streets model represents kind of a change in the way we think about um
about roads. So I'm actually maybe a little more open to it than um uh
than maybe some other members of the commission. I think it I think it needs
further study. I'm a little bit worried about how
uh for example, you put a road diet just in a certain stretch of beayshore, it
could represent kind of a a plug in a way and maybe kind of a token,
aspirational token to changing the way you think about roads. uh that in the
big picture may not make much difference, but I think we all want,
you know, we want to be able to move around in ways that aren't completely
dependent on cars. Um so I I I'm open to opening keeping my mind open to uh to
this model. >> Great. Alex,
» I have concerns and I'd be opposed to the
road diet and reduction. I'd be opposed and concerned about reduction of lanes
um with the road diet and believe there's probably opportunities for
alternative um
ways to try to manage uh traffic and mobility um without reducing the lanes.
Yeah, my my concerns for my two cents is is as follows. Is that as I understand
that the plan that the beayhore would remain two lanes in each direction north
of I just blanked on the name of the street. The one north of Geneva
um >> no north
um the north in San Francisco. Sunnydale.
Thank you.
It's late. Um, and then it siphons down to one lane all
the way down to San Bruno Avenue. So, essentially the the area that is put at
um the area where the traffic is condensed and and compressed is
basically Brisbane and the Baylands and that north
and south of it sort of business as usual. And I I not a traffic engineer,
but you know, I drive that street as much as anybody else in this room or
listening on TV. Um I just don't have the the faith that that's an answer to
the problem. And I'm not even positive what what the problem is that's being
addressed other than the perception perhaps that traffic along Beayshore
tends to get fast. um haven't seen a lot of that but even
assuming that to be true I my opinion is that there's there are ways to deal with
with that there are calming methods there's narrowing of lanes there's
turning the lanes both Vaness and Petrero are examples of where there's
been lots of calming things done to make traffic flow better and I take both of
those streets a lot and it does works anyway so my
one opinion out of five is is that I'm opposed to the the road diet concept.
However, listening to folks over the past, you know, five sessions tells at
least me and I think all of us that there's a perception of a need for
improving the um the pedestrian and and um you know multimmodal safety of people
using beayshore um bicycles and e e scooters and all that. Um, so that's
why I'd asked the question of staff and and ESA about the feasibility of of
being able to continue. Um there are things being done to Beayshore under the
mobility plan where it adjoins bay lands that make decent sense that are kind of
really sensible to allow new streets coming into it that I that I think um
um the traffic folks document they submitted for this this
meeting was very helpful that we can leave in things that directly benefit
and are important for the flow and the circulation for the bayands. um without
the road diet piece. And my suggestion would be to pass on to the to the
council a recommendation that those aspects be retained and that they um
pursue or inquire further of the traffic experts whether or not uh I think they
turn a class one um area adjacent to Beayshore, I guess it would be the west
side probably, would work for this for the entire stretch of of of Beayshore.
um that is subject to the mobility plan. Um they might be trying to eat our you
know eat our cake and have it too or whatever the saying is. Um there may or
may not be right away room but I think you know getting a hard answer to that
would be really beneficial and that would be my suggestion as to what what
to pass along to the council. And and I just want to add like other
reasons why I think we should keep beayhore two lanes each way is you know
um a lot of the folks who spoke talked about potential emergencies, the need
for more lanes. Um you know coming and going um you know and and you know and I
think I think we need the additional um lanes for for for those situations. And
and we also have to keep in mind, I mean, we have Crocker Park, we have all
the trucks and semis, we have the quarry, um whatever development that's
going to go there, probably more more trucks and semis. Um you know, and and I
think if if the concern is we want to calm Shore down, I think we could think
about putting in um speeding cameras. you know, San
Francisco um is in their trial period and um uh there was a study that said
that speed cameras not only brought in um a lot of revenues for for for the
city, but it it changed behavior. It I think it reduced beating by about 80%.
So that's definitely something um I think that we can consider rather than
you know taking away extra lanes. So >> you know along with that I mean talk of
like if trying to reduce traffic speed we installed a signal mast on what
Sierra Point and Beayshore that hasn't been activated that was placed a couple
years ago. Um and certainly if a signal light was installed there and working
you know that certainly I think would reduce
ashore traffic speed. So there's I think there's other alternatives that make
that can be looked at.
» So So how would you want are we voting on each thing now or how are we going to
» I think that the the a workable plan is to the extent it's these pieces are are
chunks that we can separate out is discuss one vote on it discuss the other
vote on it and on. >> Okay. Um, there's a couple more coming
up that I think we can maybe knock out as well. And I'm I'm intentionally
leaving for last the actual Bayland specific plan because it's it's the
elephant in the room. Um, and you know, 10:30 at night might not be the time to
start deliberating on that. Um, but let's do what we can as as we can. So,
um, dealing with this piece, um, one suggestion I have for for a motion,
and we can tweak it if people want to, is is as follows, is that we, um, we
would recommend, remember, this this body is recommending to the city council
X, Y, and Z. We have no policym power. Our job here is to look at it, analyze
it, listen to you folks, and then come up with our recommendations and or
suggestions to the council as to how to proceed. and they are the ultimate
deciders. So Matt like my first take and this would be to
recommend adoption of the bailance mobility plan.
rewind to the being sentence is to adopt. Um the one document I didn't
print out was the track engineers report of their suggestion as to how to handle
it. And may I should probably just punt to that. Um there is in the um document
submitted with this agenda uh a document from um help me with the name of the
firm. >> Fen Pierce.
» Thank you. um that sets forth exactly what sections of the mobility plan as it
pertains to Beayshore um are feasible to do that would benefit the circulation
plan for the Bayance development that would not entail
reducing it from two lanes to one. that my motion would be to recommend to a
council adoption of th those portions of the mobility plan um but not the
portions that that provide the road diet. Um and then furthermore that we um
recommend to the council that um
they make further inquiries with the the
traffic experts as to the feasibility of um a class one or comparable um sidewalk
improvements to the remainder of Beayshore. um that is not accomplished
by the parts of the mobility plan that are directly um benefiting the core
project. It's a long motion >> and yes I will second that motion
» before does that make enough sense for you
folks to handle it? >> Yeah. The the one clarification that we
might um ask is that there is a draft resolution in your packet um as part of
attachment one. It's um draft planning commission resolution PC126
um which has the recommendation to council to consider adoption of the
mobility plan. Um if the commission agrees, you could put your motion in the
context of approving that resolution with the changes that the chair just
described. >> Right. That's what I
» I think that's what you meant. That's what I wish I had said as well.
Um, but do the do the changes that I um read out are they clear enough that you
folks can can wordsmith that into the final process?
» Yes, we can revise the resolution with those should the
» We have a second. Um, all in favor? >> I
» I Any opposed? >> None opposed? Um, I'm just going to
register a symbolic no just because I've thought about it and I think there's
value in um in thinking about it some more.
» Okay, perfectly fine. Great. The motion passes with uh four eyes and one no.
» Sorry. Through the chair, were you the you made the original motion?
» Sorry. >> Did you make the original motion or say
ducted? Okay. Thank you. >> And the second
um progress
I think staff that that was looking at this that we can turn our attention to
the some of the general plan amendments and the title 17 amendments that are
probably not contingent upon um a recommendation of the entirety of
the specific plan.
Well, they are intended to uh ensure consistency between the
general plan and the specific plan >> um as proposed by staff. And
» I think we've talked before too about when the commission is ready to make a
recommendation on those. There's a certain order of operations we would
look to the commission to make. um they're outlined in the resolution
the other resolution attached to the June 25th staff report.
» Sorry, I didn't get to that. >> So, I think well well I guess what I'm
trying to say is I do think that your action on in consideration of the
general plan amendments do relate to how you ultimately um
want to vote on the specific plan. [clears throat]
» Okay. Um
let me let me see if I can break it up this way. Um in your recommendation in
attachment one um
you had um recommended approval of the project
entitlements which include amending the general plan land use element in
accordance with several sections to realign the northern boundary to
correspond to the boundary of the bailand specific plan. Um and then to
amend the general plan circulation element in accordance with government
code blah blah to realign Lagoon Road extend your point
» add bay lands roadways designate the Geneva Avenue exp
extension and add a new roadway type for green local streets. Is that the same
thing as green shared streets? Just
» oh could catch >> terminology. I think it is but
» yeah it is. Okay. Um,
it I don't think we can discuss this, but my take is that these amendments to
the general plan are probably not real controversial in this body other than
possibility possibly the the green shared streets issue. Um, but this is
the time for other folks to chime in.
I mean, >> I'm sorry, Commissioner S. I don't think
any of the things that you listed have really been surfaced in in the public
comments or have come up as a concern even for in my evaluations,
» right? I go ahead. >> Yeah. No, I I was just concerned if
staff was saying that we couldn't vote on that yet because maybe other
individual things we will be discussing impacts that is was was that a concern?
» Yeah. And and to clar at the the staff packet included two total
resolutions. One you already voted on. So, the second resolution encompasses
the recommendation to the city council for the remaining suite of documents um
recommending certification of the EIR, adoption of the general plan and zoning
modifications that Chair Gooding just outlined and adoption of the specific
plan. So, at the ultimately we'd look for one vote from the commission on that
resolution. Um, but if you want to go through and see if there's consensus on
on those individual elements before you vote, you can keep a pin in that and
then be aware at the end of your deliberations if there's any changes you
want to direct staff to make in connection with your motion. Um, then
you can make that for each of the elements that might need to change. But
we won't need a vote until you've [snorts]
» reached your deliberations on that package.
» There's no point in voting until we vote on the whole tamalei. But we can talk
about the pieces we may want to parse out and and
» exactly. So >> with or make suggestions otherwise
» if Yeah. So if if the commission had decided that you were comfortable with
the recommendations for the general plan amendments, you could
have that understanding amongst yourselves. move on to the next topic,
but you wouldn't need to vote until you were ready to move that entire package.
» That makes sense. Thank you. Um so sticking with with the general plan um
land use element amendments for the moment. Does anybody
have any issues, concerns or any understandings of concerns out there
about anything street and circulation wise
other than what I raised about the green shared
streets? Well, for example, um my question about conservation easements,
would would that not impact the vote that you were requesting we make for
voting on the other stuff? No. Um, no. The my understanding of our
conversation previously is that if the commission were to make that
recommendation, that would likely be something discussed as part of
potentially a DA um
rather than a revision to the >> I'm not sure I understand your your
question or concern about the the conservation easements.
» Okay. Okay. >> As it pertains to the the street issues
here. >> Okay. So, I mean,
I I was just concerned that that that making that recommendation might impact
all those other things that you were listing and and and if I'm wrong and and
it doesn't, so we I mean, I'm fine with moving forward on on that then.
» I wonder if also like I mean like has been suggested, we put a pin in it.
We're not committing to it. we discover later
but for now as general principle I think I agree we can
» kind of say well this is like probably in general seems okay we might have to
revisit it but we can move on to the meaty things which might be for example
uh you know things we won't have you know whatever the e the specific plan as
a whole I know we're going to talk about many details about for each of those and
in particular the specific plan. I'm sure we have a lot of comments and uh
deliberation there. >> Okay. Um
so let me try to stick to this one bullet point that's obviously a B in my
bonnet um about the green shared streets. Does anybody else have any any
opinions or or >> what's the B? I don't I don't I I like
green streets. Green shared streets. the the the green shared streets that are in
the the specific plan that are envisioned by it are the streets that
are that run east west um between the sort of north south
arterials in the residential district that are that carry traffic
um that is pedestrian traffic or bicycle traffic or motor vehicle traffic um from
the north south street you come in on from through the residential
neighborhood either into a garage or the park whatever
» or to the next arterial over that runs north south.
» Yeah. >> I I had initially brought up my concerns
regarding safety because I didn't think cars, ebikes, scooters, pedestrians,
dogs should all be mixed together because I
think that's a recipe for disaster. But, you know, unless someone else I mean,
you know, we've we've heard from staff and some of the experts that they felt
that that wouldn't be an issue, but uh it's just I've experienced San Francisco
and parts where they have that and um didn't make me feel comfortable. So,
having it here wasn't something, you know, I thought, you know, at least I
had the concern about. >> Yeah. I I think uh for some of those I
like what I did when I was looking at the road diet thing is like well are
there other examples I think Valencia in the city is an example you think about
what's the objective of a road diet well one of it is safety so regardless of
your impressions of place like Valencia I think by that metric the road diet
there has been successful and I know we're not talking about road diet now
we're talking about green shared streets but you could do just do the same thing
there look what are the what are the stated goals of these green shared
streets and have they met their those objectives in the areas where they have
been built and I haven't actually looked at that but I suspect they probably do
um you know in in neighborhoods I think we saw a lot of them that come up in San
Francisco over the last few years right during co um
just to um and but something we clearly were
need to look at a little bit more but I actually did not appreciate,
Commissioner Gooding, that it was a concern of of yours, you know, or or of
yours. Any other takes on this one?
Okay. Um well,
I'll just put a pin in that then. Um
never know what happens to those pins, but um
All right. So I'm not carrying the the commission on
the shared streets thing. So I'll let that slide. It appears to me that that
without being able to do a separate resolution just about
amending the general plan that nobody here has any significant concerns with
the the pieces of the amendments that are requing
title 17 zoning of the prison municipal code to implement the Bayand specific
plan in accordance with the government code. Um this involves changing the
zoning designations of land within the the plan area from commercial mixed use
um from Marsh Lagoon Bayront and
manufacturing to Bayland specific plan BSP designation. It involves
establishing the land use regulations and development standards set forth in
the specific plan as the regulatory authority governing it and amending the
city zoning map to reflect those zoning changes.
Um,
this all seems rather administrative and ministerial. I don't think there's any
particular policy things buried in this. It's simply calling them things that are
then make the implementation plan make make sense almost grammatically. So any
other takes than that and this would suggest something like the noise
ordinance or other parts from town would already apply to this regardless of what
we call it. So whether we call it BSP or that sort of the same policy still apply
to that region. It's just sort of renaming what we call it. I I think so.
And that but that's a good question to to um one of the callers or speakers um
had a question about whether um pile driving could occur
at night outside of what are generally otherwise the noise
the noise ordinances that currently in place. Um any comment on that one?
» Well, first the city's noise ordinance applies citywide. So regardless of what
designation applies, it applies right now. It would apply if the
area were reszoned BSP. just to make that clear. Um we do have ESA team
members who can probably speak in more detail to this, but um the the EI's
discussion of noise impacts um related to pile driving is not related to to
that activity occurring at night. Um obviously the noise ordinance does limit
construction activity to certain hours. Um, the only activity that the E
discusses as occurring potentially during nighttime hours, which would need
to go through a noise exception permit process would be other activities like
um pouring concrete or um non-pile driving activity. Um, that's the only
thing addressed in the ER that I could see. I don't know if anyone on ESA's
team might have a little more information on um its analysis of noise
impacts related to pile driving specifically.
» We yeah, we can also look at at mitigation measure NOI1
and pile driving is expressly limited there between 8:00 a.m. and 400 p.m.
Monday through Friday um and prohibited on weekends and holidays. So that again
st those standard um noise restrictions from the noise ordinance and the
mitigation uh program apply for for those limitations.
» Thank you. Um while we're on topic of existing Brisbane laws applying to the
bay lands um can anybody clarify the dark sky issue? My understanding is that
the project is subject to the building project and the completed
project are both subject to dark sky laws. Um, am I correct?
» You're correct. So, the dark sky ordinance does have standards applicable
to construction activity and and those are referenced in the ER as well. Um the
existing dark sky ordinance obviously does not reference the BSP as a district
because it didn't exist at the time or still doesn't exist um when the
ordinance was drafted. What it does address though in section
1588050 which sets lighting standards by zoning
district. Um the last row of of that table with the standards says that any
other zoning district or uses that aren't explicitly named. So like future
districts that might not have existed at the time we wrote the ordinance uh would
be determined at the time of the application involved. Um so the director
essentially the community development director would make a interpretation of
what's the closest applicable district. So that's how the the noise ordinance
addresses it this kind of situation. Now, um, you know, should the commission
want to make a recommendation to council that standards be specified and that
ordinance be amended, um, to specifically call out the BSP,
which obviously would have a lot of different neighborhoods and land use
types, right? You'd want to look very carefully at that. Um, that's something
you could add to your recommendation to council.
So the recommendation would sound something like to consider amending the
dark dark side ordinance to specify the newly created districts.
» Yeah. To to develop lighting uh levels for the BSP district. Well, and it just
one minor clarification on there because at this point you that
um that section of the ordinance isn't something that has been noticed
[clears throat] or is being considered for amendment right
now. Though the the specific plan um in section 3.3 does have um lighting design
standards um that are intended to promote dark sky
preservation. And then a a subdivision of that, the performance standards does
specify that all lighting um shall comply with the city's dark sky
ordinance. So um the specific plan already kind of incorporates those um
standards through reference as well. >> Okay.
And may may I chime in as well, counselor and directors, we also have a
mitigation measure in the EIR apart from um identifying compliance with municipal
code chapter 15.88, 88. It does identify uh lumen requirements for site specific
development projects within the specific plan and it's quite detailed and I will
spare you the um recitation of all the lumens.
» Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah, it's in sorry thanks
for pointing that out Terry. It's in section S.3.1.4
for >> and also mitigation measure um AES
aesthetics uh 4B sky globe prevention. So if if so Eric if it does say that the
specific plan
implementation must comply with the dark sky ordinance that seems to settle it.
Yeah, I would I would agree with that. Okay.
Okay. Okay. Um
where to next? Um
the issue of certifying the final EIR would appear to be
separable from recommending the specific plan itself,
would it not?
» Yeah. >> A separate item to deliberate on.
Correct. >> Yeah, they're they're included in the
same resolution though. And at this point you have staff recommends but
recommendation to certify recommendation to adopt though commission's
deliberations can modify the staff recommendations. So yeah, you could
in I guess more direct response to your question, you could end up after
deliberation with a recommendation to certify the EIR
but for some reason not adopt the specific plan or adopt the specific plan
with changes so that you don't have to accept both staff recommendations on on
both of those items. >> Great.
Does anybody in up here have any issue with with the commission certifying the
IR as a as a standalone issue just before we get to the plan?
» Uh I do not my understanding is that often commissions don't don't aren't
specifically asked to uh to recommend approving the AR. It's just a it's a
document. They don't I I think most of the
substantive deliberations are going to be about the specific plan itself. So I
I I think it would be a great timesaver if we could say yeah let's certify the
AR and move on to uh the plan itself. My understanding is that this the city
council must certify that the IR has been completed in accordance with SQA as
a predicate to adopting a special plan. >> Yep. That that is correct. So before the
the city council takes any final actions um they will need to make a
determination and they would if they were going to approve anything they
would need to first certify the EIR um here for planning commission. um
incumbent as part of your recommendation would be that council certify the EIR.
» Okay.
» Okay. So, I'll make a motion that we recommend that the city council
certified the ER. >> I'll second.
» Well, and and just sorry to interject one more time. It is part of the same
resolution. So just just like the same conversation you had with the general
plan land use and circulation elements, you don't need a separate vote on it. Um
but if there's consensus among the planning commission, you can move on to
your deliberations on the specific plan and just I've written down we can all
remember when you're making your motion. You don't need to change that aspect of
the resolution because that's consistent with staff's recommendation. [laughter]
you know, one one general one question I had uh some of the discussions we've had
like about the dark sky ordinance. I think that very addresses a very
specific concern that was raised by the public and I'm sure it'll be minuteed,
but I think that would be that would be helpful. I think because that was it
made me worried that we were missing something. But if the specific plan
makes sure that it's at least as restrictive as described in the existing
ordinance, I think we we can all be satisfied with that.
» Yeah, I was pretty sure that I'd read language saying that it is subject to
the dark side ordinance, but I appreciate the clarification. Um,
okay.
in the in the staff uh recommendations. There's
also stuff in here about um land use designations and development
standards for among other things uh a middle school. Um,
is that something that this commission has any jurisdiction over or are we just
talking about a designation without any actual
inclusion in the plan of anything about a middle school?
» That's a >> Are are you looking at the wording of
» That was a 10:15 p.m. question. [laughter]
Okay. >> Uh are you looking at the wording of
adoption of the staff recommended specific plan which would include land
use designations and standards etc. [snorts]
» Um I I mean that's again part and parcel of what the specific plan is proposing
right that's that's what is called out for in the specific plan. So, um,
to the extent that commission, well, I'm not sure where you're going
with it, so I won't try to, uh, comment on it if you
» Yeah, but we can we can try and tease it apart.
» Really nebulous question. Where I'm going with it is it somewhere in ask
papers. We were told that we did not have any
governance over the issue of a middle school directly, but that was going to
be the school districts >> that Yeah. So, so that's so the specific
plan as the director was just explaining as before you has land that would be
able to be dedicated for middle school. Whether that is accepted and established
is under the control of the school district. So the land use decision and
the designation within the plan is within your purview. though planning for
it is not the same as actually establishing it. That's a separate
decision that the school that the school district will make.
» We're just creating slots that they can fill up with the middle school if they
choose to. >> Correct.
» Okay.
All right. Um, I think we have no choice but to move on
to discussing the Bayand specific plan. Um, and maybe the best way to handle
this massive issue is to go around the table and and elicit any comments about
um things you want to change or things you
want to recommend the council consider changing or or looking into further. Um,
and then seeing if we can roll those up into a um
into a an amended resolution >> through the chair, if I may. Um, your
typical adjournment time is 10:30. If you wanted to entertain a motion to
extend the meeting, this might be the time to do it before just putting that
out there before you go around to everyone.
» Thoughts? Thoughts?
How how late can we extend it to?
» Um I don't think there is a limitation in your procedures. Um I can verify
that. Um we did start 20 minutes late tonight. So
I would just put that out there for you to consider. Um yeah, we can look real
quick, but I don't believe there's a actual limit. You probably could meet as
late as you wanted to, but we'll confirm.
Keep going. >> Keep going.
» Do you think that uh is your goal to finish the deliberations tonight and
vote? >> I I have no I'm not wedded to that. I'm
just >> get as much done as the time allowed.
» Um >> I'm just wondering if if we can uh like
I I've liked your approach so far of taking discreet things and knocking them
off. I wonder if we should um do this. Is there one more thing
because uh no it's not a huge can of worms but it is it is a kind of worm you
know there will be a lot of topics that we have to go in in depth on
» yeah I think that the issue about amending title 17 to create designations
and yada yada is is administrative ministerial about creating slots and
labels and terminology. So, I I think that's
going to slip in just fine once we approve or not approve of of the plan
with or without recommendations. Um, so the short answer is I think we're we've
exhausted the chunks we can bite off without tackling the the big one.
» Um, if Yeah,
» but I'm not sure. Um,
not sure we can do do justice to this thing
by this time of night. >> I wonder if I mean one one thing we
might might do is going down the line and see what is like top of each of our
minds and then you can decide if any of those are worth
» potentially knocking off tonight, you know.
» Yep. Okay. Um, so I guess the the the broad
question is commissioner one, commissioner 2, three, four, what
what issues do you have that you would if you were the only say that you would
want to change, recommend looking at,
modify? I guess for me broadly, it's sort of the
long-term accountability for testing and sort of looking at uh the remediation
and cleanup efforts. So maybe some more accountability around that based on some
of today's discussions. I think that would be top of my list.
» So, and maybe we just haven't gotten to that point yet, but what how would you
formulate something to to say to the city council about that?
» Yeah, something about maybe some of the details from some of these plans pulling
into sort of the longerterm testing and the details of who's responsible for
those sort of the formation of the the organization that would look after uh
land remediation, sort of clean up longer term. Yeah, still sort of not
sure how that would come together in a recommendation.
» Okay. All right. We can we can tweak the words later, but so about remediation
and also the long-term monitoring is >> Yeah. specifically around greenhouse
gases as well. I think that comment around sort of monitoring those over
time as well. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay.
» But are those are those questions or recommendations we are part of
recommendation are those like things about which we need more feedback
because we've had a lot of feedback on those issues. And I wonder if there's
something more we need to learn. >> Yeah. I don't know if there's any more
feedback necessary. I think I'd like to have something in there that sort of
just holds accountability there longer term. I'm not sure. Maybe I maybe I just
don't have it quite right. But I feel like there's a little bit of that. Uh
it's unclear to me still. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I understand what you're
saying. I'm just trying to understand the like some of the uh what we heard
tonight about the frequency of testing, the fact that there's going to be test
at different times a year. If that's already documented somewhere, would that
satisfy I want one thing to suggest as a vehicle
for articulating that to to the council.
Excuse me. And that is that um staff had had provided tonight a a
document that was that described their intended um recommendations to revise
section 9, which is where the hazardous stuff is. um and to add to add some
language and to clarify some some um activities and responsibilities and
timelines. And perhaps we could couch this to the council as saying that we
you know we don't object or disapprove of of section 9,
but we would recommend that they focus on whatever the staff has provided
between now and the time it goes to the council. um implementing
um their suggested um
recommended revisions. Recommended revisions. Is this making sense with
your language? Thank you. Okay. Um that's one way to do it. So anyway, so
that's that's one issue we have. Got it. Remediation monitoring. Um anything else
from from you, Darius? Well, I think I think related to that, um
I think I think we should recommend something to the city council to have
some kind of like the city be a clearing house for whatever testing that's being
done, the reports that's um you know been prepared
um whatever testing that's done quarterly, whatever that's being done
annually. have the city
automatically receive all of that so that the public can just go to one site
in the city and know what's being done and maybe at the very least because
because we also heard something about some some testing or or some review
being done every five years. So I'm confused as to that. So at the at
minimum I would want in perpetuity annual testing done of the
baylands of the of the water of the soil. I just want to make sure that
place is safe forever for whoever's living there for whoever's working there
just to be for certain at minimum once a
year. So, I would recommend some kind of language to recommend to the city
council that that be done. >> I I think and I I totally agree with
with your sentiment and and your goal. I think that's already in there, but I
think staff's suggestion that they revise the language of section 9 to to
make that clearer and and and more um you know categorically laid out would
would be uh a really good thing. Um
» I you know one of the uh what we heard along the way just to be a bit of a
counterpoint is that there are um you know once something falls below a
level of regulatory concern for a certain number of years
there may not be much point in testing at the same frequency. And I just I'm
kind of sympathetic to that point of view. If it's for 10 years in a row,
it's just like undetectable, then maybe you can at least change the frequency.
And I think I would rely on experts to to some extent to advise on the
frequency of testing that's actually necessary.
» What about if we had a period of rains or earthquakes that and the ground
shifts and things like that happen? I mean, don't you want to, you know, you
want regular testing to make sure that something is happening in your
environment that's impacting the safety of the land?
» Yes, I' I'd imagine that that would be reflected in like, hey, something popped
up. Now, we're committed again for testing for 20 years. I just think the
imperpetuity thing is like let's say you go through a bunch of earthquakes and um
and floods and it turns out that the cap is completely robust through every
single cataclysmic thing you've said. Are you going to keep testing in
perpetuity? I think I would tend to be more differential to what the people who
study these things recommend in situations like that.
» Okay. And and for me, I would weigh what is the cost of the testing versus the
potential harm. Even if it's the one in 1,000 chance, the harm is potentially
death or serious illness, cancer, whatnot. And
what is the cost? I haven't heard a number cited as to how much if we were
to require at minimum a yearly test, how much that would be. And given the scale
of this project and the costs, I I would think that yearly testing would be
minuscule in comparison, but I don't want to risk even one child potentially
getting cancer because on the off chance, you know, something went wrong
and we didn't test every year.
» I concede. It's fine. I'm happy with that.
So, [clears throat] so I don't want to put words in in the
mouths of staff, but is is it your intent uh was it your intent about this
recommendation to revise certain things um in mostly the wording and verbiage of
it to make it more clear? Does it will it address things like what Commissioner
Saison was talking about about frequency of monitoring and testing? Yeah, that's
the intent behind the clarifications is to really clearly outline again, not
change but outline what you know the cadence of testing, inspections,
etc. are as determined by the regulating agencies.
um cuz clearly I think we've learned through these meetings that it is kind
of confusing to keep track of you know when are those 5-year um inspections for
example that EK was was talking about. So yeah that's the intent of clarifying
that is to have it be presented in one place so that it's not just disperate
information but again we're not recommending any changes to what the
regulatory agencies require. >> No just make it clear. Yeah. Um, and and
and by the way, this is probably a worthwhile point to interject that
I don't think the city of Brisbane has the legal jurisdiction to alter the
testing requirements of DTSC or the water board regarding hazardous
remediation. Um,
» I don't think we have the the jurisdiction
in terms of the state agency, but there's nothing to prevent us to from
supplementing what they're doing. I mean, is there
I I will try to answer part of this. Well, actually, no, I won't. Um, I don't
know, city attorney's office, if you want to contribute anything related to,
for example, liability concerns and financial risk and also the city's kind
of police power and authority to do certain things. Yeah, I mean that that's
that's part of the the
benefit to the city and relying on these other agencies is that that keeps the
the city out of the loop for being,
you know, responsible. Um it's these the property owners and the management
agencies and the regulatory agencies that are responsible for monitoring,
detecting, troubleshooting. We actually want to
keep ourselves a little bit at at arms length from that process. Um to defer to
their expertise and their um regulatory jurisdiction
al just to um yeah to to keep the city a little bit at at distance from that
decision. >> So Eric, can I follow up with you on on
that? Um so there was discussions about um a management association the SS EMA
or an HOA um having oversight over over the
monitoring and testing. So could though uh we recommend to the city council that
they make that as a requirement that whatever entity
is going to do that do that at least once a year
» to do I'm sorry do what? to to do annual testing of the water, of the soil, just
make sure everything is safe. Just yearly
» every year. >> I mean, I'm not sure what the actual
cadence >> Yeah. is
» if if you would allow I would like to, if possible, ask Michelle to clarify the
cadence of testing um to because again, I think we're
conflating like inspections, testing. Um,
» yeah, I mean, yeah, the the the plans lay out the monitoring that's required,
but monitoring doesn't always mean collecting samples.
So, a lot of the monitoring of the cap is making sure the cap is intact and in
place. It's not like you're collecting soil samples, just to make sure that's
clear. But it is the regulator the environmental regulatory agencies DTSC
and waterboard that are approving the frequency of these monitoring the
monitoring. So, let me ask a broader question and
I'm sorry to spring this on you because it's kind of a
might be a research item, but the the agencies DTSC and Waterboard just
agencies for short, they I take it have the statutory power to impose
um monitoring, testing and reporting requirements on developers.
» Absolutely. Does their statutory jurisdiction
preempt municipalities from imposing stricter
requirements than those created by the agencies?
» I don't think there's anything that I'm aware of. I'm not an attorney, but I'll
defer to the city attorney. >> Yeah. And and we haven't
this isn't something that we've specifically researched yet, so I I
don't know. Um
Okay. Um, so yeah, the the the question of whether you are fully preempted is
not one that we've researched. Um, that hasn't been an
issue that that we've looked at here. But I guess I'd also question what
um actual basis the city has for
um additional testing if all of the established jurisdictional regulatory
thresholds have already been met. Um for examp like what what then basis is the
city does the city have to impose a a higher standard? Um, and that that
doesn't that question doesn't seem like it's been answered.
» I'm not going to opine because it's not in my pay grade. Um, but
I can't help having the background that I have and and I think the answer is I
suspect the answer is we are preempted and we're arguing about something we
have no power to do anything about. But if we're wrong, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
» Through the chair, it is 10:31. Did you want to vote to extend the meeting?
And if so, to what time? >> Yeah, I don't think we're gonna get done
today, so might as well just so I I can see defeat.
» I mean, again, you do not have to stop. You could vote to extend the meeting,
but if you don't, >> no one is leaving.
[laughter] >> I I think the reality is that each and
every one of us is going to have some issues. Obviously, toxicity is the elf
in the room, but I've got a list of about five more here
that discuss at some point, and we're not going to get to tonight. Um,
six more. Um, and we've we've established, I think,
that we have no no open dates until the date of our next scheduled hearing,
correct? Or meeting? Uh we did pull the commission to see if there were any
availability prior to August 13th and >> there was not.
» I think we were all pretty interested in in this being a vote of all five of us
rather than >> um some lower quorum or lower amount
that is a quorum. Um okay. Shall we move on move on the agenda to other
items and then adjourn till the 13th? Um, and through the chair, sorry, before
you move, I could suggest, would we want, if you're continuing to the 13th,
consider a special start time, an earlier start time just for your
consideration. >> I would be in favor of that.
» Yeah, agreed. Thank you for that suggestion. Um and and what I would also
um before we move on to the rest of the agenda, which won't take long, if I
could encourage everyone to make a make a list of, you know, focus down on
whatever you whatever you if you were in charge would change about this specific
plan or recommend, excuse me, whatever you recommend the city council consider
changing. Um so we can get right down to everybody's issues. One, two, three,
four, five. >> Make sense?
» Uh yes. Can I ask one more clarifying question? You're asking about changes
that we might recommend. Are there any like supplements that you could
recommend like for example um more detail about certain things?
» Yeah. Yeah. >> Is that is that considered a change or
is that an amendment or a supplement or something like that? You know,
» anything you want. >> Okay. All right.
um through the chair if commissioners could individually they could provide
that information to staff as well. Obviously compliance to the brand act
not with your fellow commissioners but that is something you can share
individually with staff. >> A good idea that's all shoot notes to to
staff that way they're ready for or blind side questions like I just
asked. Um, okay. Moving on the agenda, if I can
find it.
» We have any items initiated by staff? >> Not this evening.
» Please don't. Any items initiated by the commission?
No. In that case, we are adjourned until our next regular meeting of
» Apologies. Did you want to adjust the time before you make your motion?
» Uh, I have a motion to uh start it at 6:30 on the 13th.
» I'll make a motion to start at 6:30 on the 13th.
» Second. >> All in favor?
» I. >> All in favor?
» Thank you. We are adjourned until August the 13th at 6:30 p.m. Thank you
all for your patience.
All right.