[0:01] Good evening. The July 23rd, 2026
meeting of the Brisbane Planning
[0:05] Commission will now come to order. May
we have a roll call, please?
[0:09] » Yes. Commissioner Funka
>> here.
[0:11] » Commissioner Laauo,
>> present.
[0:13] » Commissioner Saison,
>> here.
[0:15] » Commissioner Watziaak
>> here.
[0:16] » And Chair Gooding
>> here.
[0:19] Thank you. Uh, may I have a motion to
adopt the agenda, please?
[0:23] » I'll make a motion.
>> I'll second that.
[0:25] » All in favor?
>> I. Motion passes with five eyes.
[0:30] » Uh is are is there any commissioner who
would like to remove any item from the
[0:35] consent calendar?
[0:40] » Hearing none.
[clears throat]
[0:49] Right. The consent calendar, as I
understand it, includes uh adoption of
[0:53] the uh meeting minutes for the last
three meetings of the commission. Um,
[0:58] and we have a motion to adopt the
consent calendar.
[1:02] » I so move. I'll second.
>> All in favor?
[1:06] » I
>> I.
[1:07] » Motion passes with five eyes.
[1:15] » Um,
we have time now for any oral
[1:18] communications from anyone who wishes to
speak to the commission on items not on
[1:22] tonight's agenda. Repeat, not on
tonight's agenda. Is there anyone who
[1:26] would like to address the commission uh
in that manner either in the room or
[1:30] online?
[1:34] Seeing none in the room
and none online, we'll move on. Thank
[1:40] you.
[1:45] Uh moving on to written communications.
We will acknowledge that we have
[1:49] received written communications from um
at least the following. uh Anthony
[1:54] Walker regarding um greenhouse gases. Uh
the Beayshore Sanitary District
[2:00] regarding um um compliance and agreement
between uh our our proposed plan and
[2:06] their uh protocols. Um from Kim Folian
uh generally in support of the specific
[2:12] plan.
um from Clara Johnson regarding uh
[2:16] numerous items in the EI
uh from BDI in response to questions um
[2:26] from the last meeting and from Chris
Florowski regarding the Geneva extension
[2:32] and I are there any other written
communications that we've received since
[2:36] then?
[2:40] » Uh he acknowledges Claire Johnson. None
none additional. Thank you very much.
[2:48] » All right, going on to
new business.
[2:53] We will be hearing tonight's item D.
There's a continued public hearing
[3:00] regarding the Baylands sub area
environmental review 2021-ER1
[3:06] specific plan 2021- SP1 zoning amendment
2021-RZ-3
[3:14] general plan amendment 2021-
GPA-2
[3:24] and does that include the mobility plan?
Yes.
[3:28] » Yes. Thank you. I thought it did. Thank
you.
[3:31] » Okay.
>> So, first up, uh, do we have any staff
[3:36] presentations for this?
>> Yes. Thank you. Good evening, chair and
[3:38] commission. So, at last
Thank you. Okay. At uh the last meeting
[3:46] on June 30th, staff brought some
information to the commission per the
[3:50] commission's request um on five topics.
So, those are summarized in the report.
[3:55] I won't revisit them here. Um, tonight
we will also address additional topics
[4:00] brought up by the commission
um at that meeting. We'll also go over
[4:05] some proposed modification staff
recommended modifications to the
[4:09] specific plan um to clarify average
minimum densities uh provisions related
[4:14] to hospitality uses and building types
and clarifying state regulated
[4:19] remediation and the monitoring process
relative to city issued uh permits and
[4:23] development procedures. and we'll also
revisit staff's recommendation on the
[4:28] commission's actions related to this
project. Um, I want to acknowledge the
[4:32] city team here tonight. So, in addition
to myself, we have Jeremiah Robbins,
[4:35] senior planner, um, the city's new city
engineer and deputy public works
[4:39] director, Roland Dip, who's been here
for about a month. Um, Eric Phillips,
[4:43] special counsel with the city attorney's
office. On the consultant team, we have
[4:46] a mix of inerson and virtual attendees
from um ESA, environmental science
[4:51] associates, including Terry Ovula, um as
well as team members specializing in air
[4:56] quality, energy, GHG, noise, cultural
resources, hazards, and water. Um ESA
[5:01] team members specializing in land use
and planning and subconultants fair and
[5:05] peers regarding transportation and site
lab regarding urban design. And finally,
[5:10] we're also joined by um our consultants
with EKI. So, we have Michelle King here
[5:15] in person from EKI and I believe John
Montgomery Brown online. Um, and again,
[5:20] they're the city's consultant team
reviewing the Baylands remediation
[5:23] planning documents for us.
[5:30] » Okay, I'm going to hand it now over to
Jeremiah.
[5:34] » Thank you. Staff included four
attachments to tonight's report to
[5:38] respond to topics raised by the
commission on June 30th which included
[5:41] clarifying information on the topics on
the screen here. Staff uh has summarized
[5:46] them here. Uh the first one is uh on the
base mobility plan. There was request
[5:49] for expanded discussion of how the BMP
integrates with regional transportation
[5:53] plans and the feasibility of
constructing right ofway improvements
[5:57] proposed within the BMP without
implementing a road diet. Regional and
[6:02] state transportation plans recognize
Beayshore Boulevard as an important
[6:05] corridor, but none of them require it to
stay four-lane a four-lane regional
[6:10] route. Instead, they emphasize safety,
multimodal access, and operational
[6:14] improvements. This ultimately provides
the city with flexibility in how it uh
[6:20] redesigns the corridor. As for rightaway
improvements, the feasibility of
[6:24] implementing a continuous class one bike
path while maintaining the existing
[6:28] four-lane roadway configuration varies
throughout the corridor, potentially
[6:33] requiring reducing the width of the bike
path. Uh additional right ofway
[6:37] acquisition, retaining walls, utility
relocation andor removal of other
[6:42] transportation featur features uh
meaning additional engineering
[6:46] evaluation would be necessary. The
second one was uh to provide examples of
[6:51] development projects in California with
required or voluntary net zero
[6:55] greenhouse gas emissions. The projects
included on that table in the attachment
[7:00] to SAS report are either required by
local or regional regulations or
[7:06] voluntarily pursued for streamlining
project approvals and judicial review of
[7:10] SQL lawsuits. Neither of these scenarios
apply to the bail specific plan. The
[7:15] third one was to get more information on
the remediation requirements of the
[7:19] Schlage lock site in San Francisco and
whether it impacts development and
[7:24] remediation of the Brisbane Baylands. So
development in the bridgebane baylands
[7:29] will be required to prevent exposure to
chlorinated volatile organic compounds
[7:34] CVOCC's by either demonstrating through
a sight specific risk assessment that no
[7:40] significant risk is present or by
blocking or minimizing the vapor
[7:44] intrusion pathway from those CVOCC's in
soil vapor that originate from the
[7:48] Schlage operating unit. That's the one
in San Francisco groundwater plume.
[7:52] These requirements are included in the
approved remedial action plan and
[7:56] accompanying human health risk
assessment prepared for the operable
[8:00] unit SM. That's the one in Brisbane on
the northern portion of the Bayland
[8:04] site. And then the last one here is to
get some more information on the role of
[8:09] sight specific environmental management
associations SSAs
[8:14] um and how they might be used for large
contamin contaminated sites. So um the
[8:22] both the DTSC and the waterboard will
utilize SSMAs to manage sitewise
[8:27] contamination and regulatory compliance
on sites that will be subdivided in the
[8:31] future. A local example is SPEMA. That's
the Southern Pacific Environmental
[8:35] Management Association. Uh, and it's a
mandatory association of property owners
[8:40] created in 1999 by order of the water
board to handle the joint environmental
[8:45] affairs of all current and future land
owners on the former zero point landfill
[8:49] for both cleanup and ongoing abatement
actions.
[8:57] » All right, thanks Jeremiah.
Oops. Okay. Um, we also provided
[9:05] information in the staff report on
recommended clarifications to the
[9:08] specific plan. Um, and this is building
on topics we've already introduced uh at
[9:12] prior hearings. Um, but at this point,
staff is making a recommendation on
[9:17] them. So for chapter 3, um we are
recommending that the plan be clarified
[9:23] regarding how minimum density and
intensities are averaged throughout the
[9:28] specific plan area, including within the
uh station area around the Cal Train
[9:33] station.
Um, we're also suggesting some changes
[9:37] to uh modify how hospitality uses are
permitted in the plan. Um, to
[9:43] essentially permit them in both
highdensity commercial and mid-density
[9:46] commercial designations
um and to allow those building types to
[9:51] similarly be permitted in uh mid-density
districts.
[9:57] Um we
[10:02] we're also recommending some
clarifications to chapter 9 of the plan
[10:06] which addresses implementation. So,
these changes are really geared toward
[10:13] clarifying and spelling out in a little
more detail how the remediation process,
[10:18] which is um overseen by state regulatory
agencies, um interacts with or relates
[10:25] to city control processes like uh
permits and um other development review
[10:31] procedures. Um we did have some detailed
information in the attachment. We won't
[10:36] go over it tonight, but we're available
to answer questions on it. Um, but
[10:40] again, it's just to emphasize um
existing processes and procedures, how
[10:43] they relate to each other when it comes
to the state, the city, property owner
[10:48] uh obligations.
[snorts]
[10:55] Okay. Okay. So, just revisiting for
everyone's benefit tonight um staff's
[10:59] recommendation to the commission is that
the commission recommends certification
[11:03] of the final EIR for the specific plan
um and approval of the project
[11:09] entitlements including general plan land
use and circulation element um
[11:13] amendments
and um adoption of the specific plan
[11:17] itself as recommended by staff with
additional clarifications that we've
[11:22] presented uh tonight. um as well as
amendments to title 17 of the municipal
[11:28] code to implement the specific plan and
zoning uh in the zoning ordinance.
[11:33] Um and finally also to approve the
bayore mobility plan um which calls for
[11:37] enhancing mobility along beayshore and
compliance with uh circulation element
[11:41] policies in the general plan.
[11:46] So this is we'll keep our presentation
short tonight um and leave lots of room
[11:50] for questions. Um
procedurally tonight after questions of
[11:55] staff and consultants um the commission
should accept additional public comment
[11:59] including from the um applicant team ask
clarifying questions related to
[12:03] testimony provided and then afterwards
the commission can close the public
[12:08] hearing uh and commence deliberations.
And that is it for our presentation.
[12:14] We're happy to answer questions.
[12:19] Thank you. Are there any presentations
from the consultants or should we just
[12:22] ask them questions as Yeah, you can ask
questions.
[12:25] » Thank you.
>> Um I have a few but I'll I'll wait my
[12:30] turn till the end. Um Darius, any
questions?
[12:34] Commissioner Saison?
>> Um yes, I have questions concerning
[12:39] » through the chair. Is your mic on?
>> Sorry. Thank you.
[12:41] » Yes, I have questions concerning what uh
was submitted. Um following our last
[12:46] meeting um let me see um
the first concerns um
[12:59] um I had asked about um whether the city
should have independent testing done and
[13:06] you submitted I thought was was a good
response as to what the plan is that um
[13:12] that the owners would put a fund
together and that they would um see to
[13:18] it that uh you know the um the the area
is monitored for any issues and that any
[13:26] maintenance be done. So my my question
with that is um so so the owners are
[13:32] responsible for that. I guess there's a
a an association that manages it. How
[13:39] are those people selected and and um who
are those individuals like like what
[13:45] what what are their qualifications?
[13:50] » Does anybody
>> for environmental management
[13:53] associations so for example how the
actual management is is determined? Um I
[14:00] don't know if we
[14:05] » Okay. Um yeah, the the applicant the
applicant may be able to address that
[14:08] question. Um
if you feel
[14:14] » Yeah. If the applicant has an answer,
they're welcome to provide it.
[14:28] Good evening, commissioners and
commissioner Cesana. Yeah, the way that
[14:32] um the Sarah Point Environmental
Management Association works is it is
[14:36] comprised of all of the land owners out
there. So they make up the association.
[14:42] So everybody who and it's and they pay
quarterly dues
[14:48] to the association which has a trustee
which hires an environmental management
[14:55] consultant. the case of Sierra Point,
it's Jacobs Engineering who does all of
[14:59] their monitoring, quarterly reports,
reports that are sent to the waterboard
[15:05] and the county department of health and
that is all in a recorded um association
[15:12] that it takes is in perpetuity. So once
a land owner is in the association, even
[15:19] when they sell the if they sell the
property, the next owner is now in the
[15:24] um is required to be part of the
association and pay the dues, but it is
[15:28] managed by an environmental consulting
firm and
[15:32] » Okay. Okay.
>> Yeah. And they also have to carry uh
[15:35] environmental insurance.
>> I see. So in case of any emergencies
[15:39] » and and they submit a report to the
water board and then the water board
[15:44] examines it. So the water board doesn't
do any of their own testing. Correct.
[15:48] » Uh no the testing is done by the
groundwater testing out at Sarah Point
[15:55] um is done by the consultant Jacobson
Engineering on a quarterly basis and on
[16:00] behalf of the association and those
reports are sent to the waterboard. the
[16:04] water board reviews them if there's
questions and you know they come back
[16:06] and ask for more information if there's
issues with the but it's it's um
[16:12] uh
the county department of health also has
[16:19] oversight over all former uh both
current landfills and former landfills.
[16:24] So the county does do a quarterly
inspection of zero point as well as the
[16:29] bayands landfill right now
>> and for that matter all the landfills
[16:34] both active and closed in the and that
ring the bay.
[16:37] » Okay. So let's say after you are done
with your entire project. Yes.
[16:43] » So my my question is um at how how
regularly will testing be done after
[16:50] everything is completed?
Um well at the landfill
[16:57] in um I'm not sure on the railard side
but there will be for groundwater
[17:02] quarterly testing and then a regular
inspection of the landfill cap um that
[17:09] is done
actually that is usually done by the
[17:14] regulators that inspection but it's a
quarterly quarterly groundwater
[17:19] monitoring
um
[17:21] » that's in in perpetuity.
>> Uh in perpetuity, that's the way it's
[17:27] written or until you know there's I mean
the cap will be in perpetuity. Okay.
[17:34] » But the groundwater monitoring if
there's nothing if there's if it's not
[17:36] showing any any you know concerns in the
groundwater those could be um you know
[17:43] uh either either not monitored anymore
or monitored less frequently. So in fact
[17:49] at the Schllay lock site in San
Francisco we did we were doing quarterly
[17:53] monitoring and now because the levels
are so low we are into am I not
[17:57] misspeaking we are into semiannual
on the on the lock side. Yeah. So in
[18:03] terms of this fund that's being set up
by the owners how regularly will that
[18:10] you know monitoring be done from that
fund?
[18:14] » Yeah that's quarter that's the quarterly
monitoring I'm referring to. Yes.
[18:17] » Okay. Yes. Wow. Okay. Great.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And it's worked very well
[18:21] out at Sar Point
>> efficiently. Yeah.
[18:25] » Just to stay on topic and um I bring you
up here two or three times. A couple
[18:30] questions. These may be for you or might
be for staff or maybe for legal, I'm not
[18:34] sure. Um but my question is this this
envisioned uh S SA
[18:42] to add to my acronym list. Um, how is
that mandated and where is it in the
[18:48] documents? Is it embedded in in
covenants that run with the land? Is it
[18:52] um is it going to be statutory? What
what mandates it and what teeth are
[18:58] behind it?
[19:02] Anybody?
>> Um Michelle with EKI. Do are you able to
[19:06] answer that?
>> I can try to take a stab at it. Um
[19:11] Michelle King with EKI, the city's
environmental um consultant that's been
[19:15] doing peer review. Um
>> louder and closer to the
[19:19] » I will go closer to the mic. Thank you.
So typically the regulatory agencies
[19:26] whether it's the DTSC or the water board
will require some type of financial
[19:29] assurance mechanism as part of the
remedy and that financial assurance
[19:35] mechanism can pass from owner to owner
as parcels are sold. But in terms of
[19:42] where such a management organization
comes in, it will be linked in some ways
[19:47] to this idea of financial assurance. So
once the property is developed that
[19:51] whether it is an SS EMA or even if you
had individual let's say homeowners
[19:57] associations or other entities that are
doing it, it would come through the
[20:02] financial assurance mechanism because
that's a big thing that the agencies
[20:05] when there is long-term management of
waste, if you will, that's left in place
[20:10] that they want to make sure that there's
money available to do it and a and a
[20:15] viable entity and not left to like
individual homes. homeowners and things
[20:19] like that.
>> And thank you. That that that starts to
[20:23] answer it. Let me let me add on to the
questions. I'm trying to address what I
[20:27] perceive are are concerns in the
community of what happens if people stop
[20:32] reporting, annual reports stop being
done, testing just slips by the wayside.
[20:37] What entity has what power to enforce
this with with remedies? And and
[20:42] » that would be the environmental
regulatory agency, whether it's the DTSC
[20:46] or the water board. And just in terms of
the wa the DTSC
[20:51] and I think there was a question about
who does inspections. The DTSC actually
[20:56] does do annual more like driveby
inspections like once some a site's been
[21:01] developed. They want to make sure is the
land use the same? Do I see the building
[21:05] there that was built there? It's not
like it's a thorough, oh, let me look
[21:09] and see if there's cracks in the
pavement, but they're at least looking
[21:12] to make sure that the remedyy's intact
and somehow big changes haven't been
[21:16] made. So, DTSC does do that type of
driveby as well.
[21:20] » And to add a little bit more on onto
that too, some of the the remedies would
[21:25] um change depending on where in the
development process we are. So, for
[21:31] example, if there were a lack of testing
or failure to complete to a certain
[21:36] level um before building permits were
issued, the city would have the ability
[21:41] to withhold building permits. So there's
um
[21:46] mechanisms built in throughout the
remediation process to ensure that the
[21:51] standards that have been established by
the appropriate regulatory um agencies
[21:56] are being met before the the project
continues through to the next phase.
[22:02] Thank you. So I I sort of get that
during building process there's all
[22:06] kinds of of hammers that we would have
to make sure it's done before you can
[22:10] build. I guess the the I think as I read
it the community concern is for the long
[22:15] long haul.
>> Yep.
[22:16] » And I I'm hearing the answer that is the
two regulatory agencies that have joint
[22:22] or overlapping juris or conjunct
jurisdiction over these two pieces of
[22:27] the site.
>> Yeah. And and I'm sure that um the
[22:30] applicant will elaborate on this, but
yeah. and and that's if there were to be
[22:35] an incident that happened down the line
during operations. In part, that's what
[22:40] the environmental insurance is there to
help um provide for funds and resources
[22:46] to do additional remediation or take
steps that might be necessary to respond
[22:52] should there be an unanticipated
incident. That's that's part of the
[22:57] protection mechanism that's built in.
But um I'm sure BDI might want to
[23:02] elaborate on that.
>> Yes. The sites will also be um deed
[23:07] restricted through something called an
land use covenant an LU and that does
[23:13] run with the property. Um so the next
owner is now that is they're they are
[23:21] bound by the agency orders and by the
land use covenant deed restrictions
[23:28] recorded deed restrictions um as well as
the financial mechanisms that Michelle
[23:32] discussed. So there's many many many
many
[23:37] belts and suspenders that keep the
owners on the hook for regular
[23:43] environmental inspections, reviews and
financial instruments in the case you
[23:48] know of an earthquake and you know
something needs to be repaired.
[23:53] So if is that where the funding um
mandates are is in the covenants
[24:00] » um
>> funding for the association to
[24:02] » they often are but they're also written
into uh the water board and DTSC's rules
[24:08] and regulations. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right.
[24:10] » And they are often show up in the LUC's
as well.
[24:13] » Thank you your question a lot.
>> Oh no no no.
[24:17] I guess I'm I'm not 100% clear, so bear
with me in asking this again. But so my
[24:24] so my concern is once you're done and it
could be years, decades from now. My
[24:31] concern is a child is playing outside on
the dirt, on the grass and whatever and
[24:38] something could have happened, something
leaked and uh you know now you know that
[24:44] child is playing on perhaps contaminated
soil. So my question is how regularly?
[24:50] So I'm I'm I'm hearing quarterly, I'm
hearing annually.
[24:54] » No, quarterly. Yeah. No, quarterly
inspections are done by and and that are
[24:59] paid for by these associations by the
and they're done on a quarterly basis
[25:04] that inspect the caps inspect that make
sure that everything is you know in
[25:09] place. The groundwater is the one I was
talking about that is current quarterly
[25:14] can go to semiannually and can be
discontinued if there's no longer any
[25:19] groundwater. The thing you're talking
that I'm sorry, the issue you're
[25:23] referring to is is the cap in place and
is people being protected and that is
[25:29] inspected on a quarterly basis by the
environmental consultant that is hired
[25:33] by the association whether it be an an
HOA um or a um a association like SEMA,
[25:44] the Sierra Point Environmental
Management Association, which is made up
[25:47] of all of the property owners out and
allowed on Sierra point
[25:51] » and then whenever there's testing done
that report is given to a state agency
[25:58] » uh
>> yeah it's yeah I'm sorry it's it's it's
[26:04] yeah it is all part of the regulatory
process okay um and those reports are
[26:08] given to you know the water board andor
the DTSC and the county and um
[26:15] I believe those can even be made
available to the city as well. Yeah,
[26:19] that's that was my next question. So,
could something like that automatically
[26:22] be given to the city?
>> Yes, of course.
[26:27] » Okay. Um I'm not sure if I
>> Do we need to put that in? Um
[26:31] [clears throat]
>> well, I just I I have a question for
[26:35] Michelle B. Would would those reports
also be available on the website um that
[26:40] DTSC and the waterboards maintain?
>> Yeah. Yeah. So um there's the geot
[26:46] tracker website which is the
waterboard's website that typically you
[26:50] know often the responsible party is the
one who uploads those reports DTSC
[26:55] controls and virus store. So yeah
typically they're uploaded and available
[26:58] to the public. Yeah.
>> Um the other report I want to bring up
[27:02] just so everyone's aware that happens as
well is 5-year reviews. So there's not
[27:07] only are these routine inspections
happening but um mandated again in the
[27:13] regulations by the state are that every
5 years a more thorough assessment is
[27:18] done to look at the overall
protectiveness of the remedy. So if
[27:22] there's been any changes in let's say
the toxicity of some chemical there's
[27:26] some new concern that every 5 years this
this protectiveness evaluation that's
[27:32] performed. Yep.
>> Okay. So,
[27:35] » and again, those are performed by the
environmental consultant that is hired
[27:38] and paid for by the association and um
those are available on the DTSDs or the
[27:45] waterboard's website, but those also
could be made available directly to the
[27:48] city.
>> And I guess my followup is probably to
[27:51] staff. Could do we need to make a
specific request that any report of that
[27:57] nature that is generated be
automatically sent and upload into the
[28:02] city's website so that if anybody wants
to know what's going on that they would
[28:07] have those reports available?
>> Yeah, there there's two ways that that
[28:10] could be handled. Um, in attachment
seven in the packet, there were some
[28:15] suggested um, additions to section 9 on
implementation that were more focused on
[28:21] the city's approval processes and the
steps during that. But you could direct
[28:27] staff to make another addition there to
have a requirement to just have the city
[28:34] receive a copy of each one of these
other reports. The other place that that
[28:38] could live is in the development
agreement where that will be coming back
[28:42] to you in a few more weeks. Um, and
there that could be a contractual
[28:47] obligation to provide courtesy copies of
each ones of these reports that the city
[28:52] then publishes on its website and makes
more easily accessible for members of
[28:57] the public so they don't have to use
those the geo tracker and the different
[29:00] state resources to find to find them.
So, um, either either of those places
[29:06] are ways that you could capture that.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[29:12] » Uh, I guess I'm a little confused now.
So, in this case, SPEA is an example of
[29:18] a a unit like this. Is there one that
will be set up for sure? Is it sort of
[29:21] at the end of the project, we'll see
sort of how it breaks down or what's the
[29:24] sort of um the HOAs and SSMAs and all
the different possibilities there?
[29:34] We don't have we're not that far down
the road yet. But yeah, I mean what we
[29:38] have disc the city and amongst our
development team is that yeah we would
[29:43] to take the association approach for the
long-term management of the
[29:47] environmental concerns. Yeah.
[29:58] as well.
[30:03] » Yeah,
>> no questions right now.
[30:05] » Oh, actually I did remember something.
Um
[30:08] uh at the last meeting um the Sierra
Club and other environmental groups had
[30:15] had brought up uh wanting a conservation
easements put in the specific plan and
[30:22] um I didn't see in your response if you
had a position on that if if we were to
[30:27] recommend that if you know would that be
an issue at all you know for for the
[30:33] developer.
[30:37] Yes. Again, I think what we discussed is
there are a sizable portions of our open
[30:42] space and park um land like Visitation
Creek which has a wetlands res
[30:47] restoration. Those are in perpetuity. So
there would be no need for a
[30:52] conservation easement. Uh I think the
rest of it is it's a lot of park. So
[30:57] we'd want to very carefully discuss yeah
wouldn't close the door on it but I
[31:03] think we we need to have more discussion
about yeah how that would actually work.
[31:07] » One more
>> one more before you go. Um I also
[31:11] brought up um San Bruno Mountain Watch
had requested that their mission blue
[31:16] nursery stay where they're at and be
part of the uh community fields that you
[31:21] plan to um develop there. Um
[31:27] So, it do you have a position on that?
Um,
[31:31] » we don't have a position on it at this
time. Um, I mean, we're,
[31:36] as you all may know, um, Mission Blue
Nursery has been a rent-free tenant of
[31:42] ours for over 20 years, I believe, and
um, they're very much a part of our
[31:47] fabric. Um, and we we had incorporated
them on another site to accommodate the
[31:53] community fields. um they have sent us
sort of a conceptual sketch. We have we
[31:59] have yet to send that to our landscape
architect um to make sure that that
[32:02] actually fits uh because it does what
they have is a taken out kind of a chunk
[32:08] of the field and a chunk of the picnic
area that had been planned for them and
[32:13] and um I think the answer is we want to
work with Miss Blue Nursery. We're big
[32:18] fans of theirs and yeah, so we'll we're
happy to work with them, but we just
[32:22] have not done the analysis yet on the
>> and and have done the community outreach
[32:27] with the soccer
proponents in town to make sure that
[32:32] that they were that it works together.
>> Thank you.
[32:35] » But we will.
[32:40] » Okay. I do have a few questions also. Um
going to drag us back to your attachment
[32:44] three, the mobility plan. Um, we had a
response from um,
[32:49] the firm that was doing the traffic
study. I've forgotten the name. I
[32:52] apologize. Um, do we have the ability
plan folks here tonight?
[32:56] » Yes. Matt Glenn is here from Fair Pier.
>> And thank you very much. What what they
[33:01] what you provided, as I understand it,
was a template, if you will, for how
[33:06] this commission could, if it were
inclined, include in its recommendations
[33:11] or or suggestions to council that we um
omit the
[33:20] road diet portion of the plan. and you
provided a template for what remaining
[33:24] pieces were part of the general bailands
circulation plan that would be important
[33:28] to leave in there to accommodate
those street issues. So, did I get that
[33:35] right very generally?
>> Thank you, chair. Yes, that's correct.
[33:38] » Okay. My question is, and I I think
Jeremiah began to address it. I'm not
[33:42] sure I understood it. Is there
I know folks in town generally would
[33:48] have a a would love to have a real
sidewalk on beayhore
[33:55] for areas south of and outside of the
the boundaries of this project um for
[34:02] pedestrians for kids going to and from
school for the the RV park to um
[34:08] residents to access the rest of town and
and so forth. I is there a way
[34:15] I'm not sure how [clears throat] to use
the right language here for traffic
[34:17] engineering. Is there a way to to create
a sidewalk, you know, a decent one that
[34:22] matches up with, you know, what you guys
usually do for bikes and pedestrians and
[34:27] so forth, um, without reducing the lanes
from four to two in areas south of the
[34:33] project.
>> Yeah. So there the right of way on
[34:39] beayshore is variable and so it's
anything from just under 80 ft to over
[34:45] 100 100 plus feet. And so for a lot of
those kind of wider segments or in
[34:50] between intersections you could pretty
easily fit uh a class one path or a
[34:56] sidewalk on there. Um there are some
constrained locations I think uh at the
[35:02] Brisbane Technology Park driveways for
example where there are um what we call
[35:06] deceleration lanes and additional lanes
so so cars can decelerate from 45 mph to
[35:12] turn in and then the kind of accelerate
out as well. Um there's just that uh
[35:18] constrains the rightway. So the the
answer is that it what Jeremiah said it
[35:24] would require a little bit more
engineering studies to determine kind of
[35:27] how to approach those constrained
locations and what sort of features you
[35:32] know are you sacrificing kind of pathway
or sidewalk with or are you sacrificing
[35:37] other other components
um that would have to be completed.
[35:41] » So so thank you for the answer. Um that
that's that's clearer. Um, so would it
[35:46] be it would be feasible, I take it, for
this commission to to recommend to the
[35:51] city council,
um, hypothetically, to to retain the
[35:57] four-lane structure,
but to pursue engineering feasibilities
[36:04] for a class one sidewalk area on the
west side of Beayore.
[36:10] » That is correct.
>> Okay. Thank Thank you very much.
[36:12] » I actually had a question. And I I was
going to reserve this for our
[36:15] deliberation time, but it's on topic
here. Um for the road diet, I think one
[36:21] of the concerns that has been expressed
is the fact that it um you know,
[36:25] beayhore is one of the few like
there's not many ways to get up and down
[36:30] say in case of emergencies. So let's say
you did do the road diet.
[36:35] Would it be reversible in a in an
emergency? Like are the medians going to
[36:40] be like could you just open it up in
case they're
[36:43] Is that is that a consideration or would
it be just inoperable that way?
[36:48] » Yes. Um and that's critical part of any
um you know road diet facility these
[36:54] these days where particularly for
something similar to beayshore what you
[36:58] can use is um emergency vehicle
preeemption and your emergency service
[37:04] providers will have control over kind
the how the traffic signals work at
[37:08] either end and you can go out and use
them. for example, to say like let's say
[37:14] you needed to have two outbound lanes on
on Beayshore. Um you can close uh you
[37:20] know the intersection. This would only
be in that you know very rare
[37:23] circumstance um where you need to get
people out of uh Brisbane for whatever
[37:27] reason and you could have two outbound
lanes and then repurpose the multi-use
[37:32] path which is going to be wide enough
for emergency vehicle service providers
[37:36] to come inbound. And so that's kind of
the under the philosophy of of making
[37:41] sure that there's flexibility for
providing everyday safety for the 99.9%
[37:47] of the time when you know traffic and
people are moving normally and and
[37:52] giving emergency service providers the
the keys to being able to as a part of
[37:57] their planning efforts you know reverse
traffic directions or do things um that
[38:02] would allow them to continue to serve
the community as they need Yeah.
[38:07] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh my next uh set of questions is
[38:12] about the um greenhouse gas issue and uh
you folks attached to the agenda um a
[38:18] helpful um listing of exemplar projects
um with net zero greenhouse gas
[38:27] emissions. And I noted that that most of
them had as part of the the proposal in
[38:32] the process um
regular I think annual reporting of um
[38:41] analyses of greenhouse gas emissions as
the projects move on and become built
[38:46] and inhabited and used and occupied. Um
and not sure this might be a staff
[38:52] question. I'm not really sure. Whoever
wants it can have it. Um, is does our
[38:57] specific plan provide
having taken out one of the greenhouse
[39:02] gas criteria or or measures metrics,
does it still does it still provide for
[39:07] regular tracking of greenhouse gas
emissions?
[39:12] » Um, ESA team, do you want to
I don't know if you have Brian or Brian.
[39:21] » Sure, I can respond to that.
>> Thank you.
[39:30] Yeah. Hi, I'm Brian Cher with ESA. Uh, I
led the greenhouse gas energy and air
[39:36] quality analysis in the EIR.
The removal of impact GHG1
[39:44] also removed any
mandate to achieve a specific greenhouse
[39:49] gas target for the project and any
tracking that goes along with that. The
[39:56] specific plan also does not have any
requirements to track greenhouse gas
[40:00] emissions. So these projects in the
table all have either
[40:07] uh um opted into legislative
uh streamlining benefits through bills
[40:14] like AB900 now SB7 environmental
leadership projects that among other
[40:19] things to gain the judicial streamlining
benefits of those of those bills had to
[40:23] achieve net zero GHD emissions and those
document ERS used net zero as a
[40:30] greenhouse gas threshold.
In addition to that legislative
[40:33] requirement and in order to achieve that
um the threshold of GHG zero GHG they
[40:40] had mitigation measures um to buy
offsets and track emissions over time.
[40:44] So the the hook there was a combination
of the sequent threshold requiring
[40:48] mitigation and the legislative
requirement which the California Air
[40:53] Resources Board manages and and tracks.
Um because the bay lands no longer has
[40:59] that net zero threshold through GHG1
which was removed in the final ER. There
[41:03] is not a SQA requirement to achieve or
track the project's greenhouse gas
[41:10] emissions. That does not mean that you
couldn't track emissions as part of the
[41:16] specific plan or as part of um city
policy matter or development agreement.
[41:22] and um I can you know if the city wants
to speak to that they're welcome to or
[41:26] if you have any follow-up questions I'm
happy to respond to those as well.
[41:31] » Uh I had just one followup question to
that I think in some of the
[41:34] correspondents we received or one of the
responses was
[41:38] » uh I think it basically said it's it's
like technically you can't really
[41:42] measure greenhouse gases directly. So is
it like an indirect measure like the
[41:47] kind of vehicles that are being used,
number of trips, that kind of thing?
[41:50] » Yeah, absolutely. It's like you similar
to how you well how we estimated
[41:55] greenhouse gas emissions for the project
before it's being built. Although
[41:58] measurement in the future measurement in
quotes would be more accurate because
[42:01] you would actually be tracking activity.
What you're tracking is you're you're
[42:05] you're measuring activity which produces
greenhouse gas emissions. So similar to
[42:10] the way you do your greenhouse gas
inventory for the city, you're tracking
[42:14] energy use. You're tracking VMT vehicle
miles traveled. You're tracking water,
[42:19] wastewater generation, landfilling, all
of the all of the actual activities that
[42:24] produce either direct or indirect
emissions from power plants or landfills
[42:29] or vehicle tail pipes. You're not
actually putting a tracker on people's
[42:33] cars. You're not asking them to submit
their, you know, uh, uh, gas bills, but
[42:38] you're estimating the amount of
greenhouse gases coming from vehicles
[42:41] based on, you know, district-wide,
projectwide, um, activity metrics. And
[42:46] as the project builds out and you have,
you know, actual estimated energy use
[42:51] and you can you can more accurately
predict uh VMT based on the number of
[42:56] land uses and the number of occupants
and the square footage of commercial
[43:00] development and the number of employees
commuting and commute surveys and all of
[43:03] that. Um you can reasonably accurately
predict um greenhouse gas emissions.
[43:09] » Okay. Brian, you you had spoken a little
bit about you the modification to GHG1,
[43:16] the removal of some of the tracking. Um,
but I think it also would be helpful to
[43:21] highlight then the things that the uh
both the EIR and the specific plan still
[43:26] affirmatively do require in um with
regard to both energy efficiency and GHG
[43:35] reduction measures. Um because I don't
want um the response to leave uh people
[43:40] confused as to that oh we're we're not
doing anything to address uh project
[43:46] energy use or emissions. I I know
there's a very robust program, so maybe
[43:50] you could speak a little bit about that
as well.
[43:53] » Yeah, the the the only thing that was
removed really was the net zero
[43:58] requirement and the offsets measure, the
measure to buy carbon offsets or
[44:04] combination of funding local programs
that generate registry offsets and
[44:09] buying offsets from the carbon market to
achieve net zero. Everything else is
[44:13] still required. So the the four other
greenhouse gas mitigation measures,
[44:18] things like uh the uh renewable fuel
shuttles and the renewable fuels for the
[44:24] wastewater water reclamation facility
and low global warming potential
[44:28] refrigerants. Those are all part of the
specific plan. So they migrated from
[44:34] being sequent mitigation measures into
basically design standards in the
[44:37] specific plan requirements. The project
also retains all of its solar, the solar
[44:43] field, all the building battery, which
uh the specific plant allows up to 500
[44:47] megawatts of battery including the 250
megawatt utility scale solar. um the
[44:53] lead lead gold standards in Greenpoint
rated design for residential and
[44:57] non-residential
uh the you know the TDM program which
[45:00] reduces VMT regionally um by a
substantial margin and all of the other
[45:05] project design features that reduce
project emissions those are all still in
[45:10] place
>> and I think as as a result the EI
[45:14] concludes that we would see a a regional
reduction in GHG emissions is that still
[45:20] correct
>> yeah so it's you know The traditional
[45:23] SQUA lens is what's happening at the
site now. You know, draw a boundary
[45:28] around the site and then what would the
project put there and what are the
[45:31] emissions coming from that project
within that geographic boundary compared
[45:35] to what's there now. It's, you know,
existing conditions versus project. Uh
[45:39] the the E does, you know, evaluate the
project in isolation using the Bay Area
[45:44] Air District's greenhouse gas
thresholds, which is standard SQA
[45:47] practice. So that's already still there
that analysis, but it also looks at the
[45:53] regional effect of the project. So
basically, what would the Bay Area
[45:58] region look like without the Baylands
and what would it look like with the
[46:01] Baylands with all the Bayands
development uh located within this the
[46:05] city and all of the benefits of jobs,
you know, uh transit oriented
[46:10] development and infill housing and the
TDM program and the renewable energy
[46:15] program and the all electric development
and 100% renewable electricity for all
[46:19] electricity used on site combination of
on-site and and grid supplied renewable
[46:23] electricity. what would the regional
picture look like with the project built
[46:26] here and the conclusion in the EIR was
that the project would reduce regional
[46:31] emissions through that lens. So it is a
beneficial project from this like the
[46:35] len the scope of looking at development
patterns within the region at large.
[46:44] Thank you. Um staying on the the general
field of of energy and pollutants and
[46:51] energy and pollutants. Um
[clears throat] I know the one of the
[46:56] the major features of this project that
has been described by BDI as a an intent
[47:02] to to do is the the very large battery
battery park. Is that a decent term?
[47:10] Um
battery field. um which is is my
[47:15] understanding that is not technically
speaking a requirement of the project in
[47:19] in the typical sense where it might be a
condition of approval for a simple
[47:23] permit to build a house. Um, so perhaps
to to to legal, Eric, is is there a a
[47:29] mechanism by which if if the commission
chose to recommend this to council to
[47:35] make the construction of that battery
park, which I think is at this point
[47:40] sort of uh anticipated 10ish years out,
um to make it in some way mandatory or a
[47:47] condition or to have some some
enforcement enforcability, I guess.
[47:52] » Yeah. at at this point that sort of um
[snorts] specific project element and
[47:57] phasing and goes beyond the bounds of
what's included in the specific plan and
[48:03] EIR um we will be revisiting phasing and
different triggers and trade-offs in the
[48:09] context of the development agreement. So
um I think we can explore the
[48:13] feasibility of that and have a um
yeah a but have some the opportunity to
[48:21] get some feedback from the applicant
about what and when might be feasible
[48:26] and uh the I think the development
agreement is the best vehicle to address
[48:30] that particular concern.
>> That's what I thought you might say.
[48:33] Thank you. Um because I think what I'm
trying to address is I think a
[48:36] perception that some of these um very
loudable aspects of the project are are
[48:43] may appear aspirational rather than than
um promised um or enforceable. Um so
[48:50] anyway,
I take it then what this commission
[48:54] might be able to do is simply recommend
to the council to pursue that issue as
[48:59] part of the development agreement.
>> Yes. and and the commission will also
[49:03] have the opportunity to to see a version
of the development agreement and make a
[49:08] recommendation on that before that goes
to council as well.
[49:10] » Right. Right. Oh, okay. We will we see
it before council acts on it?
[49:14] » Yes, that's correct.
>> Okay.
[49:16] » Thank you. All right. That's helpful. Um
[49:22] lastly, I think um our staff put
together a a very helpful
[49:29] um sheet about their um
impending recommendations to revise
[49:37] section 9 of for implementation to
provide for um um more specific
[49:44] descriptions of the monitoring process.
um that I encourage folks to look at.
[49:49] And I my understanding is that that you
folks intend to to clarify
[49:54] among other things the fact that there
will be reporting um on an annual basis
[50:00] following building construction that
will be monitored by the city in
[50:03] coordination with the public agencies.
Is that generally correct?
[50:08] » The intent behind the suggested
revisions to chapter 9 is I just want to
[50:13] be really clear. It's not to impose any
new or different regulatory uh
[50:19] procedures or processes beyond what the
state mandates as through DTSC's in the
[50:24] waterboard's process. So, just to be
clear, we're not proposing the city take
[50:28] additional action. Um, so yeah, the
intent behind those changes are really
[50:32] to, like I said earlier, clarify and
provide more information on what those
[50:39] state overseen and mandated procedures
would look like, including for
[50:42] monitoring, and then make it more clear
how that activity relates to and
[50:49] um and impacts city control processes
like permitting. Um, we do have, uh, ESA
[50:57] team members, I think, on the call
online who might be able to speak a
[51:00] little more to
um, what those clarifications are are
[51:04] going to address when it comes to those
relationships. I don't know if Eric is
[51:08] on.
[51:16] » Somebody joined us.
>> Okay. [clears throat]
[51:18] » Thank you.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah. Thanks.
[51:19] » Hi. uh Eric Callaway, principal planner
at ESA. Um I think to just to specify
[51:27] particularly related to the annual
question that you had, um there are
[51:32] reporting uh there are things that the
city would report on that the the
[51:37] specific plan already speaks to. Um that
would be annual reporting. Um and then
[51:43] that's related to the things that the
city has oversight over. Um and then the
[51:50] thing the the reporting that is related
to remediation the timing of that would
[51:55] be um determined by the regulating
agencies. So you know as uh the
[52:00] applicant was just speaking to um that
you know that could be related to the
[52:05] quarterly testing and whatever the
whatever the agency requires. Um and so
[52:10] the as uh Julia was just saying the
intention behind the revisions is to
[52:17] explicitly state that the reporting and
the timing of the reporting um and the
[52:23] you know in perpetuity of the reporting
um what needs to be reported that's that
[52:28] would be as required by the regulating
agency but then also to um explicitly
[52:34] state which you know since the type of
testing that you would be doing and and
[52:40] when um you would have to do some
testing and then put together a report
[52:45] that has to for example be related to
the installation of the cap versus when
[52:49] development occurs versus after there
are buildings um and how that different
[52:53] kinds of testing and reporting relates
to the city's oversight over um
[52:58] approvals of building and occupancy
permits.
[53:04] » Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, any
other questions about about those
[53:09] issues? I I have one last question, but
just want to let folks have a chance to
[53:13] chime in? No. Okay. Um, sort of lastly,
maybe this is
[53:19] I apologize for the breadth of this
question potentially, but the the what
[53:24] staff is recommending is a modified
alternative one um to the original 2026
[53:31] specific plan. Um and when I read the ER
analysis of it, it highlighted um the
[53:40] major issues being reduction of the
building heights, relocation of some of
[53:44] the buildings that the larger buildings
um and um and then analyze the impact of
[53:51] those environmentally. Um would you be
able to to
[53:56] synopsize any other major changes and
modified alternative one from the the
[54:02] previous
specific plan
[54:04] » from the develop from the developer
proposal?
[54:06] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. ESA teamm did you want to
[54:10] » Yeah, I can I can handle that one. Um
modified alternative one um basically
[54:16] reduces the number of towers
um in the Cal Train right ofway or you
[54:24] know in proximity within a/4 mile of the
Cal Train ride ofway. And what it does
[54:29] then is it reduces the number of high
density dwelling units as a result and
[54:36] then it increases low density and medium
density dwelling units. uh f you know
[54:43] further to the east and then those
[clears throat] excuse me building
[54:48] heights um increase
you know somewhat nominally. So it
[54:53] really is the same number of dwelling
units um but it reduces building heights
[54:59] um
near uh in proximity to transit uses um
[55:06] and uh decreases high density and
increases low and medium density. So,
[55:11] that's really the foundational
difference.
[55:17] » Um, any other changes to that aren't um
aren't about building heights?
[55:25] » Um, and thank you, directors. Yes. And
it accommodates the LMF. So, it's um it,
[55:32] you know, it's um it accommodates the
LMF,
[55:36] » right, which is the light maintenance
light.
[55:38] » Yes. Light maintenance facility. the
high yeah highspeed yeah light
[55:42] maintenance of facility.
>> Okay. All right. [clears throat]
[55:46] Thank you very much. Um anybody else
have any questions? Going once, going
[55:50] twice.
Um
[55:58] all right. In that case, we are uh going
to revisit the continued public hearing.
[56:04] Um
and I have several slips here. Do we
[56:08] have anybody online yet?
>> None with hands raised.
[56:13] » Okay, I'll just begin calling these
folks and if you can give me a high sign
[56:16] if you get any online, I'll get to them.
Um, the first slip I have is from Alli
[56:21] Sapperman. Sapperman.
[56:40] Good evening, commissioner
commissioners. My name is Ally Saberman.
[56:44] I'm speaking again tonight on behalf of
the Housing Action Coalition and the Bay
[56:47] Area Council. We are here to urge you to
take action and vote tonight on the
[56:51] Bayand specific plan and final EIR. As
predicted based on my previous comments,
[56:56] on June 30th, the California Department
of Housing and Community Development
[57:00] revoked its finding that Brisbane's
housing element is compliant with state
[57:04] law. The consequences of delaying the
Bayands are no longer hypothetical.
[57:08] Brisbane is now subject to the builder's
remedy, loss of state funding, court
[57:12] imposed penalties, and referral to the
attorney general. There is a clear and
[57:16] simple path back to compliance. Brisbane
must adopt the Bayand specific plan and
[57:22] zoning. We recognize that this is a
complicated project and that the city
[57:25] has devoted substantial effort to get to
this point. But this is the fifth
[57:30] meeting of this body. After two
comprehensiveformational workshops and
[57:34] now three public hearings, it's time to
move forward. [gasps] There have already
[57:38] been countless meetings like this and
extensive analysis over the 20 years
[57:42] since this project was first introduced.
All the while, the housing crisis
[57:46] worsens and the bailands remains vacant.
This city or region and the state can no
[57:51] longer afford further delays. We need an
approved plan of the bayands that is
[57:55] economically feasible and capable of
being built. State law prohibits a local
[57:59] agency from conditioning their approval
in a manner that renders housing
[58:03] development infeasible. We therefore ask
you to focus your remaining
[58:07] deliberations on the decisions necessary
to deliver housing, restore Brisbane's
[58:11] compliance, and preserve the city's
ability to guide its own future. Please
[58:14] act with the urgency of the moment
requires and recommend approval of the
[58:18] bailand specific plan and final e. Thank
you.
[58:23] » Thank you.
[58:26] » Uh next is um Darren Clark, please.
[58:40] » Good evening, chair, commissioners,
staff. My name is Darren Clark. I'm a
[58:45] field representative for North Coast
State's Carpenters Union working
[58:49] currently working out of Carpenters
Local 217
[58:52] representing Sam Santo County. Before
becoming a representative, I worked as a
[58:57] carpenter for 39 years. I have seen
firsthand how projects like this can
[59:03] transform communities. The Brisbane
Bayands project represents a tremendous
[59:08] opportunity for the residents of
Brisbane and all of San Monteo County. A
[59:13] project of this scale will generate
economic activity, support local
[59:17] businesses, and create good paying jobs
for working families.
[59:22] Just as important, it will provide
opportunities for the next generation to
[59:26] enter into the constru construction
industry and build lasting careers
[59:31] through apprenticeships and journeyman
upgrade training programs.
[59:35] From the carpenters's perspective, as
this project moves forward, it is
[59:39] critical that it is built by a
responsible general contractor,
[59:44] one committed to paying area standard
wages, utilizing state accredited
[59:48] apprenticeship programs, and providing
benefits such as healthcare. These
[59:53] standards help ensure that workers can
support their families, stay healthy
[59:57] throughout their careers, and retire
with dignity. This is a
[1:00:00] multi-generational
project. Let's make sure it's built by a
[1:00:05] workforce that it reflects the highest
standards of skill, safety, and
[1:00:09] responsibility so its benefits are felt
for generations to come. Thank you.
[1:00:14] » Thank you very much.
[1:00:18] » Righty. Next, um, Art Turo Science.
[1:00:28] » Good evening, commissioners, staff. I'm
Mortal Signs. I am a business rep for
[1:00:32] the Luna Labors Local 261
and we understand and respect the
[1:00:37] concerns of the Brisbane residents
regarding the remediation of the Bayance
[1:00:41] site. City staff representatives of
Baylands Inc. have provided extensive
[1:00:46] information about the safety measures
that will be implemented and monitored
[1:00:50] throughout the remediation and
construction process as well as the
[1:00:54] protections that will remain in place
for decades after the development is
[1:00:57] completed.
I would like also to offer the
[1:01:01] perspective of the workers who will be
performing this important work. Their
[1:01:05] safety and the safety of the surrounding
community
[1:01:08] must remain the top priority.
Leono laborers are highly skilled
[1:01:13] professionals who receive extensive
training, industry recognition,
[1:01:16] certification, hazardous material
handling and environmental remediation,
[1:01:21] construction safety, and the proper use
of personal protective equipment. They
[1:01:26] are trained to recognize potential
hazards, follow established safety
[1:01:29] procedures, and respond appropriately to
changing conditions on the job site.
[1:01:35] These skilled labor strictly follow all
typical federal, state, and local safety
[1:01:40] regulations. Their training and
expertise help protect not only the
[1:01:43] workers performing the remediation work,
but also nearby residents, the
[1:01:48] surrounding environment, and the
long-term safety and integrity of the
[1:01:52] completed development.
So if this work is awarded to a
[1:01:57] responsible union contractor employing
trained and certified LAUNA laborers,
[1:02:02] the city and the community can be
confident that the remediation will be
[1:02:06] formed by workers who have the skills,
the expertise, the commitment necessary
[1:02:11] to complete a project safely and
responsibly.
[1:02:15] We therefore request the planning
commission approve the Baywatch specific
[1:02:18] plan.
Thank you for your time and
[1:02:21] consideration.
Thank you.
[1:02:28] Next, um Aaron Becker, please.
[1:02:38] » Uh hello, I'm Aaron Becker. Thank you
for taking public comment and for
[1:02:42] demonstrating that you guys are really
paying attention to the public comments.
[1:02:45] Uh I submitted two letters about a month
ago. A lot of that has actually been
[1:02:49] addressed in the in the meeting since.
Um, but one thing I want to make make
[1:02:54] sure to remind you about before you get
close to approving this is our existing
[1:02:58] ordinances. The bailance specific plan
as written is kind of inconsistent and
[1:03:03] non-compliant with both the dark skies
ordinance and the invasives regulation.
[1:03:09] I assume that our ordinances trump
whatever they write in the specific
[1:03:13] plan. So instead, I'm going to remind
you guys that when the dark skies
[1:03:17] ordinance was written, the Bayand zoning
district did not exist. So I'm asking
[1:03:23] you to include in your recommendations
that we also update the dark skies
[1:03:29] ordinance to include the Baylands
district in the same lighting category
[1:03:34] as R2, R3,
uh the mobile home park, uh MHP, um
[1:03:40] other other districts of similar size.
Um, and that would determine their
[1:03:44] lighting levels, the the number of
lumens per per square foot of developer
[1:03:48] area. Uh, second, um, I really hope you
guys consider alternative number seven,
[1:03:55] which is the reduced density, reduced
height alternative. It reduces the
[1:04:00] impacts of or it reduces four of the
significant project impacts. Um, and in
[1:04:07] the EIR, it's kind of glossed over
because of the state, you know, mandated
[1:04:13] housing increase, but it's 1,800 units
is still 13% more than is being pushed
[1:04:19] down our throat. And there are other
projects in Brisbane that will that will
[1:04:23] even add to that. So, we can always
change zoning in 5 years, 10 years,
[1:04:28] whatever, if we need to. There's no
reason now we have to commit to 2,200
[1:04:32] units. Measure measure JJ only says we
have to do 1,800. Thank you.
[1:04:37] » Thank you.
>> Uh stores homem please.
[1:04:48] [clears throat]
>> Uh thank you for taking into
[1:04:51] consideration
the complexity of this project. I have
[1:04:56] two comments that I'd like to make. Um
first uh again uh concerning pile
[1:05:03] driving and noise um I would like to see
that uh drilled shaft and rectangular
[1:05:12] barretes are also called out as options.
These have been used successfully in San
[1:05:18] Francisco
uh notably to retrofit
[1:05:23] uh the Millennia Tower and then the the
Barretts were used uh for our gigantic
[1:05:32] Salesforce tower. Um and um and then on
a different topic uh that I uh that
[1:05:44] tunnel road is currently used as a major
thoroughfare for cycling for cyclists
[1:05:50] commuting both up into San Francisco and
from San Francisco down to the South Bay
[1:05:58] uh or southern regions. And there have
been some wonderful bike paths proposed
[1:06:06] in in the specific plan, but I would
like to make sure that there is at least
[1:06:13] one path which is fast in the sense that
there aren't a lot of intersections and
[1:06:22] stops. So cyclists can still commute
quickly from San Francisco to Sierra
[1:06:29] Point or Oyster Point and and vice
versa.
[1:06:34] Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:06:37] » Uh through the chair, we do have three
online if you want to switch.
[1:06:40] » Why don't we take uh take one of those,
please?
[1:06:42] » Okay. Uh we're going to start with
Melissa.
[1:06:49] Go ahead, Melissa. You may address the
commission.
[1:06:54] Great. Good evening, chair and
commissioners. My name is Melissa Foley
[1:06:58] and I'm a science director at the San
Francisco Estuary Institute or SFI. SFI
[1:07:03] reviewed the balance specific plan and
provided independent ecological planning
[1:07:07] and design guidance that aligned
feedback from local environmental
[1:07:10] organizations with the best available
science and provided that guidance to
[1:07:14] BDI.
The commitment to a high proportion of
[1:07:18] native plants throughout the project
area and 100% native in the habitat
[1:07:22] restoration enhancement in other
sensitive areas is commendable. A
[1:07:26] diverse assemblage of native vegetation
will support local wildlife by providing
[1:07:30] higher quality food and habitat than
non-natives. expand populations of
[1:07:34] locally adapted plants and reduce
maintenance needs, particularly
[1:07:38] irrigation once plants are established
by recognizing the importance of the
[1:07:43] balance for supporting regional habitat
connectivity, wildlife movement, and
[1:07:47] human access to green space. The
specific plan takes a landscape scale
[1:07:52] view that is needed to make our urban
areas healthier for people and wildlife
[1:07:56] and more resilient to climate change.
The wildlife safe design features
[1:08:01] included in the plan, particularly for
lighting and building design, ensure
[1:08:04] that the developed areas introduce as
few hazards as possible for wildlife
[1:08:08] while ensuring residents safety.
Adopting guidance from the American Bird
[1:08:13] Conservancy and consulting exper
experienced biologists as part of the
[1:08:17] planning process will help to ensure the
latest advances in wildlife safe design
[1:08:21] are being implemented.
The balance will be a firstofits-kind
[1:08:25] development in the Bay Area that brings
together people and nature by employing
[1:08:29] a range of nature-based solutions to
provide benefits ranging from access to
[1:08:33] nature to heat mitigation to
biodiversity support that will support
[1:08:38] healthy and resilient outcomes for
people and wildlife. The balance can
[1:08:42] serve as an example to cities throughout
the Bay Area to show how communities and
[1:08:46] nature can thrive together.
[1:08:55] Thanks, Melissa. We have uh Jordan next.
Go ahead, Jordan. You may address the
[1:09:01] commission.
>> Thank you so much. Good evening,
[1:09:03] commissioners. My name is Jordan Grimes
and I'm the legislative director for
[1:09:07] Green Belt Alliance. We are an
environmental organization working
[1:09:10] throughout the Bay Area focused on
conservation, climate resilience, and
[1:09:14] sustainable land use policy. For the
last 68 years, we've championed
[1:09:18] conservation and infill housing
solutions uh that protect open spaces,
[1:09:22] reduce GHGs, uh and create vibrant
communities where people can live close
[1:09:27] to jobs, schools, and public
transportation. In both our June uh 30th
[1:09:32] letter from this year uh and our comment
letter from last September uh on the uh
[1:09:38] draft EIR, we raised concerns with
GHG1E,
[1:09:43] the proposed mitigation measure that
would require the bailance to purchase
[1:09:46] offset credits. Um we're very happy to
have seen that removed. I was preparing
[1:09:51] to make a longer comment, but I think
Mr. Schustster of ESA actually did a
[1:09:54] really great job explaining uh the
regional benefits of GHD emission
[1:09:59] reduction that this project will provide
over time. Um and I'll just say this
[1:10:03] project is not to hone Ranch. Uh it is
not a subdivision in Leup or Tracy or
[1:10:08] Mantika which is what that program was
designed for. This is a largecale TOD um
[1:10:15] uh project that will have huge GHD
reduction benefits for the region when
[1:10:19] completed. I would also note uh that per
the UC Berkeley local government climate
[1:10:25] policy tool, the policy that offers the
single greatest potential for greenhouse
[1:10:29] gas reduction in Brisbane specifically
is the creation of infill housing. So to
[1:10:33] that end, I actually really hope you
won't pursue alternative 7, the reduced
[1:10:37] Titan density regulations. It really
runs counter to our regional housing and
[1:10:41] climate goals at the same time. And then
just finally, I'll say Green Belt has
[1:10:45] been supporting this project since uh
2011. Um, I think that's a really
[1:10:50] unfortunate
um,
[1:10:54] indictment of our response to the
housing and climate crisis and we do
[1:10:57] really need to do better. So, I would
urge the planning commission uh, to
[1:11:01] advance the plan tonight. Thank you so
much for your time. Appreciate it.
[1:11:05] » Thank you very much.
>> All right. We have Eileen.
[1:11:10] Eileen, you may address the commission.
>> Good evening, commissioners. It's Eileen
[1:11:16] Mclofflin from citizens committee to
complete the refuge and co-signer of a
[1:11:20] letter with Sarah Cleb and others. Um
and I thank you for um continuing to
[1:11:26] deliberate on this. I appreciate the
questions you bring forward um and our
[1:11:31] and I just wanted to on the greenhouse
gas emissions. We we're we are glad and
[1:11:36] I am glad that you've been very thorough
in trying to make sure these the
[1:11:40] greenhouse gas emission plans that you
have are are going to be continuous uh
[1:11:47] and monitored over time. So thank you
for that. But I also wanted to speak to
[1:11:52] the uh point raised about the
conservation easement which was in our
[1:11:56] letter. Um although uh some of the lands
are marked in perpetuity, the question
[1:12:03] that I bring up is it does that actually
go with the land? A conservation
[1:12:08] easement goes with the land. So once
it's um put on there, it will stay and
[1:12:15] as um Melissa was talking about on
habitat we're building, we want that is
[1:12:21] to stay once it's established, once it's
encouraged to grow. uh [clears throat]
[1:12:27] we we'd want Brisbane to have this area
that's remains as conserved area and and
[1:12:34] habitat that serves uh both the the
species and all the people who would
[1:12:39] come to enjoy it. So I hope that you can
consider that or if uh perhaps it needs
[1:12:46] to be included as a recommendation for
the development agreement. Uh but I hope
[1:12:51] you get that into the plan uh some way.
Thank you. Before
[1:13:00] we go to the next one, is that a
question we can answer quickly and get
[1:13:02] it off the table whether that
conservation easements run with the
[1:13:05] land?
This a longer answer. We can do it some
[1:13:10] other forum.
>> Yeah, easements do run with the land.
[1:13:12] They show up in the deed to the
property.
[1:13:14] » Yeah. And and I think this was implicit
in the director's answer, but other
[1:13:19] forms of um easements also run with the
like an easement that's granted to the
[1:13:25] city in perpetuity also would would run
with the land even if it's not um you
[1:13:30] know a dedicated and statutory
conservation easement.
[1:13:34] » That that was my assumption. Thanks.
>> Uh any other
[1:13:40] Okay. Yeah.
[1:13:51] Okay. Um, from inside the room, uh, next
up is Linda Salmon, please.
[1:14:01] » Good evening again, commissioners.
I don't envy your position. Um, I have a
[1:14:08] lot of comments, but one of the main
problems I have with is with the idea of
[1:14:12] putting single family dwellings on clay
caps. I know they show nice pictures of
[1:14:18] trees growing out of them in gardens for
kids to play in, but it's not really
[1:14:22] possible in a five uh 5-ft clay cap,
which are subject to uh problems with uh
[1:14:29] sea level rising and earthquakes in a
big way. And I had suggested ages ago,
[1:14:35] one of the reasons I put the a the FS as
they were in the 1994 general plan is
[1:14:41] that we could have dwelling units like
rental properties on top of, you know,
[1:14:49] uh commercial enterprises in this area
so that you actually can house far more
[1:14:54] people and uh uh with less um danger to
children running around playing on toxic
[1:15:01] soil. um and a lot more housing for
people who are working in the area and
[1:15:08] so on and so forth. And I really feel
that this is what we have to do. We can
[1:15:13] do a lot more for the people who don't
have houses, who can't afford to buy
[1:15:19] houses, but who can rent um with caps on
the rent uh based on, you know, you you
[1:15:25] know, all kinds of other things that go
on. Anyway, so that's that's my one of
[1:15:30] my main points. The other one is when we
kept talking about the road diet and
[1:15:34] stuff like that. One of the solutions is
to have the connection with the light
[1:15:38] rail that goes to San Francisco going
all the way through to past Brisbane to
[1:15:44] South City. Um you know with a
turnaround back and forth just a single
[1:15:48] single lane doesn't have to be the
double thing that they have right now
[1:15:51] with the city. um and it's possible and
that way save on greenhouse gases and um
[1:15:59] make with transportation easier for
everyone. So there those are two major
[1:16:03] things that I don't think still haven't
happened in terms of looking at all the
[1:16:09] possibilities of the general plan. Um,
you really can't build a house and on a
[1:16:15] clay cap and have it be stable in an
earthquake. Um, and with flooding and
[1:16:22] when the electricity goes out, your
pumps are not going to work. Thank you.
[1:16:27] » Thank you.
[1:16:32] Uh, next up is Anthony. I think it's
Anthony Walker. Am I right?
[1:16:42] Good evening. Good evening,
commissioners. I Yes, my handwriting is
[1:16:46] terrible. Apologize. [laughter]
Sorry. Um, my name is Anthony Walker.
[1:16:50] I'm uh chair of OSEK about speaking
tonight in my individual capacity as a
[1:16:54] Brisbane resident. Um, I submitted a
second letter that I believe was uh
[1:16:59] shared with you last night and I
apologize for the length. I know it's a
[1:17:02] lot. Um, but I hope you'll take the time
to read it carefully um because it uh
[1:17:08] focuses on two major uh questions,
greenhouse gas accountability and
[1:17:12] measure measure JJ's uh energy
neutrality uh requirement. There's a lot
[1:17:17] in there but um I want to highlight just
one thing in the letter here um in the
[1:17:22] room and that is that um measure JJ does
not simply say that the bay lands should
[1:17:26] be energy neutral without any context as
to what that means. Um, it says the
[1:17:32] specific plan must be consistent with
the principles of the sustainability
[1:17:35] framework, a named and dated document,
and that that development shall be
[1:17:41] designed so as to be energy neutral on
an ongoing basis. Um, my letter examines
[1:17:46] what those words mean um in further
detail. I think there is actually a lot
[1:17:50] in there to dissect. Um but um the
sustainability framework I want to call
[1:17:56] out one thing um establishes a clear
order of operations. A maximize local
[1:18:03] on-site generation first um B evaluate
additional uh community scale renewable
[1:18:10] generation within Brisbane. So that's
offsite.
[1:18:14] uh and then C uh only then consider
community choice aggregation procurement
[1:18:20] um which would be our eco 100
um solution. So my concern there is that
[1:18:26] we're we're sort of giving uh giving up
on a half completed step a on-site
[1:18:30] generation. We're only getting to 53%
and then skipping over B entirely. We're
[1:18:36] not I I haven't been able to turn up
anything at all about uh off-site
[1:18:40] generation.
uh and then going straight to step C um
[1:18:44] as the main solutions. So, and I want to
be clear um you know, both of my
[1:18:48] requests in the letter um are not new.
Um they're prioritizing on-site
[1:18:54] generation um is consistent with the
sustainability framework. Um and where
[1:18:59] on-site energy neutrality cannot be
achieved, requiring additional community
[1:19:03] scale uh renewable generation within
Brisbane is simply step B uh in the
[1:19:09] framework's order of operations. Um, so
I just want to highlight those ideas did
[1:19:13] not come from me. They're from
Brisbane's own documents. Um,
[1:19:18] and uh, yeah, I I realize I'm over time,
so I I I hope that um, you'll take a few
[1:19:23] minutes to read the the letter um,
carefully because I think there there's
[1:19:26] a lot in there, a lot of context that
will be helpful. Thank you very much.
[1:19:31] » Thank you.
[1:19:45] Okay. Um, next up is Nicole Westeramp,
please.
[1:19:57] » Good evening.
Um, thank you to the commission, the
[1:20:01] staff, the experts, um, all the people
who've been joining to lift this very
[1:20:06] large process. Uh, my name is Nicole
Westeramp. I've been in Brisbane as a
[1:20:10] resident for a little over a decade. Um,
I'm also a mom, but even before kids,
[1:20:16] this project has um, I've wanted to join
in, and it feels like drinking from a
[1:20:21] fire hose. So, um I just want to
recognize the effort and focus and
[1:20:26] information that you all are digesting
and I appreciate the thoughtful
[1:20:31] questions. Um the elementary school logo
I believe is something like building
[1:20:35] thoughtful citizens and that takes time
and labor. So, thank you. Um I don't
[1:20:42] know who again in this long detailed
conversation might have already pointed
[1:20:47] out um to consider the stakeholders who
do not have a voice in this process and
[1:20:54] I'd ask the commission to just spend a
moment thinking of that. Um
[1:21:01] the stakeholders who don't have a voice
and are not included in conversation
[1:21:05] often have the least power and
privilege.
[1:21:09] This is a remarkable, unique piece of
living land. And as I was thinking of
[1:21:14] what to say as I drove in, I really
wonder what the original inhabitants and
[1:21:20] stewards of this land would be thinking
of and advising us as we consider this
[1:21:25] generational project.
I've heard a lot of voices um just in
[1:21:30] the last meeting and this one with lots
of needs, lots of people, lots of
[1:21:35] interests for housing, for jobs, for you
know just an unimaginable number of
[1:21:40] things to balance. And um one concern
I'd like to bring is just that the
[1:21:45] residents who will be most directly
impacted and who will impact this
[1:21:49] process might be having difficulty
joining in the conversation. So, thank
[1:21:53] you for those continued efforts. And my
ask um to are one, how do we keep
[1:22:00] informed, thoughtful citizens able to
participate in this process and lend
[1:22:04] their expertise and second to just voice
again that the land does not bring their
[1:22:12] voice here and needs our strongest
protections from the outset. Um, I
[1:22:19] appreciated learning about the
conservation easement that you know can
[1:22:23] slip away very easily and just ask you
to ensure that from the onset now that
[1:22:29] the pro the process continues to include
concrete actions in the process that
[1:22:34] keep us thoughtful. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you very much.
[1:22:41] » Next up is Michelle Sammon.
[1:22:50] Michelle Sammon. Tonight I'm speaking as
a second generation lifelong Brisbane
[1:22:55] resident. Um I've read the drafty I read
it the all of it. But I'm still very
[1:23:03] concerned about in why how toxic this
site is. you know um in 2018 when um
[1:23:13] measure JJ failed I mean won and by 10%
um the head of the then head of the
[1:23:20] company representing the owner of the
property said that he would get right on
[1:23:26] getting the specific plan and that was
in 2018. They did not submit a specific
[1:23:30] plan until 2023 and it was inadequate
and was returned to them and then they
[1:23:35] did not submit it until 2025 almost 2026
which is why we're in the position we
[1:23:40] are now where the state is holding a gun
to our head about housing. But what most
[1:23:47] people don't realize when they talk
about infeasibility of housing here is
[1:23:53] how toxic this land really is. And I
don't think uh a driveby or a five-year
[1:24:01] driveby or whatever is really adequate
because in five years a child's nervous
[1:24:06] system can be completely destroyed by
lead deposition in the area where they
[1:24:11] live. And I think it's um unfortunate
that that Stephanie keeps comparing the
[1:24:18] bays
to Sierra Point Marina and Park Sier
[1:24:22] Point. Sarah Point was a very different
landfill. It was dyed. It was lined. It
[1:24:28] was manifested and layered and
adequately closed over 40 years ago.
[1:24:34] It's starting to show definite signs of
wear. That is very different than the
[1:24:38] Blands, which was undyed, unregulated
landfill that had from 1936 on that God
[1:24:47] knows what's in there and no one really
knows because it's never been thoroughly
[1:24:51] tested the way it should be. And that's
what we're dealing with. And so when
[1:24:55] people are all housing, housing, housing
at any cost, do you want another love
[1:24:59] canal in Brisbane? I think that we
really need to look very carefully at,
[1:25:04] you know, you talk about sea level rise,
etc. And I know that u the owners of the
[1:25:10] property are very anxious to get their
entitlements and yet they haven't built
[1:25:14] with the entitlements they already have.
And I I urge you not to um approve the
[1:25:21] mobility plan. And I think that it's
really very negative for the people who
[1:25:25] already live in Brisbane and the
northeast ridge and people coming over
[1:25:28] Crocker Park and basically it would kind
of strand people in Brisbane. But I
[1:25:34] think you really do need to look at
every protection
[1:25:37] uh for the future of this area and the
people that will live there and
[1:25:42] conservation easements. Oh, and yes,
Green Belt Alliance has been on this
[1:25:46] since 2011 when Jonathan Sharfman
started donating to them heavily, who
[1:25:51] was the prior executive of of this
estate. So, please do I so appreciate
[1:25:58] the work you've done and the questions
you've answered tonight and sitting
[1:26:00] through this for three times and I I
can't tell you enough of that, but
[1:26:06] please make the right choices and please
make the conservative choices in terms
[1:26:10] of the environment and and protect the
future future of of the children, the
[1:26:15] future of the people who don't have a
voice here yet. Thank you.
[1:26:20] » Thank you.
[1:26:24] Uh, next is uh Cynthia Gomez, please.
[1:26:37] Good evening, commissioners. Cynthia
Gomez, United here, local 2, the hotel
[1:26:41] workers union. And again, we have
roughly 6,000 members who live in the
[1:26:45] communities immediately surrounding the
project area. I will reference but not
[1:26:49] repeat the comments that I've made
earlier about our various critiques of
[1:26:53] the project. You've heard them. We've
sent letters. The only thing I will
[1:26:56] repeat tonight is the simple reality
that there is no state law that requires
[1:27:02] Brisbane to accept 7 million square ft
of commercial development.
[1:27:07] That is the kind of jobs housing
imbalance at 19,000 jobs versus 2200
[1:27:13] housing units that has the potential to
make the housing crisis precisely the
[1:27:18] opposite of the way it's being promoted.
That has the potential to make the
[1:27:22] housing crisis worse, not better.
And there is no state law that requires
[1:27:28] that you accept that kind of ratio. So
that is what I would like to leave you
[1:27:33] with. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:27:41] Um, do we have anybody else on? Uh, no.
Okay. Uh, last slip I have currently is
[1:27:48] Elena Shot, please.
[1:27:55] » Good evening. I speed read, but that's
probably nothing compared to how much
[1:27:59] you guys have to weigh through over the
course of your average month. I had just
[1:28:03] a few comments on this. Um, one quickie
on the mobility. Currently, I can get
[1:28:08] from home in central Brisbane to the top
of Tunnel Avenue as I'm going onto
[1:28:12] Highway 101 in 10 minutes, 15 minutes on
a bad day. My understanding or rather
[1:28:19] expectation is that the construction
that's going to be done as a part of
[1:28:22] producing the bays is going to shut down
Tunnel Avenue at which point that
[1:28:26] transportation out is route is out. If
we then force everybody who currently
[1:28:31] zips along Tunnel Avenue to take
Beayshore, the immobility plan is going
[1:28:35] to destroy that, too, and we'll all be
spending 25 or 30 minutes just to make
[1:28:39] it to 101. That strikes me as an
unreasonable non-compromise.
[1:28:45] I see a lot of language in the report
about how we can all switch to scooters,
[1:28:49] but I'm not taking a trunk full of
groceries home from San Francisco
[1:28:53] downtown on a scooter. So, you know, bus
and then scooter is not a better option.
[1:29:00] Um, so that was transportation noise. My
understanding is from the meeting that I
[1:29:06] participated in on June 30th, they made
no promise whatsoever not to pile dry
[1:29:10] all through the night. They'd considered
that as an option and it hadn't been
[1:29:14] closed out. So, uh, does Brisbane have
the noise ordinances and will Brisbane
[1:29:20] enforce the noise ordinances to make
sure that residents in our parabolic
[1:29:24] bowl get 8 hours of sleep every night?
My understanding so far is not
[1:29:29] necessarily. And I'd actually like to
get to work coherent and competent
[1:29:33] rather than destroyed by listening to
pile dryers until 6 a.m. That was number
[1:29:39] two. And then I think one of the big
issues for city resistance overall is
[1:29:44] and we're stuck with it now because of
the whole California state laws. When
[1:29:48] you have a town of only a thousand homes
and they're saying whoops, we need to
[1:29:52] add 2,000 more. Our local votes are
gone. So in 5 years, you know, I won't
[1:30:00] be seeing any of you and you won't be
seeing any of us because we'll have been
[1:30:03] replaced. That's a silly fear in terms
of national and immigration. But I think
[1:30:08] a real and sensible fear to some extent
here within our small local voting
[1:30:13] district. I'd have much loved it if we'd
started in 2015 and added 100 units a
[1:30:18] year so that the new arrivals would have
become Brisbaneians.
[1:30:22] Thank you.
>> Thank you through the chair. We do have
[1:30:26] one more online.
>> Okay.
[1:30:29] » Christina,
you may address the commission.
[1:30:35] » Thank you. I really deeply appreciate
the care the commission's taking with
[1:30:39] this project and the questions you're
asking and not allowing yourself to be
[1:30:43] bullied by outside forces.
Listening to the comments of labor
[1:30:48] representatives, I'm sympathetic to your
those comments, but I do wonder how many
[1:30:53] of the housing units that you'll be
building will be within the reach of the
[1:30:57] incomes of your membership.
the slam the community is going to take
[1:31:04] with this development.
I I don't think people from outside of
[1:31:08] the housing advocates, again, I'm I'm
deeply sympathetic, don't understand
[1:31:13] what's going on here. It's a 684 acre
development.
[1:31:19] First got 2,000 acres of land. Even if
we subtract the lagoon about 135 acres,
[1:31:28] that's 28% of the city in a si single
swoop is going to get transformed. As
[1:31:35] the previous speaker mentioned,
that totally changes the city of
[1:31:42] Bersbane. Even if that takes place over
say five, seven years,
[1:31:49] what other community has been expected
to undergo that level of transformation
[1:31:56] in a single development and do it in a
manner that leaves the community
[1:32:01] healthy, ensures that the community is
healthy.
[1:32:07] And when you take into account the
commercial impacts as were described um
[1:32:13] that just complicates the situation even
further. So again deep appreciation to
[1:32:19] the commission. This is a very difficult
project and we're being asked to accept
[1:32:24] it in total rather than incrementally.
And I just don't see I I don't just
[1:32:32] don't see a healthy way of of embracing
this thinking.
[1:32:38] Thank you. Anyone else?
Thanks. Right. We also are going to have
[1:32:44] a one more presentation from the
applicant at this time.
[1:32:56] Good evening again,
Chair. Gooding, honorable commissioners.
[1:33:02] Um, once again, my name is Stephanie
Shakovski. I am the environmental lead
[1:33:07] for the bayens development team. Um,
commissioners, before you
[1:33:14] tonight are documents that reflect 20
years of planning, environmental review,
[1:33:20] community engagement, and a voter
initiative.
[1:33:25] Recommending approval
of this specific plan and the final EIR
[1:33:31] is an affirmative act by this
commission.
[1:33:35] proving that Brisbane is a community
that confronts this housing shortage,
[1:33:41] restores its ecological assets, builds
around transit to reduce GHGs, and holds
[1:33:49] itself to the highest standard of
sustainable development.
[1:33:55] We because we continue to have questions
from the commission and from the public
[1:34:01] regarding the environmental cleanup. We
did bring with us tonight our um
[1:34:06] environmental consultants and our um uh
engineer of record. And I'd like for him
[1:34:12] to um if we just take a few minutes for
him to walk the commissioners through
[1:34:19] the actual cleanup process. And I also
encourage you to please um interrupt
[1:34:26] him, ask him questions. Um he's quite
used to being interrupted working with
[1:34:31] me. But I do um would like to ask Jay
Morani, our senior engineer at Geioint
[1:34:38] to come up and answer the questions for
or give us your short presentation and
[1:34:42] answer any questions from the
commissioners. And please feel free to
[1:34:46] interrupt his presentation.
[1:34:53] Thanks. Uh my name is Jamie. I'm the
engineer on the remedy for the railart
[1:35:00] railard area. I just want to talk
through the implementation approach and
[1:35:04] what we'll be doing at at the site. So
there's a few slides there. I don't know
[1:35:09] if you can see them in front of you.
Okay. Awesome. Um [cough]
[1:35:14] so as you know the site's pretty flat
between beayhore and the cal train
[1:35:17] tracks. Um, and so that's what I'm
showing here is just a flat area where
[1:35:22] there's the existing soil. The first
step in the project is actually going to
[1:35:25] be removing any uh contamination that
could present future issues. So there's
[1:35:30] some chlorinated solvents in soil that
were encountered during the
[1:35:33] investigations and those will be removed
and disposed of offsite before any
[1:35:37] future action.
[1:35:41] So following the removal of of that
area, fill would be imported that's been
[1:35:47] approved. um by the waterboard for for
use on the site. Um we'll excavate also
[1:35:53] corridors for future utility
installation. And so that's what's shown
[1:35:56] on the on the side there. And those may
penetrate the imported fill or they may
[1:36:00] go a little bit deeper into the existing
soil. But those are going to be used uh
[1:36:04] and filled with clean fill so that in
the future when utilities are installed
[1:36:08] or maintenance is needed that it's a
simpl simpler process.
[1:36:15] Following the imported fill, the next
step is to install the cover system. Um,
[1:36:20] and that consists of a demarcation layer
and a clean soil cap soil cap layer. Uh,
[1:36:26] the demarcation layer is a orange just
really brightly colored fabric that's
[1:36:31] put over the entire site as a as a
marker so that if anyone's digging, they
[1:36:36] can see that as a very obvious change
that there's g there is something
[1:36:41] different. and it'll just make sure that
if contractors out there that they they
[1:36:44] go back and uh reassess their their
approach. Um following that is the
[1:36:50] placement of the the clean soil cap
which is the 5ft layer. Um you see on
[1:36:55] here there's a searchcharge pile in many
portions of the site. We'll be adding
[1:36:59] additional clean soil fill. Uh and
that's to drive settlement in the
[1:37:04] material below the existing soil.
There's there's bay mud so very soft
[1:37:07] clays throughout the site. Uh and what
that does is drive more of the
[1:37:11] settlement in advance so that when it is
removed and any construction of roads or
[1:37:16] shallow building foundations are put in
that there's less differential
[1:37:19] settlement, less potential for cracking,
less potential for potholes.
[1:37:23] Um so then the next step is to remove
the searchcharge pile and create this
[1:37:31] development grade. So just basically a a
clean site for for future developers.
[1:37:36] And one thing I want to note is that
throughout this entire process, there's
[1:37:40] a many checks. Um, so there would be a
construction quality assurance
[1:37:44] consultant that's on site continuously
with the contractor making sure that
[1:37:48] everything the contractor does is done
in line with the design and the approved
[1:37:53] design. In addition to that, the
construction manager and the
[1:37:56] construction quality assurance team will
be making sure that the agencies are
[1:38:02] also aware of what's going on throughout
the process. So weekly they're going to
[1:38:06] provide construction reports that are
providing updates to the to the agencies
[1:38:11] about what's happening and how it's been
going. If there's been any changes, if
[1:38:14] there's been any issues, uh that that
report will be in there. Yes.
[1:38:18] » When we say agencies, are we talking
DTSC and the waterboard?
[1:38:21] » Yes.
>> Thank you.
[1:38:22] » I say agencies because it is multiple.
Um
[1:38:27] additionally, the construction quality
assurance team would prepare a report at
[1:38:31] the very end of the project. uh that
could be at the end of phases or at the
[1:38:34] very end depending on what the phasing
structure is. That would describe all of
[1:38:39] the work that was done, any potential
changes, the dis the discussions that
[1:38:43] went with the agencies, uh survey that
shows that any excavated areas were
[1:38:48] excavated to the elevations that were
that were required by the design. Uh and
[1:38:52] all that will be packaged up into a
construction completion report for the
[1:38:56] agency waterboarder or DTSC. they would
have to approve that construction
[1:39:00] completion report before any future
development activities can can occur.
[1:39:07] Um so [clears throat] move forward. So
another thing that is so that would
[1:39:13] remove the potential exposure pathways
to the contamination. However, the only
[1:39:17] remaining exposure pathway is soil
vapor. So prior to any buildings that
[1:39:23] would have uh occupancy, we would do
soil vapor sampling at two times during
[1:39:29] the year. So the the soil vapor sampling
occurs between the groundwater table and
[1:39:32] the surface. And because the groundwater
table fluctuates in the wet season and
[1:39:36] the dry season, we would do two
instances of the sampling to get a range
[1:39:40] of the concentrations that may be
present. And using that data, we would
[1:39:44] evaluate whether a vapor intrusion
mitigation system is necessary for any
[1:39:48] of the buildings that are going to be
constructed at the site.
[1:39:52] If it's found that a vapor intrusion
mitigation system is necessary, then it
[1:39:57] could consist of of the components shown
on this drawing. So the the main
[1:40:01] component is really the vapor proof
membrane that would go under a
[1:40:05] foundation. But additionally, if needed,
there could be a um capture and
[1:40:10] conveyance system. So that like a gravel
bedding or perforated pipe to collect
[1:40:15] any potential gases and and vent them uh
prior so that it prevents any of that
[1:40:20] from getting into the into the
structure.
[1:40:25] » Before I forget my question, uh are the
the tests uh the bianual tests also
[1:40:30] provided to the agencies?
>> Yeah, so all all of the stuff that that
[1:40:34] anyone does on the site is going to have
to be uploaded to Geotracker or Envir
[1:40:38] Store. So, similar to the groundwater
data that that Stephanie was talking
[1:40:42] about, all of that data is compiled and
and uploaded to those to those public
[1:40:46] networks.
>> Thank you.
[1:40:48] » Additionally, if a vapor intrusion
mitigation system is found to be
[1:40:52] necessary in these buildings, there
would be additional indoor air sampling.
[1:40:56] So, prior to the occupancy after
construction, there would be additional
[1:41:00] indoor air sampling to make sure that
the system is working. That would
[1:41:04] actually continue at regular frequencies
during the life of the building.
[1:41:11] I guess is there no concern about the
vapor surrounding the building? Is it
[1:41:14] only sort of within the foundation of
the building? What about like the the
[1:41:17] region next to the building?
>> It's only if it has a place to collect.
[1:41:21] So like it's if it could have a place to
pull otherwise it vents the atmosphere
[1:41:25] and it's diluted. [clears throat]
[1:41:31] And then is there um a minimum imported
fill size there? Like a minimum depth
[1:41:35] for the imported fill or is it sort of
variable across the property?
[1:41:39] » Uh the clean soil fill above the
imported fill is at least 5 ft
[1:41:43] everywhere. The imported fill ranges in
thickness um from zero at the edges
[1:41:48] where it's just the clean soil cap where
we're tying into Beayshore Boulevard or
[1:41:51] the Cal Train tracks and then it gets to
15 to 20 feet towards the um the middle
[1:41:56] of the site. Mhm.
[1:42:00] » Is is the the demarcation fabric uh
that's never going to be penetrated? It
[1:42:06] doesn't look like it is for this
building, but what if you're building a
[1:42:09] you know 200 ft uh residential tower? Is
there a need to for the anchors to be
[1:42:16] » So yeah, for for piles, they would go
through the through the demarcation
[1:42:20] layer in the exact location of the pile.
We wouldn't put demarcation layer. It
[1:42:25] would go to the edge and then the clean
soil cap would be maintained in those
[1:42:28] upper five feet
or restored if needed if there's an
[1:42:33] excavation. Um, yeah.
[1:42:39] » When you take a sample, isn't that
>> through the chair? Is your mic on?
[1:42:45] Thanks.
>> When you guys take samples,
[1:42:48] um, isn't that demarcation barrier
penetrated?
[1:42:52] uh if we need to do sampling below the
demarcation layer then the demarcation
[1:42:57] layer and the above soil would be
replaced. And so in the remedial design
[1:43:01] plan there's um there's what's called a
soil and groundwater management plans
[1:43:05] for that any soil disturbing activities
including sampling there there's a set
[1:43:09] of procedures that would need to be
followed and that would include
[1:43:12] reconstruction of the cap
[1:43:22] And that that's the end of my slides.
>> Any other questions from the commission?
[1:43:29] » Thank you.
>> All right. Uh any further staff
[1:43:34] presentation or are we done?
[1:43:39] » No additional staff presentation.
>> Thank you.
[1:43:41] » Thank you.
>> All right. Um
[1:43:46] we have had I think somebody said at
least five meetings with public comments
[1:43:50] and we have really really appreciated
them. We've read the written
[1:43:54] communications.
Um and we thank you all for your input.
[1:43:57] It's been valuable. I I hope some of our
questions have reflected the fact that
[1:44:02] we have um listened to your comments and
and applied them to the the task at
[1:44:07] hand. Um, with that being said, I think
it is time for the chair to entertain a
[1:44:12] motion to close the public hearing.
>> I'll make a motion to close the public
[1:44:16] hearing.
>> I'll second that.
[1:44:18] » All in favor?
>> Any opposed?
[1:44:22] » Motion passes with five eyes.
We are now entering the deliberation
[1:44:28] phase of this meeting and any other me.
I'm not sure we're going to get through
[1:44:32] everything tonight, folks. It's a large
thing to get our hands around, but we're
[1:44:37] going to get a start. Um, my suggestion
is um that we start with the Bayand's
[1:44:44] mobility plan um or the Bayore mobility
plan, excuse me. um for the simple
[1:44:50] reason that it is discreet and separable
from the other aspects of of um the
[1:44:56] larger picture. Um and um sort of the
the easiest piece to grab and chew on
[1:45:04] first. Um so I'd like to entertain any
any thoughts, opinions, deliberations
[1:45:09] about that. Uh let's start with Darius.
Yeah, I mean, uh, you know, I have a
[1:45:16] hard time wrapping my head around how
the the road dieting would help, even
[1:45:19] though that's what, you know, everyone
says would help. So, I think I like the
[1:45:22] idea of sort of breaking it up, um, into
subcomponents there. Uh,
[1:45:27] I'm still chewing through it, so no
additional sort of questions or comments
[1:45:30] for me other than I I don't like the
idea of road diet or sort of restricting
[1:45:33] that there. Um, so I kind of park it for
that right now.
[1:45:38] Um well, [clears throat]
I'm in favor of uh keeping two lanes
[1:45:44] each way. And um I liked what uh Chair
Gooding um asked our expert there about
[1:45:52] um if we can keep the two lanes each
way, but all but enhance beayhore in
[1:45:58] other ways. So for example, with the
sidewalks and things like that. Um,
[1:46:05] yeah, that would be my only objection to
to the Beayore mobility plan is just the
[1:46:11] reduction in lanes.
[1:46:16] » Uh, well, I may be the u the
[clears throat] lone voice here. I'm
[1:46:20] actually very intrigued by the
philosophy of the complete street thing
[1:46:23] and I think the the road diet may be
sort of pjorative. I like the idea
[1:46:28] behind it. You know, I think that uh it
is a I think philosophically a different
[1:46:32] way of looking at how streets function
and enabling um more modes of
[1:46:37] transportation. In the end, you may be
able to move more people. It's not just
[1:46:41] about moving more cars. Um and I think
also part of it is looking to the future
[1:46:46] state, not so much um what it is now. So
I I think it does um the road diet and a
[1:46:55] complete streets model represents kind
of a change in the way we think about um
[1:47:02] about roads. So I'm actually maybe a
little more open to it than um uh
[1:47:09] than maybe some other members of the
commission. I think it I think it needs
[1:47:12] further study. I'm a little bit worried
about how
[1:47:16] uh for example, you put a road diet just
in a certain stretch of beayshore, it
[1:47:20] could represent kind of a a plug in a
way and maybe kind of a token,
[1:47:26] aspirational token to changing the way
you think about roads. uh that in the
[1:47:33] big picture may not make much
difference, but I think we all want,
[1:47:39] you know, we want to be able to move
around in ways that aren't completely
[1:47:42] dependent on cars. Um so I I I'm open to
opening keeping my mind open to uh to
[1:47:52] this model.
>> Great. Alex,
[1:47:55] » I
have concerns and I'd be opposed to the
[1:48:00] road diet and reduction. I'd be opposed
and concerned about reduction of lanes
[1:48:08] um with the road diet and believe
there's probably opportunities for
[1:48:12] alternative
um
[1:48:16] ways to try to manage uh traffic and
mobility um without reducing the lanes.
[1:48:24] Yeah, my my concerns for my two cents is
is as follows. Is that as I understand
[1:48:30] that the plan that the beayhore would
remain two lanes in each direction north
[1:48:36] of I just blanked on the name of the
street. The one north of Geneva
[1:48:41] um
>> no north
[1:48:46] um
the north in San Francisco. Sunnydale.
[1:48:51] Thank you.
[1:48:54] It's late. Um,
and then it siphons down to one lane all
[1:48:59] the way down to San Bruno Avenue. So,
essentially the the area that is put at
[1:49:05] um the area where the traffic is
condensed and and compressed is
[1:49:10] basically
Brisbane and the Baylands and that north
[1:49:14] and south of it sort of business as
usual. And I I not a traffic engineer,
[1:49:19] but you know, I drive that street as
much as anybody else in this room or
[1:49:24] listening on TV. Um I just don't have
the the faith that that's an answer to
[1:49:32] the problem. And I'm not even positive
what what the problem is that's being
[1:49:36] addressed other than the perception
perhaps that traffic along Beayshore
[1:49:40] tends to get fast. um
haven't seen a lot of that but even
[1:49:47] assuming that to be true I my opinion is
that there's there are ways to deal with
[1:49:52] with that there are calming methods
there's narrowing of lanes there's
[1:49:56] turning the lanes both Vaness and
Petrero are examples of where there's
[1:50:01] been lots of calming things done to make
traffic flow better and I take both of
[1:50:07] those streets a lot and it does works
anyway so my
[1:50:12] one opinion out of five is is that I'm
opposed to the the road diet concept.
[1:50:18] However, listening to folks over the
past, you know, five sessions tells at
[1:50:23] least me and I think all of us that
there's a perception of a need for
[1:50:28] improving the um the pedestrian and and
um you know multimmodal safety of people
[1:50:36] using beayshore um bicycles and
e e scooters and all that. Um, so that's
[1:50:45] why I'd asked the question of staff and
and ESA about the feasibility of of
[1:50:50] being able to continue. Um there are
things being done to Beayshore under the
[1:50:56] mobility plan where it adjoins bay lands
that make decent sense that are kind of
[1:51:02] really sensible to allow new streets
coming into it that I that I think um
[1:51:08] um the traffic folks
document they submitted for this this
[1:51:13] meeting was very helpful that we can
leave in things that directly benefit
[1:51:17] and are important for the flow and the
circulation for the bayands. um without
[1:51:22] the road diet piece. And my suggestion
would be to pass on to the to the
[1:51:29] council a recommendation that those
aspects be retained and that they um
[1:51:38] pursue or inquire further of the traffic
experts whether or not uh I think they
[1:51:43] turn a class one um area adjacent to
Beayshore, I guess it would be the west
[1:51:48] side probably, would work for this for
the entire stretch of of of Beayshore.
[1:51:54] um that is subject to the mobility plan.
Um they might be trying to eat our you
[1:51:58] know eat our cake and have it too or
whatever the saying is. Um there may or
[1:52:02] may not be right away room but I think
you know getting a hard answer to that
[1:52:06] would be really beneficial and that
would be my suggestion as to what what
[1:52:10] to pass along to the council.
And and I just want to add like other
[1:52:15] reasons why I think we should keep
beayhore two lanes each way is you know
[1:52:20] um a lot of the folks who spoke talked
about potential emergencies, the need
[1:52:24] for more lanes. Um you know coming and
going um you know and and you know and I
[1:52:31] think I think we need the additional um
lanes for for for those situations. And
[1:52:37] and we also have to keep in mind, I
mean, we have Crocker Park, we have all
[1:52:40] the trucks and semis, we have the
quarry, um whatever development that's
[1:52:45] going to go there, probably more more
trucks and semis. Um you know, and and I
[1:52:51] think if if the concern is we want to
calm Shore down, I think we could think
[1:52:57] about putting in um
speeding cameras. you know, San
[1:53:02] Francisco um is in their trial period
and um uh there was a study that said
[1:53:07] that speed cameras not only brought in
um a lot of revenues for for for the
[1:53:13] city, but it it changed behavior. It I
think it reduced beating by about 80%.
[1:53:19] So that's definitely something um I
think that we can consider rather than
[1:53:24] you know taking away extra lanes. So
>> you know along with that I mean talk of
[1:53:31] like if trying to reduce traffic speed
we installed a signal mast on what
[1:53:37] Sierra Point and Beayshore that hasn't
been activated that was placed a couple
[1:53:43] years ago. Um and certainly if a signal
light was installed there and working
[1:53:49] you know that certainly I think would
reduce
[1:53:52] ashore traffic speed. So there's I think
there's other alternatives that make
[1:53:59] that can be looked at.
[1:54:03] » So So how would you want are we voting
on each thing now or how are we going to
[1:54:09] » I think that the the a workable plan is
to the extent it's these pieces are are
[1:54:15] chunks that we can separate out is
discuss one vote on it discuss the other
[1:54:20] vote on it and on.
>> Okay. Um, there's a couple more coming
[1:54:23] up that I think we can maybe knock out
as well. And I'm I'm intentionally
[1:54:28] leaving for last the actual Bayland
specific plan because it's it's the
[1:54:32] elephant in the room. Um, and you know,
10:30 at night might not be the time to
[1:54:36] start deliberating on that. Um, but
let's do what we can as as we can. So,
[1:54:43] um, dealing with this piece, um,
one suggestion I have for for a motion,
[1:54:48] and we can tweak it if people want to,
is is as follows, is that we, um, we
[1:54:53] would recommend, remember, this this
body is recommending to the city council
[1:54:57] X, Y, and Z. We have no policym power.
Our job here is to look at it, analyze
[1:55:04] it, listen to you folks, and then come
up with our recommendations and or
[1:55:07] suggestions to the council as to how to
proceed. and they are the ultimate
[1:55:11] deciders. So Matt like my
first take and this would be to
[1:55:17] recommend adoption of the bailance
mobility plan.
[1:55:24] rewind to the being sentence is to
adopt. Um the one document I didn't
[1:55:29] print out was the track engineers report
of their suggestion as to how to handle
[1:55:33] it. And may I should probably just punt
to that. Um there is in the um document
[1:55:39] submitted with this agenda uh a document
from um help me with the name of the
[1:55:45] firm.
>> Fen Pierce.
[1:55:47] » Thank you. um that sets forth exactly
what sections of the mobility plan as it
[1:55:53] pertains to Beayshore um are feasible to
do that would benefit the circulation
[1:56:01] plan for the Bayance development that
would not entail
[1:56:05] reducing it from two lanes to one. that
my motion would be to recommend to a
[1:56:10] council adoption of th those portions of
the mobility plan um but not the
[1:56:16] portions that that provide the road
diet. Um and then furthermore that we um
[1:56:24] recommend to the council
that um
[1:56:30] they
make further inquiries with the the
[1:56:34] traffic experts as to the feasibility of
um a class one or comparable um sidewalk
[1:56:42] improvements to the remainder of
Beayshore. um that is not accomplished
[1:56:46] by the parts of the mobility plan that
are directly um benefiting the core
[1:56:54] project. It's a long motion
>> and yes I will second that motion
[1:57:01] » before
does that make enough sense for you
[1:57:05] folks to handle it?
>> Yeah. The the one clarification that we
[1:57:08] might um ask is that there is a draft
resolution in your packet um as part of
[1:57:12] attachment one. It's um draft planning
commission resolution PC126
[1:57:20] um which has the recommendation
to council to consider adoption of the
[1:57:27] mobility plan. Um if the commission
agrees, you could put your motion in the
[1:57:35] context of approving that resolution
with the changes that the chair just
[1:57:39] described.
>> Right. That's what I
[1:57:42] » I think that's what you meant. That's
what I wish I had said as well.
[1:57:46] Um, but do the do the changes that I um
read out are they clear enough that you
[1:57:54] folks can can wordsmith that into the
final process?
[1:57:58] » Yes, we can revise the resolution with
those should the
[1:58:02] » We have a second. Um, all in favor?
>> I
[1:58:06] » I Any opposed?
>> None opposed? Um, I'm just going to
[1:58:10] register a symbolic no just because I've
thought about it and I think there's
[1:58:14] value in um in thinking about it some
more.
[1:58:17] » Okay, perfectly fine. Great. The motion
passes with uh four eyes and one no.
[1:58:23] » Sorry. Through the chair, were you the
you made the original motion?
[1:58:27] » Sorry.
>> Did you make the original motion or say
[1:58:31] ducted? Okay. Thank you.
>> And the second
[1:58:36] um progress
[1:58:42] I think staff that that was looking at
this that we can turn our attention to
[1:58:47] the some of the general plan amendments
and the title 17 amendments that are
[1:58:53] probably not contingent upon
um a recommendation of the entirety of
[1:59:01] the specific plan.
[1:59:05] Well, they are intended to
uh ensure consistency between the
[1:59:10] general plan and the specific plan
>> um as proposed by staff. And
[1:59:15] » I think we've talked before too about
when the commission is ready to make a
[1:59:21] recommendation on those. There's a
certain order of operations we would
[1:59:24] look to the commission to make. um
they're outlined in the resolution
[1:59:30] the other resolution attached to the
June 25th staff report.
[1:59:33] » Sorry, I didn't get to that.
>> So, I think well well I guess what I'm
[1:59:36] trying to say is I do think that your
action on in consideration of the
[1:59:39] general plan amendments do relate to how
you ultimately um
[1:59:45] want to vote on the specific plan.
[clears throat]
[1:59:48] » Okay. Um
[1:59:55] let me let me see if I can break it up
this way. Um in your recommendation in
[2:00:00] attachment one
um
[2:00:04] you had um
recommended approval of the project
[2:00:09] entitlements which include amending the
general plan land use element in
[2:00:14] accordance with several sections to
realign the northern boundary to
[2:00:18] correspond to the boundary of the
bailand specific plan. Um and then to
[2:00:23] amend the general plan circulation
element in accordance with government
[2:00:27] code blah blah to realign Lagoon Road
extend your point
[2:00:32] » add bay lands roadways
designate the Geneva Avenue exp
[2:00:36] extension and add a new roadway type for
green local streets. Is that the same
[2:00:41] thing as green shared streets?
Just
[2:00:44] » oh could catch
>> terminology. I think it is but
[2:00:47] » yeah it is. Okay. Um,
[2:00:54] it I don't think we can discuss this,
but my take is that these amendments to
[2:01:01] the general plan are probably not real
controversial in this body other than
[2:01:07] possibility possibly the the green
shared streets issue. Um, but this is
[2:01:14] the time for other folks to chime in.
[2:01:22] I mean,
>> I'm sorry, Commissioner S. I don't think
[2:01:25] any of the things that you listed have
really been surfaced in in the public
[2:01:30] comments or have come up as a concern
even for in my evaluations,
[2:01:34] » right? I go ahead.
>> Yeah. No, I I was just concerned if
[2:01:40] staff was saying that we couldn't vote
on that yet because maybe other
[2:01:46] individual things we will be discussing
impacts that is was was that a concern?
[2:01:53] » Yeah. And and to clar at the
the staff packet included two total
[2:02:00] resolutions. One you already voted on.
So, the second resolution encompasses
[2:02:05] the recommendation to the city council
for the remaining suite of documents um
[2:02:11] recommending certification of the EIR,
adoption of the general plan and zoning
[2:02:16] modifications that Chair Gooding just
outlined and adoption of the specific
[2:02:21] plan. So, at the ultimately we'd look
for one vote from the commission on that
[2:02:29] resolution. Um, but if you want to go
through and see if there's consensus on
[2:02:36] on those individual elements before you
vote, you can keep a pin in that and
[2:02:43] then be aware at the end of your
deliberations if there's any changes you
[2:02:48] want to direct staff to make in
connection with your motion. Um, then
[2:02:52] you can make that for each of the
elements that might need to change. But
[2:02:57] we won't need a vote until you've
[snorts]
[2:03:01] » reached your deliberations on that
package.
[2:03:04] » There's no point in voting until we vote
on the whole tamalei. But we can talk
[2:03:07] about the pieces we may want to parse
out and and
[2:03:11] » exactly. So
>> with or make suggestions otherwise
[2:03:14] » if Yeah. So if if the commission had
decided that you were comfortable with
[2:03:18] the recommendations for the general plan
amendments, you could
[2:03:24] have that understanding amongst
yourselves. move on to the next topic,
[2:03:27] but you wouldn't need to vote until you
were ready to move that entire package.
[2:03:32] » That makes sense. Thank you. Um so
sticking with with the general plan um
[2:03:39] land use element
amendments for the moment. Does anybody
[2:03:44] have any issues, concerns or any
understandings of concerns out there
[2:03:48] about anything
street and circulation wise
[2:03:54] other than
what I raised about the green shared
[2:03:58] streets? Well, for example, um my
question about conservation easements,
[2:04:05] would would that not impact the vote
that you were requesting we make for
[2:04:12] voting on the other stuff? No.
Um, no. The my understanding of our
[2:04:19] conversation previously is that if the
commission were to make that
[2:04:23] recommendation, that would likely be
something discussed as part of
[2:04:27] potentially a DA
um
[2:04:33] rather than a revision to the
>> I'm not sure I understand your your
[2:04:36] question or concern about the the
conservation easements.
[2:04:41] » Okay. Okay.
>> As it pertains to the the street issues
[2:04:44] here.
>> Okay. So, I mean,
[2:04:47] I I was just concerned that that that
making that recommendation might impact
[2:04:53] all those other things that you were
listing and and and if I'm wrong and and
[2:04:57] it doesn't, so we I mean, I'm fine with
moving forward on on that then.
[2:05:02] » I wonder if also like I mean like has
been suggested, we put a pin in it.
[2:05:05] We're not committing to it. we discover
later
[2:05:14] but for now as general principle I think
I agree we can
[2:05:18] » kind of say well this is like probably
in general seems okay we might have to
[2:05:22] revisit it but we can move on to the
meaty things which might be for example
[2:05:30] uh you know things we won't have you
know whatever the e the specific plan as
[2:05:33] a whole I know we're going to talk about
many details about for each of those and
[2:05:37] in particular the specific plan. I'm
sure we have a lot of comments and uh
[2:05:41] deliberation there.
>> Okay. Um
[2:05:48] so let me try to stick to this one
bullet point that's obviously a B in my
[2:05:52] bonnet um about the green shared
streets. Does anybody else have any any
[2:05:56] opinions or or
>> what's the B? I don't I don't I I like
[2:06:00] green streets. Green shared streets. the
the the green shared streets that are in
[2:06:05] the the specific plan that are
envisioned by it are the streets that
[2:06:10] are that run east west
um between the sort of north south
[2:06:16] arterials in the residential district
that are that carry traffic
[2:06:22] um that is pedestrian traffic or bicycle
traffic or motor vehicle traffic um from
[2:06:29] the north south street you come in on
from through the residential
[2:06:34] neighborhood either into a garage or the
park whatever
[2:06:37] » or to the next arterial over that runs
north south.
[2:06:40] » Yeah.
>> I I had initially brought up my concerns
[2:06:43] regarding safety because I didn't think
cars, ebikes, scooters, pedestrians,
[2:06:51] dogs
should all be mixed together because I
[2:06:55] think that's a recipe for disaster. But,
you know, unless someone else I mean,
[2:07:00] you know, we've we've heard from staff
and some of the experts that they felt
[2:07:04] that that wouldn't be an issue, but uh
it's just I've experienced San Francisco
[2:07:09] and parts where they have that and um
didn't make me feel comfortable. So,
[2:07:15] having it here wasn't something, you
know, I thought, you know, at least I
[2:07:20] had the concern about.
>> Yeah. I I think uh for some of those I
[2:07:25] like what I did when I was looking at
the road diet thing is like well are
[2:07:28] there other examples I think Valencia in
the city is an example you think about
[2:07:32] what's the objective of a road diet well
one of it is safety so regardless of
[2:07:36] your impressions of place like Valencia
I think by that metric the road diet
[2:07:42] there has been successful and I know
we're not talking about road diet now
[2:07:46] we're talking about green shared streets
but you could do just do the same thing
[2:07:49] there look what are the what are the
stated goals of these green shared
[2:07:54] streets and have they met their those
objectives in the areas where they have
[2:07:58] been built and I haven't actually looked
at that but I suspect they probably do
[2:08:04] um you know in in neighborhoods I think
we saw a lot of them that come up in San
[2:08:07] Francisco over the last few years right
during co um
[2:08:12] just to
um and but something we clearly were
[2:08:17] need to look at a little bit more but I
actually did not appreciate,
[2:08:21] Commissioner Gooding, that it was a
concern of of yours, you know, or or of
[2:08:25] yours.
Any other takes on this one?
[2:08:34] Okay. Um
well,
[2:08:39] I'll just put a pin in that then. Um
[2:08:44] never know what happens to those pins,
but um
[2:08:49] All right. So
I'm not carrying the the commission on
[2:08:54] the shared streets thing. So I'll let
that slide. It appears to me that that
[2:08:58] without being able to
do a separate resolution just about
[2:09:04] amending the general plan that nobody
here has any significant concerns with
[2:09:07] the the pieces of the amendments that
are requing
[2:09:22] title 17 zoning of the prison municipal
code to implement the Bayand specific
[2:09:26] plan in accordance with the government
code. Um this involves changing the
[2:09:31] zoning designations of land within the
the plan area from commercial mixed use
[2:09:36] um
from Marsh Lagoon Bayront and
[2:09:40] manufacturing to Bayland specific plan
BSP designation. It involves
[2:09:46] establishing the land use regulations
and development standards set forth in
[2:09:49] the specific plan as the regulatory
authority governing it and amending the
[2:09:54] city zoning map to reflect those zoning
changes.
[2:09:58] Um,
[2:10:06] this all seems rather administrative and
ministerial. I don't think there's any
[2:10:10] particular policy things buried in this.
It's simply calling them things that are
[2:10:16] then make the implementation plan make
make sense almost grammatically. So any
[2:10:21] other takes than that and this would
suggest something like the noise
[2:10:25] ordinance or other parts from town would
already apply to this regardless of what
[2:10:28] we call it. So whether we call it BSP or
that sort of the same policy still apply
[2:10:32] to that region. It's just sort of
renaming what we call it. I I think so.
[2:10:35] And that but that's a good question to
to um one of the callers or speakers um
[2:10:41] had a question about whether um pile
driving could occur
[2:10:45] at night outside of what are generally
otherwise the noise
[2:10:51] the noise ordinances that currently in
place. Um any comment on that one?
[2:10:57] » Well, first the city's noise ordinance
applies citywide. So regardless of what
[2:11:04] designation applies, it
applies right now. It would apply if the
[2:11:09] area were reszoned BSP. just to make
that clear. Um we do have ESA team
[2:11:17] members who can probably speak in more
detail to this, but um the the EI's
[2:11:24] discussion of noise impacts um related
to pile driving is not related to to
[2:11:30] that activity occurring at night. Um
obviously the noise ordinance does limit
[2:11:35] construction activity to certain hours.
Um, the only activity that the E
[2:11:40] discusses as occurring potentially
during nighttime hours, which would need
[2:11:44] to go through a noise exception permit
process would be other activities like
[2:11:49] um pouring concrete or um non-pile
driving activity. Um, that's the only
[2:11:56] thing addressed in the ER that I could
see. I don't know if anyone on ESA's
[2:12:00] team might have a little more
information on um its analysis of noise
[2:12:05] impacts related to pile driving
specifically.
[2:12:08] » We yeah, we can also look at at
mitigation measure NOI1
[2:12:12] and pile driving is expressly limited
there between 8:00 a.m. and 400 p.m.
[2:12:18] Monday through Friday um and prohibited
on weekends and holidays. So that again
[2:12:24] st those standard um noise restrictions
from the noise ordinance and the
[2:12:29] mitigation uh program apply for for
those limitations.
[2:12:34] » Thank you. Um while we're on topic of
existing Brisbane laws applying to the
[2:12:40] bay lands um can anybody clarify the
dark sky issue? My understanding is that
[2:12:45] the project is subject to
the building project and the completed
[2:12:51] project are both subject to dark sky
laws. Um, am I correct?
[2:12:57] » You're correct. So, the dark sky
ordinance does have standards applicable
[2:13:02] to construction activity and and those
are referenced in the ER as well. Um the
[2:13:07] existing dark sky ordinance obviously
does not reference the BSP as a district
[2:13:13] because it didn't exist at the time or
still doesn't exist um when the
[2:13:17] ordinance was drafted. What it does
address though in section
[2:13:22] 1588050
which sets lighting standards by zoning
[2:13:26] district. Um the last row of of that
table with the standards says that any
[2:13:31] other zoning district or uses that
aren't explicitly named. So like future
[2:13:36] districts that might not have existed at
the time we wrote the ordinance uh would
[2:13:41] be determined at the time of the
application involved. Um so the director
[2:13:46] essentially the community development
director would make a interpretation of
[2:13:49] what's the closest applicable district.
So that's how the the noise ordinance
[2:13:52] addresses it this kind of situation.
Now, um, you know, should the commission
[2:13:57] want to make a recommendation to council
that standards be specified and that
[2:14:02] ordinance be amended, um, to
specifically call out the BSP,
[2:14:06] which obviously would have a lot of
different neighborhoods and land use
[2:14:10] types, right? You'd want to look very
carefully at that. Um, that's something
[2:14:14] you could add to your recommendation to
council.
[2:14:19] So the recommendation would sound
something like to consider amending the
[2:14:22] dark dark side ordinance to specify the
newly created districts.
[2:14:27] » Yeah. To to develop lighting uh levels
for the BSP district. Well, and it just
[2:14:33] one minor clarification on there because
at this point you that
[2:14:38] um that section of the ordinance isn't
something that has been noticed
[2:14:43] [clears throat] or is
being considered for amendment right
[2:14:48] now. Though the the specific plan um in
section 3.3 does have um lighting design
[2:14:54] standards
um that are intended to promote dark sky
[2:15:00] preservation. And then a a subdivision
of that, the performance standards does
[2:15:04] specify that all lighting um shall
comply with the city's dark sky
[2:15:08] ordinance. So um the specific plan
already kind of incorporates those um
[2:15:14] standards through reference as well.
>> Okay.
[2:15:18] And may may I chime in as well,
counselor and directors, we also have a
[2:15:23] mitigation measure in the EIR apart from
um identifying compliance with municipal
[2:15:30] code chapter 15.88, 88. It does identify
uh lumen requirements for site specific
[2:15:39] development projects within the specific
plan and it's quite detailed and I will
[2:15:44] spare you the um recitation of all the
lumens.
[2:15:49] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Yeah, it's in sorry thanks
[2:15:52] for pointing that out Terry. It's in
section S.3.1.4
[2:15:59] for
>> and also mitigation measure um AES
[2:16:03] aesthetics uh 4B sky globe prevention.
So if if so Eric if it does say that the
[2:16:11] specific plan
[2:16:14] implementation must comply with the dark
sky ordinance that seems to settle it.
[2:16:19] Yeah, I would I would agree with that.
Okay.
[2:16:22] Okay. Okay. Um
[2:16:27] where to next? Um
[2:16:32] the issue of certifying the final EIR
would appear to be
[2:16:39] separable from
recommending the specific plan itself,
[2:16:44] would it not?
[2:16:49] » Yeah.
>> A separate item to deliberate on.
[2:16:51] Correct.
>> Yeah, they're they're included in the
[2:16:53] same resolution though. And at this
point you have staff recommends but
[2:16:58] recommendation to certify recommendation
to adopt though commission's
[2:17:03] deliberations can modify the staff
recommendations. So yeah, you could
[2:17:08] in I guess more direct response to your
question, you could end up after
[2:17:11] deliberation
with a recommendation to certify the EIR
[2:17:18] but for some reason not adopt the
specific plan or adopt the specific plan
[2:17:22] with changes so that you don't have to
accept both staff recommendations on on
[2:17:30] both of those items.
>> Great.
[2:17:36] Does anybody in up here have any issue
with with the commission certifying the
[2:17:41] IR as a as a standalone issue just
before we get to the plan?
[2:17:48] » Uh I do not my understanding is that
often commissions don't don't aren't
[2:17:52] specifically asked to uh to recommend
approving the AR. It's just a it's a
[2:17:57] document. They don't I I think most of
the
[2:18:01] substantive deliberations are going to
be about the specific plan itself. So I
[2:18:06] I I think it would be a great timesaver
if we could say yeah let's certify the
[2:18:12] AR and move on to uh the plan itself.
My understanding is that this the city
[2:18:20] council must certify that the IR has
been completed in accordance with SQA as
[2:18:25] a predicate to adopting a special plan.
>> Yep. That that is correct. So before the
[2:18:29] the city council takes any final actions
um they will need to make a
[2:18:34] determination and they would if they
were going to approve anything they
[2:18:39] would need to first certify the EIR um
here for planning commission. um
[2:18:47] incumbent as part of your recommendation
would be that council certify the EIR.
[2:18:56] » Okay.
[2:19:00] » Okay. So, I'll make a motion that we
recommend that the city council
[2:19:06] certified the ER.
>> I'll second.
[2:19:10] » Well, and and just sorry to interject
one more time. It is part of the same
[2:19:14] resolution. So just just like the same
conversation you had with the general
[2:19:18] plan land use and circulation elements,
you don't need a separate vote on it. Um
[2:19:23] but if there's consensus among the
planning commission, you can move on to
[2:19:28] your deliberations on the specific plan
and just I've written down we can all
[2:19:33] remember when you're making your motion.
You don't need to change that aspect of
[2:19:37] the resolution because that's consistent
with staff's recommendation. [laughter]
[2:19:41] you know, one one general one question I
had uh some of the discussions we've had
[2:19:46] like about the dark sky ordinance. I
think that very addresses a very
[2:19:50] specific concern that was raised by the
public and I'm sure it'll be minuteed,
[2:19:55] but I think that would be that would be
helpful. I think because that was it
[2:19:59] made me worried that we were missing
something. But if the specific plan
[2:20:04] makes sure that it's at least as
restrictive as described in the existing
[2:20:08] ordinance, I think we we can all be
satisfied with that.
[2:20:13] » Yeah, I was pretty sure that I'd read
language saying that it is subject to
[2:20:17] the dark side ordinance, but I
appreciate the clarification. Um,
[2:20:24] okay.
[2:20:38] in the
in the staff uh recommendations. There's
[2:20:44] also stuff in here about
um land use designations and development
[2:20:50] standards for among other things uh a
middle school. Um,
[2:20:56] is that something that this commission
has any jurisdiction over or are we just
[2:21:00] talking about a designation without any
actual
[2:21:05] inclusion in the plan of anything about
a middle school?
[2:21:10] » That's a
>> Are are you looking at the wording of
[2:21:13] » That was a 10:15 p.m. question.
[laughter]
[2:21:16] Okay.
>> Uh are you looking at the wording of
[2:21:19] adoption of the staff recommended
specific plan which would include land
[2:21:23] use designations and standards etc.
[snorts]
[2:21:26] » Um I I mean that's again part and parcel
of what the specific plan is proposing
[2:21:32] right that's that's what is called out
for in the specific plan. So, um,
[2:21:38] to the extent that commission,
well, I'm not sure where you're going
[2:21:42] with it, so I won't try to, uh, comment
on it if you
[2:21:45] » Yeah, but we can we can try and tease it
apart.
[2:21:47] » Really nebulous question. Where I'm
going with it is it somewhere in ask
[2:21:51] papers. We were told that we did not
have any
[2:21:55] governance over the issue of a middle
school directly, but that was going to
[2:21:59] be the school districts
>> that Yeah. So, so that's so the specific
[2:22:04] plan as the director was just explaining
as before you has land that would be
[2:22:10] able to be dedicated for middle school.
Whether that is accepted and established
[2:22:17] is under the control of the school
district. So the land use decision and
[2:22:23] the designation within the plan is
within your purview. though planning for
[2:22:29] it is not the same as actually
establishing it. That's a separate
[2:22:32] decision that the school that the school
district will make.
[2:22:35] » We're just creating slots that they can
fill up with the middle school if they
[2:22:37] choose to.
>> Correct.
[2:22:38] » Okay.
[2:22:52] All right. Um,
I think we have no choice but to move on
[2:22:56] to discussing the Bayand specific plan.
Um, and maybe the best way to handle
[2:23:03] this massive issue is to go around the
table and and elicit any comments about
[2:23:11] um
things you want to change or things you
[2:23:14] want to recommend the council consider
changing or or looking into further. Um,
[2:23:20] and then seeing if we can roll those up
into a um
[2:23:25] into a an amended resolution
>> through the chair, if I may. Um, your
[2:23:30] typical adjournment time is 10:30. If
you wanted to entertain a motion to
[2:23:34] extend the meeting, this might be the
time to do it before just putting that
[2:23:39] out there before you go around to
everyone.
[2:23:43] » Thoughts?
Thoughts?
[2:23:48] How how late can we extend it to?
[2:23:53] » Um I don't think there is a limitation
in your procedures. Um I can verify
[2:23:58] that. Um
we did start 20 minutes late tonight. So
[2:24:03] I would just put that out there for you
to consider. Um yeah, we can look real
[2:24:08] quick, but I don't believe there's a
actual limit. You probably could meet as
[2:24:12] late as you wanted to, but we'll
confirm.
[2:24:16] Keep going.
>> Keep going.
[2:24:21] » Do you think that uh is your goal to
finish the deliberations tonight and
[2:24:26] vote?
>> I I have no I'm not wedded to that. I'm
[2:24:30] just
>> get as much done as the time allowed.
[2:24:34] » Um
>> I'm just wondering if if we can uh like
[2:24:38] I I've liked your approach so far of
taking discreet things and knocking them
[2:24:41] off. I wonder if we should
um do this. Is there one more thing
[2:24:46] because uh no it's not a huge can of
worms but it is it is a kind of worm you
[2:24:52] know there will be a lot of topics that
we have to go in in depth on
[2:24:56] » yeah I think that the issue about
amending title 17 to create designations
[2:25:00] and yada yada is is administrative
ministerial about creating slots and
[2:25:06] labels and terminology. So, I I think
that's
[2:25:10] going to slip in just fine once we
approve or not approve of of the plan
[2:25:16] with or without recommendations. Um, so
the short answer is I think we're we've
[2:25:22] exhausted the chunks we can bite off
without tackling the the big one.
[2:25:28] » Um,
if Yeah,
[2:25:31] » but I'm not sure.
Um,
[2:25:38] not sure we can do do justice to this
thing
[2:25:41] by this time of night.
>> I wonder if I mean one one thing we
[2:25:45] might might do is going down the line
and see what is like top of each of our
[2:25:51] minds and then you can decide if any of
those are worth
[2:25:56] » potentially knocking off tonight, you
know.
[2:25:58] » Yep. Okay.
Um, so I guess the the the broad
[2:26:03] question is commissioner one,
commissioner 2, three, four, what
[2:26:10] what issues do you have that you would
if you were the only say that you would
[2:26:14] want to change, recommend looking at,
[2:26:20] modify?
I guess for me broadly, it's sort of the
[2:26:25] long-term accountability for testing and
sort of looking at uh the remediation
[2:26:29] and cleanup efforts. So maybe some more
accountability around that based on some
[2:26:32] of today's discussions. I think that
would be top of my list.
[2:26:36] » So, and maybe we just haven't gotten to
that point yet, but what how would you
[2:26:40] formulate something to to say to the
city council about that?
[2:26:44] » Yeah, something about maybe some of the
details from some of these plans pulling
[2:26:48] into sort of the longerterm testing and
the details of who's responsible for
[2:26:50] those sort of the formation of the the
organization that would look after uh
[2:26:54] land remediation, sort of clean up
longer term. Yeah, still sort of not
[2:26:59] sure how that would come together in a
recommendation.
[2:27:02] » Okay. All right. We can we can tweak the
words later, but so about remediation
[2:27:07] and also the long-term monitoring is
>> Yeah. specifically around greenhouse
[2:27:11] gases as well. I think that comment
around sort of monitoring those over
[2:27:14] time as well. Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay.
[2:27:15] » But are those are those questions or
recommendations we are part of
[2:27:19] recommendation are those like things
about which we need more feedback
[2:27:23] because we've had a lot of feedback on
those issues. And I wonder if there's
[2:27:26] something more we need to learn.
>> Yeah. I don't know if there's any more
[2:27:30] feedback necessary. I think I'd like to
have something in there that sort of
[2:27:32] just holds accountability there longer
term. I'm not sure. Maybe I maybe I just
[2:27:35] don't have it quite right. But I feel
like there's a little bit of that. Uh
[2:27:37] it's unclear to me still.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I I understand what you're
[2:27:40] saying. I'm just trying to understand
the like some of the uh what we heard
[2:27:44] tonight about the frequency of testing,
the fact that there's going to be test
[2:27:47] at different times a year. If that's
already documented somewhere, would that
[2:27:52] satisfy
I want one thing to suggest as a vehicle
[2:28:00] for
articulating that to to the council.
[2:28:05] Excuse me. And that is that um staff had
had provided tonight a a
[2:28:10] document that was that described their
intended um recommendations to revise
[2:28:16] section 9, which is where the hazardous
stuff is. um and to add to add some
[2:28:22] language and to clarify some some um
activities and responsibilities and
[2:28:28] timelines. And perhaps we could couch
this to the council as saying that we
[2:28:35] you know we don't
object or disapprove of of section 9,
[2:28:40] but we would recommend that they focus
on whatever the staff has provided
[2:28:47] between now and the time it goes to the
council. um implementing
[2:28:51] um
their suggested um
[2:28:57] recommended revisions. Recommended
revisions. Is this making sense with
[2:29:01] your language? Thank you. Okay. Um
that's one way to do it. So anyway, so
[2:29:07] that's that's one issue we have. Got it.
Remediation monitoring. Um anything else
[2:29:11] from from you, Darius? Well, I think I
think related to that, um
[2:29:18] I think I think we should recommend
something to the city council to have
[2:29:22] some kind of like the city be a clearing
house for whatever testing that's being
[2:29:29] done, the reports that's
um you know been prepared
[2:29:35] um whatever testing that's done
quarterly, whatever that's being done
[2:29:39] annually.
have the city
[2:29:45] automatically receive all of that so
that the public can just go to one site
[2:29:50] in the city and know what's being done
and maybe at the very least because
[2:29:55] because we also heard something about
some some testing or or some review
[2:30:00] being done every five years. So I'm
confused as to that. So at the at
[2:30:04] minimum I would want
in perpetuity annual testing done of the
[2:30:12] baylands of the of the water of the
soil. I just want to make sure that
[2:30:17] place is safe forever for whoever's
living there for whoever's working there
[2:30:23] just
to be for certain at minimum once a
[2:30:28] year. So, I would recommend some kind of
language to recommend to the city
[2:30:33] council that that be done.
>> I I think and I I totally agree with
[2:30:40] with your sentiment and and your goal. I
think that's already in there, but I
[2:30:47] think staff's suggestion that they
revise the language of section 9 to to
[2:30:52] make that clearer and and and more um
you know categorically laid out would
[2:30:57] would be uh a really good thing. Um
[2:31:06] » I you know one of the uh what we heard
along the way just to be a bit of a
[2:31:11] counterpoint is that there are
um you know once something falls below a
[2:31:16] level of regulatory concern for a
certain number of years
[2:31:21] there may not be much point in testing
at the same frequency. And I just I'm
[2:31:25] kind of sympathetic to that point of
view. If it's for 10 years in a row,
[2:31:28] it's just like undetectable, then maybe
you can at least change the frequency.
[2:31:34] And I think I would rely on experts to
to some extent to advise on the
[2:31:41] frequency of testing that's actually
necessary.
[2:31:44] » What about if we had a period of rains
or earthquakes that and the ground
[2:31:50] shifts and things like that happen? I
mean, don't you want to, you know, you
[2:31:55] want regular testing to make sure that
something is happening in your
[2:31:59] environment that's impacting the safety
of the land?
[2:32:04] » Yes, I' I'd imagine that that would be
reflected in like, hey, something popped
[2:32:09] up. Now, we're committed again for
testing for 20 years. I just think the
[2:32:13] imperpetuity thing is like let's say you
go through a bunch of earthquakes and um
[2:32:17] and floods and it turns out that the cap
is completely robust through every
[2:32:22] single cataclysmic thing you've said.
Are you going to keep testing in
[2:32:25] perpetuity? I think I would tend to be
more differential to what the people who
[2:32:32] study these things recommend in
situations like that.
[2:32:35] » Okay. And and for me, I would weigh what
is the cost of the testing versus the
[2:32:42] potential harm. Even if it's the one in
1,000 chance, the harm is potentially
[2:32:48] death
or serious illness, cancer, whatnot. And
[2:32:53] what is the cost? I haven't heard a
number cited as to how much if we were
[2:32:58] to require at minimum a yearly test, how
much that would be. And given the scale
[2:33:03] of this project and the costs, I I would
think that yearly testing would be
[2:33:08] minuscule in comparison, but I don't
want to risk even one child potentially
[2:33:13] getting cancer because on the off
chance, you know, something went wrong
[2:33:17] and we didn't test every year.
[2:33:22] » I concede.
It's fine. I'm happy with that.
[2:33:27] So, [clears throat] so
I don't want to put words in in the
[2:33:32] mouths of staff, but is is it your
intent uh was it your intent about this
[2:33:38] recommendation to revise certain things
um in mostly the wording and verbiage of
[2:33:43] it to make it more clear? Does it will
it address things like what Commissioner
[2:33:47] Saison was talking about about frequency
of monitoring and testing? Yeah, that's
[2:33:51] the intent behind the clarifications is
to really clearly outline again, not
[2:33:57] change but outline what you know the
cadence of testing, inspections,
[2:34:05] etc. are as determined by the regulating
agencies.
[2:34:10] um cuz clearly I think we've learned
through these meetings that it is kind
[2:34:15] of confusing to keep track of you know
when are those 5-year um inspections for
[2:34:21] example that EK was was talking about.
So yeah that's the intent of clarifying
[2:34:25] that is to have it be presented in one
place so that it's not just disperate
[2:34:31] information but again we're not
recommending any changes to what the
[2:34:35] regulatory agencies require.
>> No just make it clear. Yeah. Um, and and
[2:34:40] and by the way, this is probably a
worthwhile point to interject that
[2:34:46] I don't think the city of Brisbane has
the legal jurisdiction to alter the
[2:34:51] testing requirements of DTSC or the
water board regarding hazardous
[2:34:55] remediation.
Um,
[2:34:58] » I don't think we have the the
jurisdiction
[2:35:01] in terms of the state agency, but
there's nothing to prevent us to from
[2:35:05] supplementing what they're doing. I
mean, is there
[2:35:13] I I will try to answer part of this.
Well, actually, no, I won't. Um, I don't
[2:35:19] know, city attorney's office, if you
want to contribute anything related to,
[2:35:23] for example, liability concerns and
financial risk and also the city's kind
[2:35:28] of police power and authority to do
certain things. Yeah, I mean that that's
[2:35:34] that's part of the
the
[2:35:38] benefit to the city and relying on these
other agencies is that that keeps the
[2:35:44] the city out of the
loop for being,
[2:35:50] you know, responsible. Um it's these the
property owners and the management
[2:35:57] agencies and the regulatory agencies
that are responsible for monitoring,
[2:36:04] detecting,
troubleshooting. We actually want to
[2:36:10] keep ourselves a little bit at at arms
length from that process. Um to defer to
[2:36:16] their expertise and their um regulatory
jurisdiction
[2:36:23] al just to um yeah to to keep the city a
little bit at at distance from that
[2:36:29] decision.
>> So Eric, can I follow up with you on on
[2:36:32] that? Um so there was discussions about
um a management association the SS EMA
[2:36:40] or an HOA
um having oversight over over the
[2:36:45] monitoring and testing. So could though
uh we recommend to the city council that
[2:36:50] they make that as a requirement that
whatever entity
[2:36:55] is going to
do that do that at least once a year
[2:37:06] » to do I'm sorry do what? to to do annual
testing of the water, of the soil, just
[2:37:12] make sure everything is safe. Just
yearly
[2:37:15] » every year.
>> I mean, I'm not sure what the actual
[2:37:20] cadence
>> Yeah. is
[2:37:21] » if if you would allow I would like to,
if possible, ask Michelle to clarify the
[2:37:26] cadence of testing
um to because again, I think we're
[2:37:31] conflating like inspections, testing.
Um,
[2:37:35] » yeah, I mean, yeah, the the the plans
lay out the monitoring that's required,
[2:37:41] but monitoring doesn't always mean
collecting samples.
[2:37:46] So, a lot of the monitoring of the cap
is making sure the cap is intact and in
[2:37:51] place. It's not like you're collecting
soil samples, just to make sure that's
[2:37:55] clear. But it is the regulator the
environmental regulatory agencies DTSC
[2:37:59] and waterboard that are approving the
frequency of these monitoring the
[2:38:04] monitoring.
So, let me ask a broader question and
[2:38:08] I'm sorry to spring this on you because
it's kind of a
[2:38:13] might be a research item, but the the
agencies DTSC and Waterboard just
[2:38:18] agencies for short, they I take it have
the statutory power to impose
[2:38:27] um monitoring, testing and reporting
requirements on developers.
[2:38:33] » Absolutely.
Does their statutory jurisdiction
[2:38:37] preempt
municipalities from imposing stricter
[2:38:42] requirements than those created by the
agencies?
[2:38:48] » I don't think there's anything that I'm
aware of. I'm not an attorney, but I'll
[2:38:53] defer to the city attorney.
>> Yeah. And and we haven't
[2:38:59] this isn't something that we've
specifically researched yet, so I I
[2:39:02] don't know. Um
[2:39:09] Okay. Um, so yeah, the the the question
of whether you are fully preempted is
[2:39:15] not one that we've
researched. Um, that hasn't been an
[2:39:20] issue that that we've looked at here.
But I guess I'd also question what
[2:39:26] um actual
basis the city has for
[2:39:33] um additional testing if all of the
established jurisdictional regulatory
[2:39:38] thresholds have already been met. Um for
examp like what what then basis is the
[2:39:45] city does the city have to impose a a
higher standard? Um, and that that
[2:39:53] doesn't that question doesn't seem like
it's been answered.
[2:39:57] » I'm not going to opine because it's not
in my pay grade. Um, but
[2:40:04] I can't help having the background that
I have and and I think the answer is I
[2:40:09] suspect the answer is we are preempted
and we're arguing about something we
[2:40:12] have no power to do anything about. But
if we're wrong, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
[2:40:18] » Through the chair, it is 10:31. Did you
want to vote to extend the meeting?
[2:40:23] And if so, to what time?
>> Yeah, I don't think we're gonna get done
[2:40:28] today, so might as well just so I I can
see defeat.
[2:40:35] » I mean, again, you do not have to stop.
You could vote to extend the meeting,
[2:40:38] but if you don't,
>> no one is leaving.
[2:40:41] [laughter]
>> I I think the reality is that each and
[2:40:45] every one of us is going to have some
issues. Obviously, toxicity is the elf
[2:40:51] in the room, but
I've got a list of about five more here
[2:40:57] that discuss at some point, and we're
not going to get to tonight. Um,
[2:41:03] six more. Um,
and we've we've established, I think,
[2:41:09] that we have no no open dates until the
date of our next scheduled hearing,
[2:41:15] correct? Or meeting? Uh we did pull the
commission to see if there were any
[2:41:20] availability prior to August 13th and
>> there was not.
[2:41:25] » I think we were all pretty interested in
in this being a vote of all five of us
[2:41:29] rather than
>> um some lower quorum or lower amount
[2:41:34] that is a quorum. Um okay. Shall we
move on move on the agenda to other
[2:41:42] items and then adjourn till the 13th?
Um, and through the chair, sorry, before
[2:41:47] you move, I could suggest, would we
want, if you're continuing to the 13th,
[2:41:51] consider a special start time, an
earlier start time just for your
[2:41:56] consideration.
>> I would be in favor of that.
[2:41:59] » Yeah, agreed. Thank you for that
suggestion. Um and and what I would also
[2:42:02] um before we move on to the rest of the
agenda, which won't take long, if I
[2:42:07] could encourage everyone to make a make
a list of, you know, focus down on
[2:42:11] whatever you whatever you if you were in
charge would change about this specific
[2:42:15] plan or recommend, excuse me, whatever
you recommend the city council consider
[2:42:19] changing. Um so we can get right down to
everybody's issues. One, two, three,
[2:42:23] four, five.
>> Make sense?
[2:42:25] » Uh yes. Can I ask one more clarifying
question? You're asking about changes
[2:42:31] that we might recommend. Are there any
like supplements that you could
[2:42:35] recommend like for example
um more detail about certain things?
[2:42:41] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> Is that is that considered a change or
[2:42:43] is that an amendment or a supplement or
something like that? You know,
[2:42:47] » anything you want.
>> Okay. All right.
[2:42:54] um through the chair if commissioners
could individually they could provide
[2:42:59] that information to staff as well.
Obviously compliance to the brand act
[2:43:03] not with your fellow commissioners but
that is something you can share
[2:43:06] individually with staff.
>> A good idea that's all shoot notes to to
[2:43:10] staff that way they're ready for
or blind side questions like I just
[2:43:16] asked. Um,
okay. Moving on the agenda, if I can
[2:43:21] find it.
[2:43:29] » We have any items initiated by staff?
>> Not this evening.
[2:43:34] » Please don't.
Any items initiated by the commission?
[2:43:38] No. In that case, we are adjourned until
our next regular meeting of
[2:43:43] » Apologies. Did you want to adjust the
time before you make your motion?
[2:43:47] » Uh, I have a motion to uh start it at
6:30 on the 13th.
[2:43:51] » I'll make a motion to start at 6:30 on
the 13th.
[2:43:54] » Second.
>> All in favor?
[2:43:56] » I.
>> All in favor?
[2:43:59] » Thank you. We are adjourned until
August the 13th at 6:30 p.m. Thank you
[2:44:07] all for your patience.
[2:44:13] All right.